Financial Feasibility and Competitiveness Levels of Soybean Varieties in Rice-Based Cropping System of Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
I appreciated the improvements you made to the text; now it is a little clearer and more legible. However, more in-depth English editing is still required, just as text formatting requires revision.

I have doubts about the scientific validity of the paper, since the analyzes and the results are obtained with a technical approach, albeit with a good level of detail.

I understand your limitations due to the fact that you come from a developing country, but, in my opinion, this does not justify an analytical approach that is not entirely in accordance with the scientific one.
For data analysis, for example, I suggest you consult an expert mathematician or statistician who knows how to enhance the value of the data you've collected, which are of great interest.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors conducted a straightforward economic analysis to determine the competitiveness of soybean production in two areas of Indonesia.

In this new version of the manuscript, the authors failed to incorporate (or to properly refute) suggestions made by the external review on the first version of the manuscript (see a copy of those comments below). While the authors did respond to the suggestions I made on the first version (see file: sustainability-1278949 cover letter reviewer 3.pdf), several of those comments were not addressed or incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. I suggest that the authors go back to the original editorial suggestions, to properly address some of the technical or editorial issues that remain.

Overall, adding to the comments I made for the first review, I feel that the authors need to provide more context to the study, to better understand the dynamics of soybean plantings and the reasoning for crop diversification in Indonesia. While some crops may not be as competitive as others, farmers often have a valid rationale for planting many of the crops they grow, or for the 'traditional' farming practices that they follow. For instance, there are many socioeconomic reasons that may explain why some farmers chose to, or are unable to purchase improved seed, along with the technological package (external inputs) required to grow these improved varieties.

Within this context, the authors may then explore what type of government initiatives may help to motivate farmers to increase the area of soybean production, and to adopt improved production practices. If the authors identified some salient points from their valuable study, comparing two separate geographical areas, their study may then highlight some future research needs, to better understand socioeconomic and production variables that may allow farmers to expand the production of soybean in Indonesia (Some of these analyses could be briefly included in the discussion, or as part of the conclusions, in their call for further research, or knowledge gaps identified by the current study).

Additional comments include,

I suggest to use the term ‘maize’ throughout the text, instead of using both ‘maize’ and ‘corn.’

L 11, May want to spell out the acronyms R/C and B/C, for readers that may not be familiar with these economic terms.

Line 89, The acronym ILETRI has not yet been defined in the text. Perhaps in the introduction you can briefly describe the involvement of ILETRI (spell out the title, and perhaps provide a reference/citation, on its work), in developing new crop varieties for Indonesia.

L 95, Perhaps include the location coordinates of both locations, where the study was conducted. Why were these areas selected for this study, and are they representative of soybean production in Indonesia, in general, or more representative to a sub-sector of soybean farmers (e.g. small-scale farmers)? If the latter, what percent of sobyean production in Indonesia is grown by small-scale farmers?

L 189, What does ICS-FRI stand for? This acronym has not yet been defined in the text?

L 212, Unclear, please rephrase.

L 330, The last phrase of this sentence is unclear. Either remove, or rephrase.

L 363-365, These statements are unclear, as your study showed that soybean was not competitive due to low yields and low market prices. What government policies are needed to increase the competitiveness and productivity of soybeans? Eg adoption of alternative management practices and increase the availability of improved seed?

L 365-368, Are soybean production systems in Brazil a proper or valid comparison, to the farming systems in Indonesia? Soybean farms in Brazil may consist of large-scale industrial production systems, while the farming systems in the current study seem to be by small-scale farmers. Perhaps comparison with other regions with similar socioeconomic characteristics may be preferable.

Additional editorial suggestions are included in the attached copy of the manuscript.

/////

Editorial comments and suggestions made on the first version of this manucript,

This manuscript reports on a study to determine the feasibility of expanding soybean production in Indonesia based on the diversification of rice cropping systems. The authors followed a standard survey and economic analysis methodology as part of their study.

The focus of the feasibility study seems to be the competitiveness of adopting soybean based on its market price and potential crop yields. However I feel that the authors should provide further analysis or discussion to consider whether there are other socioeconomic or agronomic variables that may also be involved in the household decision-making process.

First, it would be helpful if the authors in the Introduction could include more background information about the agricultural area where the study was conducted, including the socioeconomic conditions of the farmers. For instance:

• Are soybeans part of the staple diet for local farmers or are they considered a ‘cash’ crop, primarily for the market?
• Perhaps a brief background on local farming practices can be also be provided, to provide some context to the study, inc. production of traditional crops for self-consumption (food security/subsistence), vs. production of cash crops for market, to provide cash flow to the household.
• Also, what is the labor situation on the farms? Do some household members have off-farm employment (part-time or during a part of the year), or are all members fully employed year-round on the farm? This of course, may influence the household decision-making process in terms of what crops to grow.
• With respect to soybean production, the authors may provide some background on the availability of improved varieties from ILETRI for soybean farmers in Indonesia, and their increased productivity compared to the local non-improved varieties.
• May also indicate whether traditional farmers normally save the seed of the local non-improved (what the text refers to as ‘derivative’) varieties.

In terms of the Results and Discussion,

• Socioeconomic Considerations: Where does ‘risk’ fall into the household economic equation? That is, are some crops grown to provide income stability and thus to minimize risk, even though they are not as ‘competitive’ compared to other crops, such as corn or mung bean (Table 8)?
• Price volatility (as per Lines 350-352), is another variable that may have an impact on the household decision-making process, as to whether expand production of a particular crop-- and thus perhaps should also be included in the discussion.
• Agronomic considerations: Another variable to consider is whether the inclusion of soybean in the rotation brings about benefits to the other crops in the rotation. For example, including soybean in the rotation may help with weed or pest management, may improve soil fertility, and thus may increase the yields of the other crops (such as rice and corn) in the rotation. Thus, the inclusion of soybean in the rotation may reduce overall risk on the farm, even though it might not be as competitive, from a purely economic standpoint.
• Does the adoption of 'improved' varieties require that farmers also rely on the increased use of external inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides? If so, do farmers need to rely on formal or informal loans to purchase these external inputs when using 'improved' varieties? All of this refers to whether the adoption of 'improved' varieties may also bring about a higher risk as part of the production process.

Additional comments on the manuscript include,

L 101-111, Provide additional background on how the surveys were conducted. Were farmers only interviewed once? Who was interviewed? How were the farmers selected for participation in the study? At what time during the cropping cycle or rotation was the survey conducted?

L 126-127, What do these terms stand for, e.g. B / C ratio? Please define. Please double check that all formula variables are defined in the manuscript.

L 126, Where did the value (5) come from? It is not defined.

L 188-190. Divide into two sentences.

L 212-214, Please rephrase, need to clarify that here you are referring to farmers that have adopted the use of improved varieties.

L 308-309, Its unclear what you mean by ‘maintenance.’ Please clarify. Technical support? Infrastructure?

L 327-330, Please rephrase.

L 331-332, Please rephrase.

L 363-364, Please rephrase.

Additional editorial suggestions are included in the attached copy of the manuscript.

////

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper now appears sufficiently exhaustive in all parts, although there is still some room for improvement in the expository form and in the English editing.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We have edited the English and improved the sentences of the manuscript. I hope   it  fulfill your requirement. 

Thank you for your suggestion.

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is about the competitiveness of improved varieties of soybean in rice-based cropping system in some locations of Indonesia.

However, although this was clearly an ambitious exercise in analysing data from real production systems, it is not clear what the value of this data will be. The information was collected by interviewing the farmers using a structured questionnaire, but the text does not show how the farmers were chosen and if the experimental design is balanced in terms of representativeness of the farms. Furthermore, the average area of the cultivated lands is 0.22 ha in Mojokerto and 0.217 ha in Pasuruan, for a total of only about 22 hectares of cultivated land considering all the interviewed farmers. According to Faostat, there was 10.6 million ha cultivated with rice, and 0.6 million ha cultivated with soybean in Indonesia in 2019, so analyzing data from 22 ha gives an indication of the situation of a very, very small proportion of the regional situation.

Reliance on this data and results for further study could therefore provide a very limited understanding of the industry covered.

The analytical approach is also basic since the data were processed only with descriptive statistics.

An extensive editing of English language and style is also required.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting study with useful results. The manuscript needs improvement in several ways and cannot be recommended for publication in this journal. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript reports on a study to determine the feasibility of expanding soybean production in Indonesia based on the diversification of rice cropping systems. The authors followed a standard survey and economic analysis methodology as part of their study.

The focus of the feasibility study seems to be the competitiveness of adopting soybean based on its market price and potential crop yields. However I feel that the authors should provide further analysis or discussion to consider whether there are other socioeconomic or agronomic variables that may also be involved in the household decision-making process.

First, it would be helpful if the authors in the Introduction could include more background information about the agricultural area where the study was conducted, including the socioeconomic conditions of the farmers. For instance: 

• Are soybeans part of the staple diet for local farmers or are they considered a ‘cash’ crop, primarily for the market?
• Perhaps a brief background on local farming practices can be also be provided, to provide some context to the study, inc. production of traditional crops for self-consumption (food security/subsistence), vs. production of cash crops for market, to provide cash flow to the household.
• Also, what is the labor situation on the farms? Do some household members have off-farm employment (part-time or during a part of the year), or are all members fully employed year-round on the farm? This of course, may influence the household decision-making process in terms of what crops to grow.
• With respect to soybean production, the authors may provide some background on the availability of improved varieties from ILETRI for soybean farmers in Indonesia, and their increased productivity compared to the local non-improved varieties.
• May also indicate whether traditional farmers normally save the seed of the local non-improved (what the text refers to as ‘derivative’) varieties.

In terms of the Results and Discussion,

• Socioeconomic Considerations: Where does ‘risk’ fall into the household economic equation? That is, are some crops grown to provide income stability and thus to minimize risk, even though they are not as ‘competitive’ compared to other crops, such as corn or mung bean (Table 8)? 
• Price volatility (as per Lines 350-352), is another variable that may have an impact on the household decision-making process, as to whether expand production of a particular crop-- and thus perhaps should also be included in the discussion.
• Agronomic considerations: Another variable to consider is whether the inclusion of soybean in the rotation brings about benefits to the other crops in the rotation. For example, including soybean in the rotation may help with weed or pest management, may improve soil fertility, and thus may increase the yields of the other crops (such as rice and corn) in the rotation. Thus, the inclusion of soybean in the rotation may reduce overall risk on the farm, even though it might not be as competitive, from a purely economic standpoint.
• Does the adoption of 'improved' varieties require that farmers also rely on the increased use of external inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides? If so, do farmers need to rely on formal or informal loans to purchase these external inputs when using 'improved' varieties? All of this refers to whether the adoption of 'improved' varieties may also bring about a higher risk as part of the production process. 

Additional comments on the manuscript include,

L 101-111, Provide additional background on how the surveys were conducted. Were farmers only interviewed once? Who was interviewed? How were the farmers selected for participation in the study? At what time during the cropping cycle or rotation was the survey conducted?

L 126-127, What do these terms stand for, e.g. B / C ratio? Please define. Please double check that all formula variables are defined in the manuscript.

L 126, Where did the value (5) come from? It is not defined.

L 188-190. Divide into two sentences.

L 212-214, Please rephrase, need to clarify that here you are referring to farmers that have adopted the use of improved varieties.

L 308-309, Its unclear what you mean by ‘maintenance.’ Please clarify. Technical support? Infrastructure?

L 327-330, Please rephrase.

L 331-332, Please rephrase.

L 363-364, Please rephrase.

Additional editorial suggestions are included in the attached copy of the manuscript.

////

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf