Farm Differentiation Strategies and Sustainable Regional Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Here it is my list of comments:

 

Row 58: "More recent developments in value-added agriculture enable farmers to practice product segregation based on quality and identity characteristics" (...) If possible, please add a reference here.

 

These three paragraphs (Raw 274):

"Smaller holdings less than or equal to 5 ha are prevalent (79,1% in Podunavlje and 68.0% in Braničevo) and they have 38.5% and 27.7% of the UAA, respectively. The greatest part of the UAA (48.4% in Braničevo and 41.1% in Podunavlje) is run by holdings ranging from 5 ha to 20 ha (29.2% of the total number of holdings in Braničevo and 19.0% in Podunavlje). Average UAA per holding accounted for 5.08 ha in Braničevo and 3,84 ha in Podunavlje.
The number of livestock units per ha of UAA in 2012 was 0.8 in Podunavlje and 0.7 in Braničevo, compared to the national level of 0.6 LSU/ha of UAA. Beekeeping is a rising activity as well as the collection of forest fruits and medicinal and aromatic herbs.
On-farm value-adding activities are poorly developed. Only 3,259 or 7.1% of holdings in the region are engaged in other gainful activities related to holding, which is significantly lower than the national average of 12.4%. About 80% of these farms deal with different types of processing of agricultural products, of which the most important is the milk processing."

Are all these information taken from 2012 Agricultural Census [Ref.61] ? It is not clear wether the reference is the same due to the fact there are new paragraphs.

 

Row 354. Maybe not all your readers are familiar with the term HACCP and an explanation would be welcome in parentheses at the first mention (Hazard analysis and critical control points). 

 

Row 565. Funding. You have an editing error in the word " Developme nt".

 

Aim: "The analysis aims to enable the selection of the most prosperous food products for regional premium product platforms." Please adress this issue in Conclusions.

 

I hope, these comments are constructive. Good luck!

 

 

Author Response

The authors are very grateful for the valuable observations and suggestions made by the reviewers.

The corrections are presented as follows:

1. a) in the file called Sustainability_article_deleted_rearranged_text_marked the parts of the original text that have been removed from the final version are marked in green, and parts of the text that are rearranged marked in gray;
2. b) in the file called Sustainability_article_consolidated_text_amendments_marked there is a consolidated text (without removed parts) of the revised version, rearranged, updated and supplemented (updates and amendments are marked in yellow),

and made in accordance with the requirements of the reviewers, in a manner explained in more detail as follows (rows refer to the consolidated, final version of the text):

Reviewer 1:

• Row 58: "More recent developments in value-added agriculture enable farmers to practice product segregation based on quality and identity characteristics" (...) If possible, please add a reference here.

This sentence, now supplemented (rows 55-58), is intended to be introductory to the text of the paragraphs that follow, with related references (rows 60-91).

• Three paragraphs (Raw 274): Are all this information taken from 2012 Agricultural Census [Ref.61]? It is not clear whether the reference is the same due to the fact there are new paragraphs.

Data related to the farm structure and resources have been updated according to the data of the Farm Structure Survey 2018 and aggregated within section 3.2.2. (rows 178-190).

• Row 354. Maybe not all your readers are familiar with the term HACCP and an explanation would be welcome in parentheses at the first mention (Hazard analysis and critical control points).

The amendment was made in the sentence mentioned above (row 286).

• Row 565. Funding. You have an editing error in the word " Developme nt".

The amendment was made in the sentence mentioned above (row 477).

• Aim: "The analysis aims to enable the selection of the most prosperous food products for regional premium product platforms." Please adress this issue in Conclusions.

During the reconsideration of this issue, the recommendation to create premium product platforms is related to the specialty dairy products (rows  402-403) and the need to include them in the basket of products of the region was emphasized in the conclusion (rows 460-463).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Article: Farm Differentiation Strategies and Sustainable Regional Development

The article deals with a topic that is well established in the literature, but needs to be improved before publication, because it has several elements of confusion.

The introduction is too extensive and deals with the literature in a generic and confusing way in an attempt to arrive at the formulation of the research question:

- the relationship between agriculture and consumption;

- agriculture and typical products;

- agriculture and food sovereignty;

- agriculture and short supply and consumption chains;

- agriculture and sustainable regional development;

- enterprise and differentiation strategy;

- etc.

So much, but without going into anything in depth.

Why not lighten the introduction and create a new paragraph with an analysis of the literature on the identification of representative supply chains in a territory and their characteristics, which is then the work done. See that in the following paragraph you say exactly what I suggest (line 190 "contains: 1) theoretical framework").

Also in the introduction there is an analysis of the territory for value-added production in lines 120 to 140, and then say that the analysis is concentrated in the area of Braničevo-Podunavlje (BP) in line 169. These two territorial references must be connected and not spaced to give a logical consequence to the reasoning.

Still in introduction, the research question arrives at line 182 but in a confused way, because it is a direct investigation based on a range of structural and performance indicators. Suffice it to say that an exploratory survey is conducted for the identification of the supply chains, through the involvement of stakeholders (in a participatory way).

Materials and methods

Specify that this is an exploratory survey (a kind of SWOT analysis), based on the use of official statistics data (not updated, at least for agriculture, 2012), supplemented by a direct sample survey.

In line 198 we talk about "geo-statistical analysis", why not build maps with all the macroeconomic data provided on the territory?

How was the sample chosen? To what extent is it representative? What is its consistency? Because it refers to producers of 67 value-added products.

Were quantitative or qualitative data obtained?

3.1. Study region Braničevo - Podunavlje

Should all this data be used to estimate a potential food demand? A potential supply of food from the territory? In short, an outline of a local food plan and, therefore, a food supply balance?

What are the characteristics of the sample of businesses surveyed?

3.2.1. Production technology, equipment, employees, inputs and sale revenues

Rigo 328 convert the values into EURO and try to explain the gap between agricultural and agro-industrial incomes

The analysis throughout Chapter 3 is poor in tables and figures. Then in tab. 1 I would not put the names of the companies (statistical anonymity), but I would try to quantify in tons or value the individual value-added products indicated.

The discussion is the swot analysis

The conclusions speak of productive clusters, and do not define future research prospects.

Author Response

The authors are very grateful for the valuable observations and suggestions made by the reviewers.

The corrections are presented as follows:

1. a) in the file called Sustainability_article_deleted_rearranged_text_marked the parts of the original text that have been removed from the final version are marked in green, and parts of the text that are rearranged marked in gray;
2. b) in the file called Sustainability_article_consolidated_text_amendments_marked there is a consolidated text (without removed parts) of the revised version, rearranged, updated and supplemented (updates and amendments are marked in yellow),

and made in accordance with the requirements of the reviewers, in a manner explained in more detail as follows (rows refer to the consolidated, final version of the text):

Reviewer 2

• The introduction is too extensive and deals with the literature in a generic and confusing way in an attempt to arrive at the formulation of the research questions...
• Why not lighten the introduction and create a new paragraph with an analysis of the literature on the identification of representative supply chains in a territory and their characteristics, which is then the work done. See that in the following paragraph you say exactly what I suggest (line 190 "contains: 1) theoretical framework").

In accordance with these instructions, section 2. Theoretical framework was formed (lines 113-139), while the rest of the text in section 1. The introduction was additionally lighten: rearranged − several paragraphs changed places to increase conciseness, part of the text have been moved to other sections (marked in gray in the original text) and some other parts removed  (marked in green in the original text). Some paragraphs have been merged and part of the text has been added (marked in yellow in consolidated version), as requested by other reviewers. Please consult both versions, as a detailed description of these changes here would be very difficult to follow.

• Also in the introduction there is an analysis of the territory for value-added production in lines 120 to 140, and then say that the analysis is concentrated in the area of Braničevo-Podunavlje (BP) in line 169. These two territorial references must be connected and not spaced to give a logical consequence to the reasoning.

After reconsideration of this issue, these parts of the text have been removed and a brief overview of the case study region is given in section 3.2. within Chapter 2. Materials and Methods (rows 156-198), as requested by a third reviewer.

• Still in introduction, the research question arrives at line 182 but in a confused way, because it is a direct investigation based on a range of structural and performance indicators. Suffice it to say that an exploratory survey is conducted for the identification of the supply chains, through the involvement of stakeholders (in a participatory way).

The research question (rows 105-108) is specified in accordance with the sample coverage, as defined in the section 3.3. Survey scope and representativeness (the focus of the survey research was precisely on the producers already engaged in the processing of value-added agricultural products, which have a greater potential for differentiation and branding (rows 205-206), with the aim to notice key success factors and barriers and generate possible solutions for business process improvement and development of the region's basket of products.

• Specify that this is an exploratory survey (a kind of SWOT analysis), based on the use of official statistics data (not updated, at least for agriculture, 2012), supplemented by a direct sample survey.
• Study region Braničevo – Podunavlje. Should all this data be used to estimate a potential food demand? A potential supply of food from the territory? In short, an outline of a local food plan and, therefore, a food supply balance?

Direct sample survey is in focus of our research and, as stated in section 3.1. Research mode and sources (149-153), now corrected (and updated for agriculture), a really brief overview (not a complete SWOT analysis of the area) on economic and social situation in the study region and nearby metropolitan consumer markets as well as on regional farm structure as a reservoir for prospective differentiated farming businesses scaling up, is given only to confirm that the study region meets a theoretical framework conclusion (rows 137-139) in terms of a favorable environment for the development of differentiated farm business strategies.

• In line 198 we talk about "geo-statistical analysis", why not build maps with all the macroeconomic data provided on the territory?

The maps were planned, but we were not able to get the promised technical support for their creation - the term was omittedly left in the text and has now been removed (row 151).

• How was the sample chosen? To what extent is it representative? What is its consistency? Because it refers to producers of 67 value-added products.
• Were quantitative or qualitative data obtained?

Please see the supplement to the text in the section  3.3. Survey scope and representativeness (rows 204-209).

• What are the characteristics of the sample of businesses surveyed?
• Raw 328 convert the values into EURO and try to explain the gap between agricultural and agro-industrial incomes
• The analysis throughout Chapter 3 is poor in tables and figures. Then in tab. 1 I would not put the names of the companies (statistical anonymity), but I would try to quantify in tons or value the individual value-added products indicated.

Analysis of data on legal status, year of establishment and product portfolio have been added to the chapter 4. Survey Results (Section 4.1. Legal Status and Product Portfolio, rows 237-243);  the average annual incomes in EUR and reasons for the income gap between farmers and processors to the section 4.2. Technology and equipment, employees, inputs and sale revenues (rows 257-262) and data on quantities produced and sales can be found in Supplemental Material: Table 2.

• The discussion is the swot analysis
• The conclusions speak of productive clusters, and do not define future research prospects.

The text of the Discussion has been revised and contains a review of other research (rows 359-369) as well as a paragraph on future research related to this topic (406-433). The Abstract, Conclusion and References are also appropriately aligned with the changes made in the main text of the paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review sustainability- 848585

The central premise of this paper is “to investigate the potentials for differentiation of agro-food production in Braničevo - Podunavlje region (Serbia). From my point of view, the subject of the study is relevant for rural development policy design. However, I think that the scientific value of the paper is low.

Specific comments:

Introduction ‒ does not provide clear insights on the problem, what is known from the literature in regard to that problem, what is not known from the literature, and then to continue with the aim and the contribution of the study (empirical, methodological, policy design).

Authors need a better structure of the paragraphs. In the current version sentences that should belong to one paragraph are presented into different rows, making the text difficult to read and follow.

Materials and methods – Authors should clearly explain the survey design, involvement of participants; explain the method, including strengths and weakness of the method.

A description of the case study region can be included in this section.

The results presentation and the discussion. Results contain too many statistical data, which are not a part of the survey. My main concern is that results are not at all discussed in regard to other studies/literature.  

Contribution of the research, and limitation of the research, as well as further research are not discussed.

Author Response

The authors are very grateful for the valuable observations and suggestions made by the reviewers.

The corrections are presented as follows:

1. a) in the file called Sustainability_article_deleted_rearranged_text_marked the parts of the original text that have been removed from the final version are marked in green, and parts of the text that are rearranged marked in gray;
2. b) in the file called Sustainability_article_consolidated_text_amendments_marked there is a consolidated text (without removed parts) of the revised version, rearranged, updated and supplemented (updates and amendments are marked in yellow),

and made in accordance with the requirements of the reviewers, in a manner explained in more detail as follows (rows refer to the consolidated, final version of the text):

Reviewer 3

• The central premise of this paper is “to investigate the potentials for differentiation of agro-food production in Braničevo - Podunavlje region (Serbia). From my point of view, the subject of the study is relevant for rural development policy design.
• Introduction ‒ does not provide clear insights on the problem, what is known from the literature in regard to that problem, what is not known from the literature, and then to continue with the aim and the contribution of the study (empirical, methodological, policy design).
• Authors need a better structure of the paragraphs. In the current version sentences that should belong to one paragraph are presented into different rows, making the text difficult to read and follow.

The central premise has been corrected (rows 14-15). For the scientific contribution of this kind of research see the added text in the Introduction, rows 94-104; and for contribution of this research, the aim and contribution of the research, rows 105-110. The introduction was rearranged − several paragraphs changed places to increase conciseness, part of the text have been moved to other sections (marked in gray in the original text) and some other parts removed  (marked in green in the original text). Some paragraphs have been merged and part of the text has been added (marked in yellow in consolidated version), as requested by reviewers. Please consult both versions, as a detailed description of these changes here would be very difficult to follow.

• Authors should clearly explain the survey design, involvement of participants; explain the method, including strengths and weakness of the method.

Please, see section 3.3. Survey scope and representativeness (rows 199-235).

• A description of the case study region can be included in this section.

The case study region description is shortened, updated, removed from the chapter 4. Survey Research Results and included in the chapter 3. Materials and Methods, according to your request (section 3.2. Study region − General overview, rows 156-198).

• The results presentation and the discussion. Results contain too many statistical data, which are not a part of the survey. My main concern is that results are not at all discussed in regard to other studies/literature.  

A comment on the results of the case studies from other sources can be found in the Discussion, rows 359-369.

• Contribution of the research, and limitation of the research, as well as further research are not discussed.

For the research contributions, please see rows 108-110 (and wider, rows 92-110 as well as rows 376-377), while the limitations are related to the sample - the need to include a wider range of stakeholders (rows 233-235) and reluctance of some respondents to provide revenue data (table 2 in supplementary material).

Paragraph on future research related to this topic is included in chapter 5. Discusion (rows 406-433).

The abstract, conclusion and literature are also appropriately aligned with the changes made in the main text of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision has served to make the paper more organic and I am very happy with the final result.

Congratulations to the Authors

Author Response

 

Please find attached a corrected version of the paperwork under the title:  “Farm Differentiation Strategies and Sustainable Regional Development”.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review 2 sustainability - 848585

Minor comments:

1. Line 28-30: Please rephrase the sentence: “Anonymous high-value crop production for the mass market without appropriate up- and down-stream management is not sufficient anymore and contested global markets increasingly demand differentiation in production and/or marketing [1].” Products for mass production are usually not “high-value products”
2. Line 30-32: Please a reference/(s): “Closer links between producers and consumers (ADD REF?), more localised food systems and bottom-up initiatives (ADD REF?) could play an essential role in encouraging healthier and more sustainable food consumption”.
3. There are studies that have investigated such questions before, and need to be cited.
4. Line 92: Please introduce the acronym “SMEs”. It appears already on line 43, “Small and medium-sized farmers and entrepreneurs, faced with shrinking”, so maybe you can consider adding the acronym there.
5. Line 105: Please introduce the full mane of the acronym: “The paper will focus on the results of research survey, conducted within BP region's ….” The full name of the region (Braničevo - Podunavlje region) appears in the abstract, but not in the introduction.
6. Line 179: You can consider deleting “absolutely” in “family farms absolutely predominate”, as you provide a statistical number about the share of family …
7. In the supplementary material:
   • Translate/ “tegle” in column 2, for “Sweet from roasted quince with walnut”.
   • make the use of decimal numbers in Table 2, consistent: (“Annual sales income in 2018”, and “Expected income from sale of agri-food products in 2019”) suggest not to be used, as the value (in EUR) is too small, and has no economic meaning.

Major comments:

1. Line 214: Please explain how did you chose the indicators “The questionnaire contains the following sets of indicators”. Examples: lit review, references of other studies that have used the indicators.
2. Line 223-224: Please explain how did you chose the indicators “The selection of the most prosperous food products to be considered as the basket of products from the BP region was made using the following indicators”. Examples: lit review, references of other studies that have used the indicators.
3. Results and discussion section are not well connected! In the results section, characteristics of indicators do not provide information for the different sectors (vegetable, beekiping, milk). Please correct me if I’m wrong!!!

For instance, can you please navigate me:

- Where in the results section the reader can find information supporting that “Vegetable and fruit processing: have good market potential and with little investment in innovation, knowledge and networking they can realize significant business improvements”.” see line 346-348.

- Where in the results section the reader can find information supporting that: “Research results indicate quality control as a major obstacle faced by small beekeepers”, see line 351-352.

- Where in the results section the reader can find information supporting that:“Milk processing, with a particular focus on cheeses made from unpasteurized milk - the topic here is on hygiene standards and GI protection” see line 355-356.

 

Author Response

The corrections are presented in the file Sustainability_article_consolidated_text_ amendments_markedR2. There is a consolidated text of the revised version 2, supplemented (amendments are marked in yellow) in accordance with the requirements of the reviewer 3, in a manner explained in more detail as follows:

Minor comments:

1. Line 28-30:Please rephrase the sentence: “Anonymous high-value crop production for the mass market without appropriate up- and down-stream management is not sufficient anymore and contested global markets increasingly demand differentiation in production and/or marketing [1].” Products for mass production are usually not “high-value products”

The above sentence is taken from the cited source:

Pölling, B.; Prados, M.J.; Torquati, B.M.; Giacchè, G.; Recasens, X.; Paffarini, C.; Alfranca, O.; Lorleberg, W. Business models in urban farming: A comparative analysis of case studies from Spain, Italy and Germany. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2017, 25 (3), 166-180, doi: 10.1515/mgr-2017-0015, p. 168, and reads as follows:

Anonymous high value crop production for the mass market without appropriate up-and down-stream management, however, is not sufficient anymore: contested global markets increasingly demand differentiation in production and/or marketing. Having in mind your remark, the sentence was shortened and moved to rows 37-38.

 

2. Line 30-32:Please a reference/(s): “Closer links between producers and consumers (ADD REF?), more localized food systems and bottom-up initiatives (ADD REF?) could play an essential role in encouraging healthier and more sustainable food consumption”. There are studies that have investigated such questions before, and need to be cited. References are added at the end of the sentence as some of the cited sources cover both groups of issues (row 37).
3. Line 92:Please introduce the acronym “SMEs”. It appears already on line 43, “Small and medium-sized farmers and entrepreneurs, faced with shrinking”, so maybe you can consider adding the acronym there. Please see row 91.

1. Line 105: Please introduce the full mane of the acronym: “The paper will focus on the results of research survey, conducted within BP region's ….” The full name of the region (Braničevo - Podunavlje region) appears in the abstract, but not in the introduction. Please see rows 105-106.

 

1. Line 179: You can consider deleting “absolutely” in “family farms absolutely predominate”, as you provide a statistical number about the share of family … Please see row 179.

 

6. In the supplementary material:
   • Translate/ “tegle” in column 2, for “Sweet from roasted quince with walnut”. The word “tegle” is replaced by the word jars.
   • make the use of decimal numbers in Table 2, consistent: (“Annual sales income in 2018”, and “Expected income from sale of agri-food products in 2019”) suggest not to be used, as the value (in EUR) is too small, and has no economic meaning.

The table in the supplementary material has been comprehensively reviewed and corrected, including improved translation of the product names and the necessary adjustments to the units of quantity and value of sales (now without decimal numbers).

 

Major comments:

1. Line 214: Please explain how did you chose the indicators “The questionnaire contains the following sets of indicators”. Examples: lit review, references of other studies that have used the indicators.

 

Please see the added text (rows 224-229).

 

1. Line 223-224: Please explain how did you chose the indicators “The selection of the most prosperous food products to be considered as the basket of products from the BP region was made using the following indicators”. Examples: lit review, references of other studies that have used the indicators.

 

Please see the added text (rows 230-232).

3. Results and discussion section are not well connected!In the results section, characteristics of indicators do not provide information for the different sectors (vegetable, beekeeping, milk). Please correct me if I’m wrong!!!

You are absolutely right. The sectoral view is omitted in presenting the results. Thank you for this valuable remark. We hope we were able to correct this omission (please see added text and charts in the Results section).

For instance, can you please navigate me:

- Where in the results section the reader can find information supporting that “Vegetable and fruit processing: have good market potential and with little investment in innovation, knowledge and networking they can realize significant business improvements”.” see line 346-348.

Please see the added text (rows 258-259; 266-268; 325-326; 334-335; and 383-387.

- Where in the results section the reader can find information supporting that: “Research results indicate quality control as a major obstacle faced by small beekeepers”, see line 351-352.

These are the results of another research related to the beekeeping sector in the BP region, but unfortunately the reference was omitted. That omission has now been corrected and the sentence formulated more adequately to avoid confusion (please see rows 417-419).

Indirectly, the problem of quality control can be seen now in the statement on the availability of HACCP certification among beekeepers (added text, rows 310-311).

- Where in the results section the reader can find information supporting that: “Milk processing, with a particular focus on cheeses made from unpasteurized milk - the topic here is on hygiene standards and GI protection” see line 355-356.

Please see the added text, rows 305-310; 316-320, and Table 1 (GI users).