Mind the Market Opportunity: Digital Energy Management Services for German Dairy Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the summary of the article, one limitation of the study is that it only surveyed a small sample of 74 German dairy farmers. While the results indicate a high level of interest in digital energy management services (DEMS), it is unclear if these findings can be generalized to the broader population of dairy farmers in Germany.

 

Additionally, the study only investigated customer preferences for seven pre-defined DEMS, and it is possible that there are other types of digital services that would be relevant to dairy farmers but were not included in the survey.

 

Finally, the article does not provide specific recommendations for FMIS providers on which DEMS to offer to German dairy farmers or how to overcome the barriers to adoption, such as the need for specialized knowledge and expertise. These details would be useful for FMIS providers looking to expand their offerings and capitalize on the market opportunity presented by DEMS.

What is missing from the article is an indication of what value is added from the use of DEMS (in a quantifiable way what the farmer will gain). The information that is provided to the farmer is the provision of statistical data from his gp farm. No measurable gains for dairy farms are shown/demonstrated. For the moment, the greatest value is the database that will be created from the energy consumption data collected on farms. The data collected on the service provider's servers will allow new services to be offered or legal conditions for the farms to be changed. 

In summary: please add a description of the tangible benefits for farmers. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comprehensive feedback on our manuscript.

Please find below a summary on how we implemented your suggestions:

 

• A description on the value-add of DEMS was added in lines 52-65.
• A description was added on why we focused on the seven selected DEMS in the context of our research (lines 83-86).
• We outlined more clearly on why only 74 responses could be leveraged for the sample analysis (lines 103-106).
• A recommendation was added on which DEMS to include in a FMIS service offering portfolio (lines 287-281).
• We added a section in the discussion, which highlights limitations of this study, describes how applicable our study results are to the German dairy farm population and, outlines implications of our study for other stakeholder groups (lines 310-329).

 

As we also received feedback from other reviewers, we conducted the following additional edits:

 

• The research gap was described more extensively in lines 67-73.
• We outlined the objectives of our study more clearly by formulating three hypotheses in lines 75-78, which were either confirmed or rejected in the course of the manuscript (lines 188-189, 214-215, 231).
• We described more extensively how responses for our survey have been collected (lines 97-100).
• An example was added on how FMIS providers can handle challenges when providing DEMS to German dairy farmers (lines 348-352).

 

We are very much looking forward to your response!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors presented a manuscript on an interesting topic. As a general thing, the article is well prepared, based on various literature reviews and own research. Nevertheless, in some respects the article could be improved:

Line 65: the questionnaire used should be attached

Lines 74-77: It is not very clear how the survey sample was chosen.

Lines 78-80: Are the farmers who responded (237) representative of the universe? This I think is the main limitation of this part of the work. There is a very large gap between the questionnaires collected (237) and those that could be used (74). The reason for this gap is explained.

 

Please highlight the limitations of the research

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comprehensive feedback on our manuscript.

Please find below a summary on how we implemented your suggestions:

 

• We described more extensively how responses for our survey have been collected (lines 97-100).
• We outlined more clearly on why only 74 responses could be leveraged for the sample analysis (lines 103-106).
• We added a section in the discussion, which highlights limitations of this study, describes how applicable our study results are to the German dairy farm population and, outlines implications of our study for other stakeholder groups (lines 310-329).
• Since the questionnaire was set-up in German, we would prefer not to attach it to the manuscript since (due to language barrier) it would be readable only by a limited audience of the MDPI Agriculture journal. All relevant results of the survey are included in the manuscript.

 

As we also received feedback from other reviewers, we conducted the following additional edits:

 

• A description on the value-add of DEMS was added in lines 52-65.
• The research gap was described more extensively in lines 67-73.
• A description was added on why we focused on the seven selected DEMS in the context of our research (lines 83-86).
• We outlined the objectives of our study more clearly by formulating three hypotheses in lines 75-78, which were either confirmed or rejected in the course of the manuscript (lines 188-189, 214-215, 231).
• A recommendation was added on which DEMS to include in a FMIS service offering portfolio (lines 287-281).
• An example was added on how FMIS providers can handle challenges when providing DEMS to German dairy farmers (lines 348-352).

 

We are very much looking forward to your response!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Under the background that increasing German dairy farms adopted the farm management information systems (FMIS), the author tried to find out if there is a hitherto undetected market opportunity for FMIS providers offering DEMS to German dairy farmers. The author investigated 74 German dairy farmers and found that such digital services was not yet adequate, and so there is a promising market opportunity to expand their offering by starting to deploy selected DEMS to German dairy farmers.

     However, I have some questions about this paper.

1. Why only consider seven DEMS？ The author is advised to explain the reason for this treatment.

2.Based on the survey data, the author gives a detailed statistical description. This paper is more of a descriptive analysis or exploratory analysis, and the corresponding conclusions may be weak.

If the authors were able to make causal identification, there might be more marginal contributions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comprehensive feedback on our manuscript.

Please find below a summary on how we implemented your suggestions:

 

• A description was added on why we focused on the seven selected DEMS in the context of our research (lines 83-86).
• We outlined the objectives of our study more clearly by formulating three hypotheses in lines 75-78, which were either confirmed or rejected in the course of the manuscript (lines 188-189, 214-215, 231).

 

As we also received feedback from other reviewers, we conducted the following additional edits:

 

• A description on the value-add of DEMS was added in lines 52-65.
• The research gap was described more extensively in lines 67-73.
• We described more extensively how responses for our survey have been collected (lines 97-100).
• We outlined more clearly on why only 74 responses could be leveraged for the sample analysis (lines 103-106).
• A recommendation was added on which DEMS to include in a FMIS service offering portfolio (lines 287-281).
• We added a section in the discussion, which highlights limitations of this study, describes how applicable our study results are to the German dairy farm population and, outlines implications of our study for other stakeholder groups (lines 310-329).
• An example was added on how FMIS providers can handle challenges when providing DEMS to German dairy farmers (lines 348-352).

 

We are very much looking forward to your response!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,'

I find the topic of the manuscript interesting. The completed research can be considered innovative and significantly contribute to recognizing the studied phenomenon. However, I have some suggestions to improve this paper.

Firstly, I think the importance and the research gap should be described more clearly in the introduction.

Secondly, the weakness of the manuscript is the lack of verified hypotheses. The objectives of the research can be better described.

Thirdly, the last section, the conclusions, needs to be completed. It is worth describing the implications of the conducted research for various stakeholder groups. I think the limitations should be better described.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comprehensive feedback on our manuscript.

Please find below a summary on how we implemented your suggestions:

 

• The research gap was described more extensively in lines 67-73.
• We outlined the objectives of our study more clearly by formulating three hypotheses in lines 75-78, which were either confirmed or rejected in the course of the manuscript (lines 188-189, 214-215, 231).
• We added a section in the discussion, which highlights limitations of this study, describes how applicable our study results are to the German dairy farm population and, outlines implications of our study for other stakeholder groups (lines 310-329).

 

As we also received feedback from other reviewers, we conducted the following additional edits:

 

• A description on the value-add of DEMS was added in lines 52-65.
• A description was added on why we focused on the seven selected DEMS in the context of our research (lines 83-86).
• We described more extensively how responses for our survey have been collected (lines 97-100).
• We outlined more clearly on why only 74 responses could be leveraged for the sample analysis (lines 103-106).
• A recommendation was added on which DEMS to include in a FMIS service offering portfolio (lines 287-281).
• An example was added on how FMIS providers can handle challenges when providing DEMS to German dairy farmers (lines 348-352).

 

We are very much looking forward to your response!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has made a good modification according to the modification suggestions, which makes the paper relatively perfect. 

• I have no further questions.