Is More Organic Farming a Responsible Strategy? An Appeal for Responsible (Sustainably Intensive) Agriculture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
When I received the invitation to review this manuscript, I was looking forward to reading a contribution dealing with an important and interesting topic – the sustainability of agriculture and the role of organic farming in this regard. The submitted manuscript offers a comprehensive view into this theme on more than 30 pages illustrated with 13 figures and 8 tables, which have partly the character of figures. The article is declared as “review” and it contains a list of references with in total 28 papers, mainly cited in tables and figures. However, after reading the manuscript, I felt disappointed. The paper has only apparently the character of a scientific article, but rather that of a newspaper contribution, reflecting the personal view of an individual on a highly political topic. Unfortunately, the author failed to provide arguments based on a broad basis of scientific papers and a careful and properly described derivation of new insights.
Thus, it must be stated that the manuscript does not have the character of a review article at all. The journal itself clearly defines reviews as “a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems” which has to be critical and constructive. The paper, however, mainly reflects the personal opinion of the author on this topic and it is obviously part of an ongoing debate between him and the author of a study published in 2023, which indicates clear environmental advantages of organic farming compared to conventional land use systems (Hülsbergen et al., 2023). The author of the manuscript to be reviewed here tries to underpin his pre-determined opinion and the refusal of this cited study with many selected publications mainly written by German agricultural associations and their publishing bodies, which can be seen in many cases as major representatives of the interests of conventional farming. Farming associations connected to organic farming might provide other input and where widely excluded here. In a scientific paper, different arguments have to be considered and conclusions need to based on the outcomes of the study and must not be pre-determined by personal opinions. Hypotheses need to be formulated and have to be able to be disproved.
Scientific publications are the minority in the reference list and seem to be selected mainly to support the theses of the author. A simple search in the Web of Science on “organic farming yield” revealed more than 8,000 articles and after refining the results to only European countries more than 3,000 papers remained in the list of results. Papers from this list might of crucial importance for the central assumption of the manuscript – the low yield level of organic compared with conventional farming. Directly in the beginning the author concludes that the yield level of organic farming is 50 % lower and all following calculations and suggestions are based on this central assumption. However, when looking into the literature, the picture is not that clear. Also, the criticized study by Hülsbergen acknowledges the fact that organic farming has a lower yield level, but the extent of the difference needs to be carefully considered for different sites, soils, regions and types of land use. This is also contributed by other publications on this topic and largely ignored by the author. The differences between organic and conventional farming clearly differ and cannot be simplified as made by the author in his manuscript. Generally, the absence of references in most parts of the text can be seen as a major and fatal shortcoming of this paper.
Formally, the manuscript does not fulfill the requirements of a scientific paper and also the guidelines of the journal for preparing the manuscript have been widely ignored. The citation style does not match the rules provided in the instructions for authors. This is true for both the citations in the text (which is completely missing in large parts of the manuscript) as well as the style of the list of references. Furthermore, the graphs and tables are very heterogenous and would need some efforts to be brought into a consistent and homogenous appearance. I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer 1: Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture
Reviewer: Thus, it must be stated that the manuscript does not have the character of a review article at all. The journal itself clearly defines reviews as “a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems” which has to be critical and constructive.
Answer: The paper provides the analysis of a selection of existing literature, identifies and criticizes the common omitting of opportunity costs regarding GHG emissions and biodiversity in the evaluation of conventional and organic farming. In addition, the paper is constructive as it shows ways how these opportunity costs should be considered when comparing organic and conventional agriculture.
Reviewer: The paper, however, mainly reflects the personal opinion of the author on this topic and it is obviously part of an ongoing debate between him and the author of a study published in 2023, which indicates clear environmental advantages of organic farming compared to conventional land use systems (Hülsbergen et al., 2023).
Answer: The criticism of organic farming is clearly derived from hard facts; it is the result of research and not due to a prejudging personal opinion. The wording of this review gives rather the impression that the reviewer has a problem of accepting criticism of organic farming.
I think it is also the task of a scientific review to criticize with facts authors such as “Hülsbergen et al, 2023, who state “a cost saving of about 800 € per hectare” of organic compared to conventional farming without considering in the calculation crucial aspects such as the yield differences (identified by themselves), the much higher production costs and the opportunity costs caused by the additional land use required by organic farming. The calculations shown in chapter 5.1 and Table 5 of the paper provide a clear picture of the big dimension of error caused by these omissions and proof that organic farming in an average German scenario does not save huge amounts of costs as stated by Hülsbergen et al. but indeed increases the costs of production and environmental costs considerably.
The reviewer rejects the criticism of the Hülsbergen et al. study only in general terms and fails to bring forward concrete arguments against the findings and criticism in the paper.
Reviewer: The author of the manuscript to be reviewed here tries to underpin his pre-determined opinion and the refusal of this cited study with many selected publications mainly written by German agricultural associations and their publishing bodies, which can be seen in many cases as major representatives of the interests of conventional farming. Farming associations connected to organic farming might provide other input and where widely excluded here.
Answer: I cannot agree that any of the studies cited come from a German agricultural association with interests in promoting conventional farming. The important figures on yield differences between organic and conventional are based on:
- Data of the organic farming association published by AMI (Table 1)
- Bavarian Agriculture Research Centre (stating comparatively high yields for organic farming)
- Janinhoff, Alfons: Analysis of book keeping data in Northrhine-Westfalia
- Hülsbergen et al. based on a long-term analysis of 33 conventional und 32 organic pilot farms situated in different agroecological zones of Germany
None of these sources have any interest in favouring conventional farming. on the contrary, the sources a) b) and d) are more inclined to organic then conventional farming. Therefore, the accusation of using in the paper information biased in favour of conventional farming is completely baseless.
There is only one study cited which has been sponsored by the agrarian industry (Industrieverband Agrar (IVA)). It is the study of Noleppa, S. (2017). The connection to industry is clearly indicated in the list of publications. Since Mr. Noleppa is a renowned scientist whose findings are always strongly scientific, there is no reason to question his findings.
Reviewer: In a scientific paper, different arguments have to be considered and conclusions need to based on the outcomes of the study and must not be pre-determined by personal opinions. Hypotheses need to be formulated and have to be able to be disproved.
Answer:
It is true that the hypothesis is not explicitly displayed in the study. However, the first two paragraphs of the first chapter state clearly the problem to be dealt with by the paper. This should be sufficient for a review.
The results of the study for instance in chapter 15 and the conclusions are clearly derived from the discussions of the various topics in the study. The insinuation of a predetermination by personal opinion seems to be an attempt to question the outcome of the study which is not in line with the personal opinion of the reviewer.
Reviewer: Scientific publications are the minority in the reference list and seem to be selected mainly to support the theses of the author. A simple search in the Web of Science on “organic farming yield” revealed more than 8,000 articles and after refining the results to only European countries more than 3,000 papers remained in the list of results. Papers from this list might of crucial importance for the central assumption of the manuscript – the low yield level of organic compared with conventional farming. Directly in the beginning the author concludes that the yield level of organic farming is 50 % lower and all following calculations and suggestions are based on this central assumption. However, when looking into the literature, the picture is not that clear. Also, the criticized study by Hülsbergen acknowledges the fact that organic farming has a lower yield level, but the extent of the difference needs to be carefully considered for different sites, soils, regions and types of land use. This is also contributed by other publications on this topic and largely ignored by the author. The differences between organic and conventional farming clearly differ and cannot be simplified as made by the author in his manuscript.
Answer: The central assumption of the study is based on figures of transparent origin with low bias and reflect the average situation in Germany. This data base was considered as sufficient to analyse the impact of organic farming in an average German situation by applying a methodology not commonly applied which also considers the different yield levels of the farming systems and the opportunity costs resulting from the higher demand on land of organic farming. As mentioned in the paper several times, this methodology is open to be applied for different situations or assumptions, i.e. also for different yields and opportunity costs. It should however be mentioned that several data sources had to be excluded, since the data on yield levels were distorted in favour of organic farming, for instance for following reasons:
a) near optimal crop husbandry levels in organic (test-) farms are compared with the average conventional farmer who applies much lower management levels of crop management,
b) organic farms increase their yields by importing organic fertilizers from conventional farms beyond the accepted levels,
c) yields in organic farms were measured only a few years after the switch-over to organic farming (yields usually decline according to the length of the period after the switch over to organic farming) or
d) yield data on organic farming did not take into account the land required for green manuring.
It would have been helpful if the reviewer had indicated some reliable sources of yield data of his choice for comparisons with the data bases used.
Reviewer: Formally, the manuscript does not fulfill the requirements of a scientific paper and also the guidelines of the journal for preparing the manuscript have been widely ignored. The citation style does not match the rules provided in the instructions for authors. This is true for both the citations in the text (which is completely missing in large parts of the manuscript) as well as the style of the list of references.
Answer: It is agreed that the paper does not completely meet the requirements of scientific papers as specified by MDPI. This is mainly due to the fact that the decision to hand in the paper to MDPI was only made after the paper had been written and was initiated by the recommendation of various colleague scientists. Nevertheless, the citation system applied shows clearly the sources of data and information, and the list of references enables the reader to follow-up the publications easily. More specific information on allegedly wrong or missing citations would have helped to understand better where the reviewer sees omissions or errors. I should also be mentioned, that the formatting of the text presented to the reviewer was not always as clear as in the original.
Reviewer: Furthermore, the graphs and tables are very heterogenous and would need some efforts to be brought into a consistent and homogenous appearance.
I think the important criterion for graphs and tables are that the headings and contents are correct and can be easily understood by the reader. Should there be a deficiency of this kind I would gladly make corrections. A consistent and homogenous appearance may be desirable but is not a necessity of high priority.
Reviewer: I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication
Answer: Since several critical comments made by the reviewer prove to be either invalid or unspecific, the basis for this conclusion is considerably diluted. This gives room for the impression that the review is also used to prevent the publication of the paper because he or she dislikes the content.
In addition, the comments made by the reviewer are rather general and make it difficult to identify concrete proposals for the improvement of the study. Therefore, no corrections were made on the basis of this review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTHE MANUSCRIPT ENTITLED Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture REVIEws the benefits of organic vs. conventional farming in Germany, it is well presented and analyzed. However, some details can be better explained, such as GU, dt, in legends, opportunity losses...
please, check fig.11legend (repeated words).
Some references (lines 475,476,477,or 479, could be required to constate these affirmations.
Moreover, the review is very important, but may be a little hard to understand. Thus, it can be better explained for a general audience. May be using synonyms, and explaining with simple sentences in parentheses.
Author Response
Reviewer No 2 Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture Formularbeginn
Reviewer: THE MANUSCRIPT ENTITLED Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture REVIEws the benefits of organic vs. conventional farming in Germany, it is well presented and analyzed. However, some details can be better explained, such as GU, dt, in legends, opportunity losses...
Answer: I think GU is sufficiently defined in lines 144 to 151; dt is now explained in the title of the Figure 1 – I was not aware that in some English-speaking countries this abbreviation is not a common abbreviation which does not need to be explained such as kg; opportunity losses and opportunity costs are extensively explained in chapter 3
Reviewer: please, check fig.11 legend (repeated words).
errors have been corrected
Reviewer: Some references (lines 475,476,477,or 479, could be required to constate these affirmations.
Answer: I am of the opinion that these facts are generally agreed common knowledge, but I realize, that some references and facts would have strengthened the arguments. I have added one reference.
Reviewer: Moreover, the review is very important, but may be a little hard to understand. Thus, it can be better explained for a general audience. May be using synonyms, and explaining with simple sentences in parentheses.
Answer: I do not see major deficits in the understandability of the text. Therefore, some concrete hints where such shortcomings can be found would have been helpful.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the thorough reading!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is entitled ”Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture”. I appreciate this opportunity to review this paper.
The quality of research - in terms of methodological rigor, analytical skills and relevance it is medium.
In my opinion, the abstract section needed to include more information about the results and conclusion.
Review of the literature. The literature review is not exhaustive. In generally, the absence of references in this part can be seen as a major shortcoming of this paper.
Please check fig. 11 legend
The results. The authors do not discuss possible limitations of their study or the insights for future direction of research.
It is suggested to explain and conclude more significant indicators on the basis of figure 11.
Best regards.
Author Response
Reviewer No 3 Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture
Reviewer 3: The quality of research - in terms of methodological rigor, analytical skills and relevance it is medium
Answer: I regret that the reviewer obviously does not appreciate the application of an uncommon methodology. The consideration of differences in yields, production costs, effects on biodiversity and GHG emissions as well as the amount subsidies in a simple table (Tables 5,6 and Figure 4) has rarely been applied but shows a new, simple and transparent way of comparing both production systems.
Reviewer: In my opinion, the abstract section needed to include more information about the results and conclusion.
Answer: To keep the abstract short required the concentration of information. Despite the shortness I think that the abstract fulfils its task to make the reader curious to read more.
Reviewer: Review of the literature. The literature review is not exhaustive. In generally, the absence of references in this part can be seen as a major shortcoming of this paper.
Answer: I think, that a lengthy review of the immense literature on organic farming would have taken away from the score massage of the paper without improving the value of information provided by the paper.
Reviewer: Please check fig. 11 legend
Answer: Errors are accepted and have been corrected
Reviewer: The results. The authors do not discuss possible limitations of their study or the insights for future direction of research.
Answer: The paper concentrated on the consequences of the results on aspects of future agricultural policies and agricultural administration. In addition, the paper proposes a return to an open and fair discussion of its findings.
Reviewer: It is suggested to explain and conclude more significant indicators on the basis of figure 11.
Answer: Figure 11 shows the results of an interesting study for England and Wales as a confirmation of the findings in the paper. The influencing factors leading to these results are discussed by the authors in the study.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPrecision agriculture has been in the scope of international scientific community over the latest decades due to the deterioration of the environment and cultivated land worldwide. The review presents an academic interest in the context of climate change and greenhouse gas emission.
The author has thoroughly analysed the practicability of organic agriculture for the evaluation of various factors and development of managerial decisions on food security considering the ecological, social, and economic benefits with the example of Germany.
The presented review is relevant for the research field.
The review is a complete research, theme of the review is relevant to the Journal research line. Literature review complies with the research.
Tables and figures are substantiated and comply with the research area.
The review could further benefit, if the author had corrected the title, i.e., specified and downsized it. The author has mentioned the Nobel Prize Winner Norman Borlaug, a renowned phytopathologist and biologist in Mexico, whose experience was used in Pakistan, India, and other countries. The author should add the review of studies by Norman Borlaug, and cite his studies not found in the list of references. To complete the review, it should be mentioned, how the author's research corresponds with those by Norman Borlaug in the Conclusions.
Author Response
Reviewer No 4 Appeal for a responsible (sustainably intensive) agriculture
Reviewer: Precision agriculture has been in the scope of international scientific community over the latest decades due to the deterioration of the environment and cultivated land worldwide. The review presents an academic interest in the context of climate change and greenhouse gas emission.
The author has thoroughly analysed the practicability of organic agriculture for the evaluation of various factors and development of managerial decisions on food security considering the ecological, social, and economic benefits with the example of Germany.
The review is a complete research, theme of the review is relevant to the Journal research line. Literature review complies with the research.
Tables and figures are substantiated and comply with the research area.
Answer: Thank you very much for the positive comment.
Reviewer: The review could further benefit, if the author had corrected the title, i.e., specified and downsized it.
Answer: The selection of the titled was indeed difficult. The result may not be ideal, but an appeal should not be promising more than the content delivers.
Reviewer: The author has mentioned the Nobel Prize Winner Norman Borlaug, a renowned phytopathologist and biologist in Mexico, whose experience was used in Pakistan, India, and other countries. The author should add the review of studies by Norman Borlaug, and cite his studies not found in the list of references. To complete the review, it should be mentioned, how the author's research corresponds with those by Norman Borlaug in the Conclusions.
Answer:
Already as student I was a great admirer of Mr Borlaug and his work. His panacea was feeding the world by increasing the yields per hectare to leave as much land as possible for nature. Although he was basically for organic fertilizers, he clearly saw the advantages of synthetic fertilizers and propagated their application. He was a strong criticiser of the environmentalists who lobbied in the 1980s against the use of mineral fertilisers in Africa. This was the time, when I became the director one of the largest fertilizer use recommendation project in Africa.
You are right that I should have used much more Mr Borlaug as a key witness against organic agriculture. For this reason I have added a publication of Mr Borlaug and an impressive description of his work by Mr Easterbrook to the list of literature and quoted him once more in the last paragraph of the paper.
