Compost as an Option for Sustainable Crop Production at Low Stocking Rates in Organic Farming
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "Compost as an option for sustainable crop production at low stocking rates in organic farming" reveals some information that may be interesting to readers in the fields of agriculture, soil, and environmental sciences. The manuscript has been written well and supported with sufficient experimental data. Please consider the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.
*An abstract should have the following in this order: Introductory/rationale statement that leads to an objective statement (should start like this "Therefore, the objective (s) was...."), then a description of the experimental design/treatments measurements and ending with the largest amount of the abstract text as results/major conclusions. The description of the experimental design/treatments measurements is Ok, but the authors need to improve the other points indicated. In the conclusion section, authors should emphasize the novelty of the research rather than summarizing findings. Please rewrite it.
* The introduction does not provide sufficient background and does not include all relevant references. It needs the addition of some recent new research progress in this field. Present a hypothesis in the introduction. Justify, how does your research contribute to the current compost research trend? Also, add some points related to the significance of organic farming.
*Line no 94; cite Table 1, instead of Table 2.
* Line no 153-155, In the materials and method section, kindly elaborate the methods properly.
* Results and discussion: Provide a better explanation for your data. Interpret and discuss the meaning of your results more deeply. Discussions need to be supported by the latest references and need to be explained in depth. The authors should highlight the reason for their result findings in the light of available literature.
* Authors are suggested to add discussion by explaining trends in the obtained results along with the possible mechanisms behind the trends.
* It is strongly recommended to add a subsection, 'practical implications of this study,' outlining the challenges in the current research, future work, and recommendations, before the conclusion.
* Conclusion: Conclusions is not just about summarizing the key results of the study, it should highlight the insights and the applicability of your findings/results for further work. Pls. conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper.
* Don’t use the notion like ‘we’ or ‘our’ etc., as these are the redundant words (not the research words) for the standard journal manuscripts. Also, check and correct grammatical and space errors throughout the article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You for Your time and the valuable comments! Please find our responses below.
As changes to the manuscript made during the revision are very substantial, we attached an MS Word version to retrace the changes.
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper entitled "Compost as an option for sustainable crop production at low stocking rates in organic farming" reveals some information that may be interesting to readers in the fields of agriculture, soil, and environmental sciences. The manuscript has been written well and supported with sufficient experimental data. Please consider the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.
*An abstract should have the following in this order: Introductory/rationale statement that leads to an objective statement (should start like this "Therefore, the objective (s) was...."), then a description of the experimental design/treatments measurements and ending with the largest amount of the abstract text as results/major conclusions. The description of the experimental design/treatments measurements is Ok, but the authors need to improve the other points indicated. In the conclusion section, authors should emphasize the novelty of the research rather than summarizing findings. Please rewrite it.
Answer: We think the abstract is already in the recommended order. However, we revised the text slightly to be more concise (see attached document).
Hope You agree!
* The introduction does not provide sufficient background and does not include all relevant references. It needs the addition of some recent new research progress in this field. Present a hypothesis in the introduction. Justify, how does your research contribute to the current compost research trend? Also, add some points related to the significance of organic farming.
Answer: Agreed – we extended the text by a new section on compost in lines 56-69, and a new section on study aims in lines 93-99 (see attached document).
*Line no 94; cite Table 1, instead of Table 2.
Spring cereals usually are oats or spring wheat. In the shown rotation it is important to notice that maize was planted instead of winter rye in 2015 and clover/grass was ploughed and reseeded in 2013, because of drought and winter damage (Table 2).
Answer:
Line 94 is line 118 now.
Table 2 is the right one, we changed the citation as followed:
Spring cereals usually are oats or spring wheat. In the shown rotation (Table 2) it is important to notice that maize was planted instead of winter rye in 2015 and clover/grass was ploughed and reseeded in 2013, because of drought and winter damage.
* Line no 153-155, In the materials and method section, kindly elaborate the methods properly.
Answer: Lines 153-155 are now 171-175.
Soil organic carbon (SOC) were analysed by combustion at 550 °C under O2 using Leco® RC612 carbon analyser, total N were measured by dry combustion method until 2012 according to DIN ISO 13878, afterwards according to DIN EN 16168.
* Results and discussion: Provide a better explanation for your data. Interpret and discuss the meaning of your results more deeply. Discussions need to be supported by the latest references and need to be explained in depth. The authors should highlight the reason for their result findings in the light of available literature.
Answer: Agreed – we thoroughly revised and extend the results and discussion chapters (see attached document).
* Authors are suggested to add discussion by explaining trends in the obtained results along with the possible mechanisms behind the trends.
Answer: Agreed – we extended the text in the discussion chapter (see attached document).
* It is strongly recommended to add a subsection, 'practical implications of this study,' outlining the challenges in the current research, future work, and recommendations, before the conclusion.
Answer: Agreed - we added a sub-chapter (4.4) to the discussion (see attached document).
* Conclusion: Conclusions is not just about summarizing the key results of the study, it should highlight the insights and the applicability of your findings/results for further work. Pls. conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper.
Answer: After intense discussion with several collegues, we would like to leave the conclusion sections as it is. To our opinion, the conclusions do not summarize the results, but provide a recommendation for soil fertility management in organic farming based on our research.
* Don’t use the notion like ‘we’ or ‘our’ etc., as these are the redundant words (not the research words) for the standard journal manuscripts. Also, check and correct grammatical and space errors throughout the article.
Answer: We kindly ask You not to discuss issues of the personal writing style here. Even in a Nature editorial it has been acknowledged that ‘Personal language builds a connection to the reader and helps, ultimately, to persuade.’ (Nature 539/2016, p. 140).
We corrected grammatical and space errors in the manuscript and hope everything is fine now.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is written in a very punctual and precise manner. The methodology was carried out in a scientifically correct way. The applied statistics are very suitable for the experimentation conducted. I am very happy to have read and revised this manuscript which investigates the possibilities and potential of compost, to facilitate its use. I am pleased that the authors accept and show the limits of the consequences, therefore remembering that the research work must always try to show the truth found in all its aspects.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You very much! We are honoured by Your appraisal.
Best Regards,
Chritopher Brock, Meike Oltmanns, Ben Schmehe.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic and problem raising of the article are exciting, as nutrient replenishment in organic farming (especially in the case of stockless farms) is a very topical issue. The set-up of the experiment and its description with the help of tables (e.g.Table 2.) are appropriate.
One question should be answered in the section of the materials and method:
To what extent did biodynamic composting affect the quality of the compost, or does it only influence the acceleration of the composting process? (The authors describe that a certain percentage of the used biodynamic compost (5-8%) and even the wetting material (whey) were also of animal origin. If the compost did not have an ingredient of animal origin, would the result of the experiment have been the same?
Question related to results section:
In connection with Figure 1 where the statistically significantly differences are also shown in the figures, that would be interesting to explain, what are the reason of having differences between the treatments (e.g. Soil TK stock) already in 2011 when the trial was set up only a year before? That question is also true for Soil TN stock where there is a significant differences between treatments in 2011.
Discussion part:
Compost application is suggested as an intermediate solution, but it would be good to know how much compost should be applied in addition to the minimum amount of manure (row 400-403) to improve the organic matter supply?
In the light of crop yield results, would the authors change the applied crop rotation?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You for Your time and the valuable comments! Please find our responses below.
Based on all received reviews we thoroughly revised the introduction, results and discussion chapters. In the attached word-document the revisions can be retraced.
Rev: The topic and problem raising of the article are exciting, as nutrient replenishment in organic farming (especially in the case of stockless farms) is a very topical issue. The set-up of the experiment and its description with the help of tables (e.g.Table 2.) are appropriate.
One question should be answered in the section of the materials and method:
To what extent did biodynamic composting affect the quality of the compost, or does it only influence the acceleration of the composting process? (The authors describe that a certain percentage of the used biodynamic compost (5-8%) and even the wetting material (whey) were also of animal origin. If the compost did not have an ingredient of animal origin, would the result of the experiment have been the same?
RESPONSE: The experiment was designed as an own on-farm experiment to support soil fertility management on a biodynamic farm. Biodynamic management therefore was a constant factor and we cannot study effects of biodynamic management. However, we added sections on compost properties and effects in the introduction and discussion chapters of the revised manuscript.
Rev: Question related to results section:
In connection with Figure 1 where the statistically significantly differences are also shown in the figures, that would be interesting to explain, what are the reason of having differences between the treatments (e.g. Soil TK stock) already in 2011 when the trial was set up only a year before? That question is also true for Soil TN stock where there is a significant differences between treatments in 2011.
RESPONSE: We revised the results chapter and hope that all needed information is provided now. The quick differentiation in TK stocks should be a fertilization effect. The apparently strong decrease of TN stocks between 2010 and 2011 should not be overrated in absolute numbers, as short-term C and N changes in soils cannot be reliably assessed based on the small sample size.
Rev: Discussion part:
Compost application is suggested as an intermediate solution, but it would be good to know how much compost should be applied in addition to the minimum amount of manure (row 400-403) to improve the organic matter supply?
In the light of crop yield results, would the authors change the applied crop rotation?
RESPONSE: We adressed these points in the revision of the discussion chapter.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments, therefore the manuscript may be accepted after Grammatical corrections.
Author Response
Thank You for Your time and the valuable comments that helped to improve the paper!
