Land Resources in Organic Agriculture: Trends and Challenges in the Twenty-First Century from Global to Croatian Contexts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is up to date, the subject is in line with European standards.

However, the abstract does not properly present any information regarding the article's purpose, or any desired results. Moreover, the final objectives and the obtained results are not mentioned.

 There is no research methodology  that should have been created by the authors. The article does not encounter a study case done by the authors to highlight the paper's title.

The conclusion includes general aspects, nothing particular that may suggest to whom the thesis is addressed, in which way and the consequences it has. No limitations of the study are mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed our revised version R1 of the Manuscript.

The manuscript of R1 version has been checked and improved according to your comments and suggestions. Our responses (red text) to the comments (black text) are presented in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1. BRIEF SUMMARY

The paper aims at reviewing the current state of affairs of organic agriculture in the European Union, with ample assessment of current production figures and policy objectives. In addition, a parallel analysis of the particular situation in Croatia is performed. The authors contrast these figures and state that policy objectives will be hardly met by 2030 and propose complementary policy measures for ensuring that objectives for organic agriculture are met and are in clear alignment with more general sustainability and climate-change goals.

 

2. GENERAL CONCEPTUAL COMMENTS

2.1. STRENGHTS, LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

The main strength of this paper is the extensive review of production data and trends for organic agriculture globally, at the EU level and in the Croatian context. This revision is completed by a comprehensive assessment of policy and incentives mechanisms, which is undoubtedly a key factor in organic agriculture.

The main limitation of the document is the inclusion of outdated references (some of them 10-20 years old). This might not be a problem in papers referring seminal works in an area of knowledge, but is a major limitation in a document reviewing and assessing the latest policy and production trends. Suggestions to mitigate this are included in the following paragraphs.

 

2.2. REFERENCES AND DATA

While some sources of figures are up to date (for example, FAOSTAT, 2023; IPCC, 2022; Ramirez-Palacio; lines 43, 49, 58-59), other figures are clearly obsolete.

Authors are encouraged to replace these references with more current ones.

For example, lines 43-45 offer data of “predominant crop production systems” that are a decade old:

The predominant agricultural crop production system globally is conventional rain-fed, which on 1.21 billion ha (78%) contributes to 60% (2.4 billion t) of global food supply (IME, 2013; Ondrasek, 2014).

The same happens for lines 64-65:

However, while conventional agriculture is the predominant global food-generating and land use system (Ondrasek et al., 2014),

While the statement might not be wrong in the current context, the reference of a 15 and a 20-year-old document is also problematic in lines 97-101. Authors are encouraged to sustain this statement with more state-of-the-art references.

… products derived from OA typically exhibit higher levels of nutrients, antioxidants, and/or vitamins (Giampieri et al., 2022), while being comparatively lower in toxic metals (Smith-Spangler et al., 2012), antibiotic resistant bacteria (Curl et al., 2003), pesticide metabolites (Lu et al., 2006) than products obtained from conventional agriculture.

References in lines 395-396 are also more than a decade old.

The same applies for references in lines 407-415.

A more relevant case is included in lines 433-435, where “recent developments” are referenced with publications that are between 10 and 15 years old:

Recent developments in plant breeding and genomics have developed some crop varieties with increased yield potential in wheat (Löschenberger et al., 2008) and vegetables (Serpolay et al., 2011), improved stress resistance (Crespo-Herrera and Ortiz, 2015), and disease tolerance (Østergård et al., 2008)

 

2.4. RESULTS

The discussion in section 5 “Challenges and perspectives for organic agriculture under climate change” (lines 390 and following) is relevant and adds to the overall discussion of the current state of affairs in OA.

In lines 114-143, the discussion of incentives mechanisms and figures is a good summary and does contribute to the general understanding of the cost-benefit analysis of OA incentives.

The discussion of global OA surface and evolution (lines 155-178) is up to date and relevant.

Lines 195-235 include a historical review of policy mechanisms in the EU. This is also discussed in other parts of the paper (for example, lines 225-226):

For instance, the Green Deal aims to reduce GHGs emission and increase C sequestration by protecting and expanding C sinks, as well as addressing emissions from conventional agricultural practices (e.g. Figure 1).

However, it is remarkable that the Organic Action Plan (COM(2021) 141 final/2) is missing from the discussion. Authors are encouraged to include the reference to this relevant policy document.

Another important topic that is discussed in the paper is the role of OA in relation to sustainability and climate change. For example, in lines 125-127, the authors mention that:

There is limited evidence that these policies contributed to the 20% reduction in GHG emissions from the agricultural sector in the EU between 1990 and 2018 (IPCC, 2022).

The positive role of OA in sustainability and, in particular, greenhouse-gas emissions is not undisputed. For further reference, I suggest to check for example:

 

Tal, A. (2018). Making conventional agriculture environmentally friendly: Moving beyond the glorification of organic agriculture and the demonization of conventional agriculture. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4) doi:10.3390/su10041078

A balanced review of these effects must also include the above mentioned reference to limitations of OA in this domain. I suggest that the authors review the above-mentioned paper (and similar ones) and at least include some of these contrasting conclusions in their paper, as it adds to the overall understanding of the subject matter.

 

 

2.5. TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1. Key principles and expected benefits of organic agriculture is already summarized in the article text and its contribution is limited. In any case, the size of the figure is excessive. I suggest eliminating the figure or reducing its size to an appropriate, reasonable size.

 

3. MINOR MODIFICATIONS FOR CLARITY

In lines 75-82 there is a reference ambiguity. “The use of these techniques” refers to conventional agriculture, while the next sentence “This method involves” refers to the opposite approach (organic agriculture), which is confusing. I suggest replacing this last sentence with “In contrast, OA involves using natural fertilizers…”

In OA the concept and consumers' perception of organic products 75 excludes the use of ionizing radiation, animal cloning, artificially induced polyploid animals, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including products produced from or by them (Figure 1). Therefore, the use of these techniques and their products is not permitted in OA (Regulation 2018/848). This method involves using of natural fertilizers (e.g. manures, composts), soil conditioners (bioash, biochar, limestone and dolomite fractions) and pesticides, crop rotation, and other techniques that promote sustainable 81 farming without relying on synthetic agrochemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, 82 insecticides, plant/animal growth regulators, antibiotics, nutrients supplements).

Lines 162-165:

Oceania holds the highest share of OA land area with 35.9 Mh (48%), followed by Europe with 17.1 Mha (23%), Latin America with 9.9 Mha (13%), Asia with 6.1 Mha (8%), N. America with 3.7 Mha (5%), and Africa with 2.2 Mha (3%) (Table 1).

I suggest adding “highest global share”, not to be confused with the national OA share in each country.

Line 345: figure number is missing:

exhibit the highest share of OA (>15,000 ha) in total agricultural land areas (Figure x b).

Line 443: second reference is missing: “(Argyropoulos et al., 2021; ).”

Line 392 “by numerous agroecologica variables” should be “agroecological”.

Sentences that are joined and full stops are missing:

Line 436: “and disease tolerance (Østergård et al., 2008) Therefore, in organic farming”

Line 445-446: “and meat (Blaće et al., 2020) Unfortunately, up to date OA”

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed our revised version R1 of the Manuscript.

The manuscript of R1 version has been checked and improved according to your comments and suggestions. Our responses (red text) to the comments (black text) are presented in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor

I reviewed the manuscript entitled “Land Resources in Organic Agriculture: Trends & Challenges in the 21st Millennium from Global to Croatian Context”. This study is of great and important topic. In my opinion, it is greatly fall within the scope of journal. It should also be mentioned that the manuscript has addressed an issue that is my favorite subject area. Reading and evaluating different parts of the paper shows that the authors have made a lot of effort to carry out this research endeavor. Their efforts have resulted in important and ground-breaking conclusions that can certainly be used by different end-users. The results and conclusions are reliable and rigor. Therefore, I recommend this paper for publication in Agronomy. However, there are some points that should be addressed by the respected authors before consideration of the manuscript for publication in Agronomy. My main comments are as follows:

1.       In the end of introduction, the main research questions (sub-objectives) should be mentioned.

2.       Please highlight the most important originalities of the research in the end introduction.

3.       I recommend the respected authors to highlight the global value of this research in the end of introduction section.

4.       Results has been written and articulated very well. There is no need for further revisions.

5.       Results section has been written and articulated very well. There is no need for further revisions.

6.       The methods completely support the results.

7.       The paper has no discussion section. In discussion section please try to put your results in an international scope and then provide the readers with some useful global level recommendations.

8.       Also, in discussion section the respected authors should try compare their results with the results of other researchers in Croatia and other parts of the world.

9.       In conclusion section, I recommend the respected authors to mention the main take-home message of the research in a short paragraph.

10.   Please try to be focused on the main limitation of your study and try to draw some future pathways for the future researchers.

11.   In conclusion section try to highlight the main contribution of your paper to the theory and practice.

In general, I believe that this manuscript can be accepted for publication in Agronomy after Major revisions.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed our revised version R1 of the Manuscript.

The manuscript of R1 version has been checked and improved according to your comments and suggestions. Our responses (red text) to the comments (black text) are presented in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for addressing my comment. 

Good luck