Improving Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Small Farm Wheat Production Scenarios Using Data Envelopment Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is potentially a very useful comparison on input and output efficiencies of small farms growing wheat in Egypt. The topic is internationally relevant and the methodologies could in principle be used more widely. The work should be published but at present the account suffers from 1) not enough information on the four cases (scenarios) and the farms attributed to each one, and 2) undue and unnecessary repetition of Results in the text and tables when the reader is wanting to be informed of the main findings at each stage. Revision of the presentation is necessary.

Scenarios – it I unclear whether the analysis throughout the paper is based on averages from real farms or whether the authors created idealised scenarios which they then populated with values for each input and output. For example, the difference in operations between SI and SII lies only in whether harvest is done by machinery or by hand. It is necessary to explain fully how many of the 385 small farms fell within each scenario, to define which characteristics were most important in locating a farm within a scenario and explain how the data from farms were averaged to get Table 1, etc. This is essential.

 

Line 99: what is municipal fertiliser?

Line 101: fertilisers applied against diseases and pests? Is this correct!

Line 118: should this refer to equation 1?

Line 126: is this sentence necessary, suggest delete.

Line 133 – do you really mean cradle here?

Fig. 2: emessions or emissions?

Fig. 2 is a good summary, but the distinction between direct and indirect needs more explanation. Direct is presumably what is derived from the unit and indirect is imported, but if so, why is fuel direct?

Line 185: K g or kg.

Line 189: Charner or Charnes? Also what do CCR and BCC mean? It is necessary here to explain DEA more fully, also DMU.

Table2 uses chemical poison while Table 3 uses biocides – need to be consistent.

Table 3: biocides have high values compared to fertilisers – please reconsider and justify since some analyses find the opposite.

Line 230: check the sense ‘was less used’

Line 259: check the sense – ‘organic fertilisers using the workers’

Section 3.1: need to simplify text in all paragraphs: it would be far better if the authors summarised four or five main general findings here rather than give so much detail that is already in the Table 1. It would help the reader understand the complex results.

Section 3.2: similarly, the results in Fig 3 (which is good way of summarising the data) are reported in detail in the text – as for 3.1 it would be better to tell the reader the main findings.

Line 352: suggest delete ‘Regardless of land type’.

Line 354: why do values in the other studies differ from each other and from this in this study?

Line 384 and Table 5: (very confusing) by what criteria is S-III effective and the others not; why is scenario 4 written four times in the fifth column;  why 1, 2, 3, and IV when previously they have been ii, II,III, IV. This table is very confusing – is it necessary?

Paragraph beginning line 405 and continuing down the page: unnecessary repetition of what is already in the Table, please just state the main Results.

Line 468-9: these differences are very small – do they mean anything? Where are the post DEA figures – those quoted in the text are not found in the Table.

Line 471: check if ‘closed’ is what is meant here.

Line 476: there is no Table 8! Again – in this section, summarise the main findings rather than re-state what is in the Tables.

Conclusions repeats some of the main findings in the Results. It would be far better for the reader if the Conclusions briefly summarised the main findings (one small paragraph, including a brief restatement of what the scenarios mean) then went on to consider any problematic issues in the methodologies and in particular whether the averaging procedure across farms in each scenario (which are not presented in any detail) were appropriate.

There are quite a few errors of 'sense' but generally the English needs only a little correction.

Author Response

Firstly we want to thank you for all your comments, which improved our paper too much.

 

Point 1: The work should be published but at present the account suffers from 1) not enough information on the four cases (scenarios) and the farms attributed to each one, and 2) undue and unnecessary repetition of Results in the text and tables when the reader is wanting to be informed of the main findings at each stage. Revision of the presentation is necessary.

 

Response 1: thank you for these notices; we added more details and information about each scenario in materials and methods. Also, we tried to make the results more focused on the main findings and avoid repetition.

 

Point 2: Scenarios – it I unclear whether the analysis throughout the paper is based on averages from real farms or whether the authors created idealised scenarios which they then populated with values for each input and output. For example, the difference in operations between SI and SII lies only in whether harvest is done by machinery or by hand. It is necessary to explain fully how many of the 385 small farms fell within each scenario, to define which characteristics were most important in locating a farm within a scenario and explain how the data from farms were averaged to get Table 1, etc. This is essential.

 

Response 2: thank you for your advice, The data were collected by questionnaire from the farmers by random selection, and the classification was according to agricultural operations way (mechanization or labor). The four scenarios were the main classification for the collection of data. We added more details about classifications and average calculation in materials and methods.

 

Point 3: The methods description and results presentation must be improved.

 

Response 3: thank you, Done.

 

Point 4: Line 99: what is municipal fertiliser?

 

Response 4: It is the organic fertilizer (cattle manure). We replaced the word of municipal with organic in the materials.

 

Point 5: Line 101: fertilisers applied against diseases and pests? Is this correct!

 

Response 5: Thanks for this notice, It was corrected “Chemical control by spraying is used against diseases and pests”

 

Point 6: Line 118: should this refer to equation 1?

 

Response 6: thank you for the note; this is the equation if population size is known. We mentioned it in the text.

 

Point 7: Line 126: is this sentence necessary, suggest delete.

 

Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion; the sentence was deleted.

 

Point 8: Line 133 – do you really mean cradle here?

 

Response 7: thank you, it was changed to soil preparation.

 

Point 9: Fig. 2: emessions or emissions?

 

Response 9: thank you, Changed.

 

Point 10: Fig. 2 is a good summary, but the distinction between direct and indirect needs more explanation. Direct is presumably what is derived from the unit and indirect is imported, but if so, why is fuel direct?

 

Response 10: thank you, we added more details about the difference, but the direct energy includes the direct resource that gives direct energy like fuel and labour also many defferences include fuel in direct energy as follows:

Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Keyhani, A., Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Nonhebel, S., 2014. Energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of farming systems in north Iran. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 30, 724–733.

Mondani, F., Aleagha, S., Khoramivafa, M., & Ghobadi, R. (2017). Evaluation of greenhouse gases emission based on energy consumption in wheat Agroecosystems. Energy Reports, 3, 37-45.‏

 

Point 11: Line 185: K g or kg.

 

Response 11: Thank you, Done.

 

Point 12: Line 189: Charner or Charnes? Also what do CCR and BCC mean? It is necessary here to explain DEA more fully, also DMU.

 

Response 12: Thank you for editing; it is Charnes and the others we put more details in the materials and methods.

 

Point 13: Table2 uses chemical poison while Table 3 uses biocides – need to be consistent.

 

Response 13: Thank you, it was modified to (chemical poison) in all Tables.

 

Point 14: Table 3: biocides have high values compared to fertilisers – please reconsider and justify since some analyses find the opposite.

 

Response 14: thank you, CO₂ equivalents, according to some references as follows:

Lal, R. Carbon Emission from Farm Operations. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 981–990.

Pathak, H.; Wassmann, R. Introducing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation as a Development Objective in Rice-Based Agriculture: I. Generation of Technical Coefficients. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94, 807–825, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.015

 

Point 15: Line 230: check the sense ‘was less used’

 

Response 15: thank you, it was changed to “was the lowest”.

 

Point 16: Line 259: check the sense – ‘organic fertilisers using the workers’

 

Response 16: thank you, it was changed to “by the workers”

 

Point 17: Section 3.1: need to simplify text in all paragraphs: it would be far better if the authors summarised four or five main general findings here rather than give so much detail that is already in the Table 1. It would help the reader understand the complex results.

 

Response 17: thank you, Done.

 

Point 18: Section 3.2: similarly, the results in Fig 3 (which is good way of summarising the data) are reported in detail in the text – as for 3.1 it would be better to tell the reader the main findings.

 

Response 18: thank you, Done.

Point 19: Line 352: suggest delete ‘Regardless of land type’.

Response 19: thank you, it was deleted.

Point 20: Line 354: why do values in the other studies differ from each other and from this in this study?

Response 20: We thought it was because of the differences in the case study.

Point 21: Line 384 and Table 5: (very confusing) by what criteria is S-III effective and the others not; why is scenario 4 written four times in the fifth column;  why 1, 2, 3, and IV when previously they have been ii, II,III, IV. This table is very confusing – is it necessary?

Response 21: Thank you very much; there was an error; we checked and edited the Table.

Point 22: Paragraph beginning line 405 and continuing down the page: unnecessary repetition of what is already in the Table, please just state the main Results.

Response 22: thank you, noted and done.

Point 23: Line 468-9: these differences are very small – do they mean anything? Where are the post DEA figures – those quoted in the text are not found in the Table.

Response 23: thank you, and we want to show that it is logical because most operations (tillage, sowing, chemical fertilization, spraying, and threshing) were the same technique in the three scenarios which makes the amount of input near in values. The other notices were done.

Point 24: Line 471: check if ‘closed’ is what is meant here.

Response 24: it is replaced by “Thus, such improvements in inputs can make these scenarios more efficient and should be adopted by the farmers in the study area”

Point 25: Line 476: there is no Table 8! Again – in this section, summarise the main findings rather than re-state what is in the Tables.

Response 25: thank you, noted and done.

Point 26: Conclusions repeats some of the main findings in the Results. It would be far better for the reader if the Conclusions briefly summarised the main findings (one small paragraph, including a brief restatement of what the scenarios mean) then went on to consider any problematic issues in the methodologies and in particular whether the averaging procedure across farms in each scenario (which are not presented in any detail) were appropriate.

Response 26: thank you, noted and done.

Point 27: There are quite a few errors of 'sense' but generally the English needs only a little correction.

Response 27: thank you, the paper is revised again.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript contains interesting research results. Please complete how they can be used in production and state agricultural policy.  

Comments

Line 93, please complete the description of weather and soil conditions.

Table 2, correct phosphorus (P) fertilisers and potassium (K) fertilisers.

What is the purpose of the Unit column?

I suggest inserting an additional table in front of Table 2 with the characteristics of the wheat production technology used (cultivation practices, sowing norms, mineral fertiliser and plant protection product doses, etc.) and grain yields achieved.

Please complete the summary with an attempt to recommend further research.

References, please remove publications older than 10 years, especially from the last century.

Author Response

Firstly we want to thank you for all your comments, which improved our paper too much.

 

Point 1: The manuscript contains interesting research results. Please complete how they can be used in production and state agricultural policy.  

 

Response 1: Thank you for these notices; Done.

 

Point 2: Line 93, please complete the description of weather and soil conditions.

 

Response 2: Thank you for these notices; Done.

 

Point 3: Table 2, correct phosphorus (P) fertilisers and potassium (K) fertilisers.

 

Response 3: Thank you for these notices; Done.

 

Point 4: What is the purpose of the Unit column?

 

Response 4: This column shows the measurement unit of this item, for example, Fuel by L.

 

Point 5: I suggest inserting an additional table in front of Table 2 with the characteristics of the wheat production technology used (cultivation practices, sowing norms, mineral fertiliser and plant protection product doses, etc.) and grain yields achieved.

 

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion; we mentioned that in the text, and also, there is a table for outputs (yield and straw).

 

Point 6: Please complete the summary with an attempt to recommend further research.

 

Response 6: Thank you for these notices; Done.

 

Point 7: References, please remove publications older than 10 years, especially from the last century. 

 

Response 7: Thank you for these notices; Done as possible.