Short Food Supply Chains and Small Farms—Evidence from Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The whole concept and structure of the paper are not well balanced. In the introduction the discussion of different definitions is interrupted by information on Slovakian aid for short food supply chains. There is no link between the info on changes in the number of small farms and the topic of the paper.

There is no discussion section, which is obligatory. The results are not fully discussed and there is no comparison with findings of similar studies.

The use of future tense in result section is confusing. 

The sentence "From the V4 countries we have more detailed information on the implementation of AFN from the Czech Republic" is not clear and there is only mention of two V4 countries in the further sentences.

Author Response

Dear friends,

hereby we would like to thank you very much for your comments and remarks. Please, find attached the cover letter with our response to the Review Report 1.

Thank you

Best regards

Norbert Floris

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for their choice of topic and for the work they have done. However, some changes need to be made in order to improve the scientific quality of the paper.

In my opinion, the most important problem of this article is its lack of scientific and updated academic literature. There are only a few references and only two of them are from 2016. A scientific work must be based on a relevant literature review, so authors should make an effort to expand and update this section.

In some parts, the article is repetitive. For example, the fact that the secondary data are obtained from the Register of Financial Statements of the Ministry of Finance 236 of the Slovak Republic is repeated five times.

Other parts are unnecessary, for example, all those referring to the regression model, as this method is very well known in the scientific community. For example, the explanation of the model parameters (lines 258-262 of page 5) can be deleted. The same applies to the development of the regression model. It is a sufficiently well known method and needs no explanation (lines 597-604 on pages 19 and 20). Instead, the authors should interpret the results of the model. For example, what explanation do they give for the fact of the negative coefficient of "acreage"? There is no discussion of the results, no comparison with previous similar studies.

Another problem is that authors make strong statements with very weak data and only partial trends. For example “the course of the established primary data clearly speaks in favour of companies in the SFSC” when they refer to Figure 7. It is logical that companies that don’t operate under SFSC squemes don’t see benefits in terms of better products or innovation. From my point of view, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have good quality products or that they do not innovate.

In this figure, what does the line mean?, is it a linear regression from the data? You can only see this linear upward trend in the last three years, how is it possible that you draw this trend since 2010? This leads to confusion. In Figure 7 there is not units of the vertical axis.

In conclusion, the paper provides interesting data on a relevant issue, but important changes need to be made to turn it into a scientific article. Mainly, this improvement has to do with providing more scientific literature and the nuance of the results derived from the data.

Author Response

Dear friends,

hereby we would like to thank you very much for your comments and remarks. Please, find attached the cover letter with our response to the Review Report 2.

Thank you

Best regards

Norbert Floris

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. I thought the concept of the study was to present the SFSC as a opportunity for small farm. However, I see two seprate part in the study. The description of the scale and changes in the number of small farms in Slovakia and some findings on the studied farm making use of SFSC. In my opinion the authors can get rid of the whole presentation of the small farm and only in the discussion present their thought on the relevance of SFSC in the Slovakian case.

2. What is the relevance for the paper of listing all the types of direct payments?

3. I wonder what is the relevance for non Slovakian readers of figures 4 and 5. The text states that generally both types of enterprises are strongly represented in the Nitra region.

4. In my opinion, the models are poorly described in terms of what they actually show. The statistical presentation is very detailed but the results end with no connection between the models and the studied topic of SFSC.

 

Author Response

Dear friends,

thank you very much for your feedback. Hereby, we would like to provide you our response:

1. I thought the concept of the study was to present the SFSC as a opportunity for small farm. However, I see two seprate part in the study. The description of the scale and changes in the number of small farms in Slovakia and some findings on the studied farm making use of SFSC. In my opinion the authors can get rid of the whole presentation of the small farm and only in the discussion present their thought on the relevance of SFSC in the Slovakian case.
   Our intention was to emphasize a declining number of micro and small agricultural enterprises as a disadvantage compared to those large. However, we removed the lines 329-359, figure 1 and table 1.  
2. What is the relevance for the paper of listing all the types of direct payments? This way, we tried to respond to the remark of the Reviewer 2 on the negative value of variable "acreage" (model in the line 662), where we argue that this may be caused by direct payments; to make it more clear, we decided to provide a basic overview of direct payments received by Slovak farmers. However, we removed this section (rows 265-287) and rather provide a more detailed interpretation of the mentioned model and we added an explanation on a negative acreage to the relevant regression model in section 3. Results, page 22, lines 664-678 .
   3. I wonder what is the relevance for non Slovakian readers of figures 4 and 5. The text states that generally both types of enterprises are strongly represented in the Nitra region. Our intention was to emphasize that enterprises from the entire territory of Slovakia (i.e., all 8 regions) were involved in the assessment. However, we removed both figures and the related text in lines 399-402. We replaced this text with a short description of figures 1 and 2 in lines 393-398.
   4. In my opinion, the models are poorly described in terms of what they actually show. The statistical presentation is very detailed but the results end with no connection between the models and the studied topic of SFSC. We would like to refer here to your remark No. 2 and provide an interpretation of the model in line 662. The natural logarithm of the dependent variable Y will vary in accordance with the membership or non-membership of the enterprise in the SFSC/PO, as it is indicated in the model. However, it will decrease with the increasing number of hectares (independent variable "acreage"). This result of the regression model is given by the fact that agricultural enterprises receive the direct payments, which can, however, be a distorting factor. We did not mention this initially in the manuscript, but especially smaller enterprises have to specialise their production to make the value-added products and be competitive with the larger enterprises. Although they receive mainly the coupled payments, this may not fully cover their operating expenses, which are higher with the growing number of farmed hectares, and due to their production specialisation. On the other hand, the larger enterprises focus more on the primary production and receive mainly the decoupled payments (SAPS, payment for agricultural procedures beneficial for the climate and environment, and payment for young farmers), but due to the low level of the production specialisation, they are able to cover their operating expenses even if they farm a larger acreage of the land.
   We added this explanation on a negative acreage to the relevant regression model in section 3. Results, page 22, lines 664-678.

Thank you in advance for your feedback again.

Best regards

Norbert Floris

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to improve the manuscript and for taking my suggestions into account. However, I believe the paper would benefit from some additional minor changes.

• In the new version, the authors have added the list of direct payments (lines 263-285), which is unnecessary and cumbersome and doesn’t address my previous suggestion regarding the negative coefficient of “acreage”. Instead, I believe that the explanation given by the authors in the cover letter is more illustrative.
• Figure 12 is oversized
• The format of the list of reference should be reviewed

Author Response

Dear friends, thank you very much for your feedback. Hereby, we would like to provide you our response:   In the new version, the authors have added the list of direct payments (lines 263-285), which is unnecessary and cumbersome and doesn’t address my previous suggestion regarding the negative coefficient of “acreage”. Instead, I believe that the explanation given by the authors in the cover letter is more illustrative. We have removed the overview of direct payments (lines 265-287) and we added an explanation on a negative acreage to the relevant regression model in section 3. Results, page 22, lines 664-678.   Figure 12 is oversized We adjusted the size of the figure 12 (now as a Figure 9, as on the request of the reviewer 1 we removed figures 1, 4 and 5).   The format of the list of reference should be reviewed. We adjusted and reformatted the list of reference.   Thank you in advance for your feedback again. Best regards Norbert Floris

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I can see a significant improvement in comparison with the previous version but there are still some elements that need to be improved:

1. The explanation of the results from the model (lines 574-588) is confusing and should be modified. How come small farm received mainly coupled payments while bigger decoupled? Aren't the results influenced by the structure of the farms survey? There are significant differences in the share of SFSC and non-SFSC farms for each of the types of specialization.
2. Figure 3 - the title says "number" but the figure shows percentage.
3. Discussion should be longer. The issue of type of production should be discussed - how does it influence benefits from SFSC? Does it influence these benefits?
4. The results section should end with a conclusion/summary. Now it ends up with statistical description of the model and does not relate to the topic of the article. 

Author Response

Dear friends,

thank you very much for your feedback. Hereby, we would like to provide our response:

1. The explanation of the results from the model (lines 574-588) is confusing and should be modified. How come small farm received mainly coupled payments while bigger decoupled? Aren't the results influenced by the structure of the farms survey? There are significant differences in the share of SFSC and non-SFSC farms for each of the types of specialization.

Although we think that our explanation on coupled and decoupled payments is correct, since these are directly related to the profit/loss from operations of enterprises, we admit that it might be confusing in some extent. Therefore, we would like to skip this explanation; on the other hand, we propose to focus on the production specialisation of the micro and small agricultural enterprises and modify our explanation, as provided in line 649-662.  

2. Figure 3 - the title says "number" but the figure shows percentage.

We removed “number” and used “the share” instead.

3. Discussion should be longer. The issue of type of production should be discussed - how does it influence benefits from SFSC? Does it influence these benefits?

Our intention was to assess the performance of farmers in SFSC in terms of meeting the RDP objectives and the advantages and disadvantages of performing in SFSC in terms of selected economic factors. The information on the type of production (Figure 2) and main activities of enterprises (Figure 3) was provided to get an overall picture of enterprises and their activities but was not directly an objective of the paper. However (line 775-788), we think that especially the main activities of researched enterprises play a role in their specialisation and thus affect their operating expenses. As we mention in point 1, mainly micro and small enterprises need to specialise their production and make the value-added products. Looking at the Figure 3, we found out that most of the researched enterprises focus on growing of pome fruits and stone fruits, including the cultivation of selected species of fruits with high and very high labour input. This also applies to growing of vegetables and melons, roots and tubers. This specialisation requests implementation of agricultural procedures beneficial for the climate and environment, which is requested by the national authorities, as well. These procedures include the crop diversification, preservation of permanent grasslands, terrasses, landscape elements, buffer zones, etc. Following these requirements, however, translates into increased operating expenses. Associating micro and small agricultural enterprises (often with the medium-sized enterprises) into SFSC provides them with an opportunity to compensate these expenses, using the SFSC benefits, as described in the Results section.

4. The results section should end with a conclusion/summary. Now it ends up with statistical description of the model and does not relate to the topic of the article.

We would like to propose the following summary of the Results section (line 729-752):

Based on the above-mentioned findings, we can state that associating into the SFSC is important mainly for the micro and small agricultural enterprises, even though the medium-sized enterprises can benefit from operating in the SFSC, as well. The acreage of the farmed land and the size of the enterprise play an important role in its profit /loss from operations; since agricultural enterprises larger that approx. 100 hectares of agricultural land are economically efficient, smaller enterprises need to specialise their production and make the value-added products, to be competitive towards larger enterprises. Such specialisation presupposes the implementation of agricultural procedures beneficial for the climate and environment (requested by the national authorities, as well), including the crop diversification, preservation of permanent grasslands, terrasses, landscape elements, buffer zones, etc., which translates into higher operating expenses. Associating micro and small agricultural enterprises (often with the medium-sized enterprises) into SFSC provides them with an opportunity to compensate these expenses, using the SFSC benefits, such as improved product sales, better marketing, or production of the value-added products through joint activities, such as joint marketing of products, sharing of production premises, or joint logistics and transport. Using the SFSC benefits and implementation of joint activities is then reflected in improved operating income. The Forward Stepwise Regression Analysis method confirmed a linear relation between the operating income (dependent variable) and the membership/non-membership in the SFSC (dichotomous independent variable). The developed regression model, however, pointed out the acreage to be an important factor, especially for micro and small agricultural enterprises, which need to specialise their production and this specialisation is with increasing acreage reflected in higher operating expenses.       

Thank you

Best regards

Norbert Floris

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been significantly improved.