The Effect of Awareness of Renewable Energy Resources on Sustainable Production in Dairy Farming: The Case of Konya Province (Turkey)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the paper is to highlight the awareness of renewable energy sources for sustainable production in dairy farming. The authors show that energy costs are one of the most significant parts of production costs. When analysing the changing costs of production, 22% of them are electricity costs. Their conclusion is that economic factors are the key to sustainable farming. The paper is interesting but needs some revisions before it can be published in Sustainability.
1. The authors should define what they mean by sustainable agriculture according to the relevant literature. The authors should also discuss the current energy crisis affecting agricultural production.
2. Are there any "best practices" related to sustainable agriculture? It would be interesting if the authors could give some examples.
3. The paper focuses on the districts of Ereğli, Karapınar and Meram. This focus should be included in the title of the paper. I suggest: "The Effect of Awareness of Renewable Energy Resources on Sustainable Production in Dairy Farming: The Case of Ereğli, Karapınar and Meram Districts (Turkey)".
4. Sustainable agriculture is linked to environmental sustainability and sustainable development. Authors must include a brief discussion of sustainable development to engage readers. It is also highly recommended to include references to the following two papers: "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and "History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill's Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).
5. What are the theoretical and policy implications of this paper?
6. Are there any limitations (e.g. sample, method, etc.)?
Minor
1. I prefer sustainable management of resources instead of sustainability of resources (lines 33-34).
2. I prefer figure instead of Graphic (line 212).
3. The labels of Graphic 1 should be corrected. It is “group” and not “grup”.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1, please check the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the Author
The article addresses a very timely and important subject, namely, the potential use of renewable energy in the operation of dairy farms to minimize/eliminate the GHG footprint of such operations and provides ample evidence via the extensively quoted literature to support the necessity of such action. However, the results section of the article is entirely confusing in several respects as follows: (a) Derivation of the presented data; (b) Units associated with several of the data; and (c) Lack of clear connection of the presented data to certain of the conclusions. Moreover, it appears that you co-mingle specific data from dairy farmers in Konya with generic renewable energy use data use based on global/developed world averages. Thus, I am recommending a major revision of the article to make it usable to a prospective user and therefore worth publishing. Below I have specific comments about the article.
Abstract.
Need to rewrite portion of it and specifically the first few sentences. What does “The sample volume of awareness of 136” mean? You need to reduce the statistics jargon to a minimum, because it is not important for the conclusions of the article.
Introduction.
It is well written, explains the importance of employing renewable energy in dairy cow operations as it pertains to GHG emissions and makes the case for the relevance of the article. The only question regarding the remainder of the article is the last sentence where it is asserted that the case of dairy farms in Konya will be considered. This is fine, but it appears that later in the article data not pertaining to Konya are used (see Results section).
Materials and Methods.
Text must be added to clarify what is presented: Line 90 – …..determine the population ….of what?; Lines 91-92 - ….which constitute …….. of milk production ….where? of the three regions in Konya?; Line 92 – explain or reference the Neyman’s stratified sampling method; Line 100 – standard deviation of what? Please elaborate; Lines 112-113 – reference is made to a z factor and I would recommend that you include a brief Appendix to describe the Neyman method along with the z factor; Line 104 – Sample size was determined ……. Sample side to what effect? Please elaborate; Line 111– why four strata or groups were selected? Please elaborate; Lines 112-113 - elaborate as to how the boundaries or ranges of the four strata were determined; Table 1 – Are the farmer date refer to the three regions in Konya? State that in the caption, also indicate headers in the various columns with units as appropriate, also correct typo at bottom of first column; Lines 115-116 – elaborate as the sentence is unintelligible; Lines 130 – 131 – indicate what the five Likert point scale is that you have selected as the reader has to wait until lines 157-158 to find out; Lines 170-171 – reference or explain Bartlett and KMO tests and Line 174 – reference SPSS -15: there is too much statistical analysis jargon to convince the readers of the validity of the results, but all of that and even more can move into a lengthier Appendix and not in the main body of the article as the prospective readers are not statisticians.
Results.
Lines 178-191 - Are all these data form the three regions in Konya? State so and reference the sources of the data; Table 2 – state how the enterprise average is calculated, i.e., is it a straight average or a weighted average and if so what are the weighing factors; Lines 190-211 – the quoted sources refer to average global developments that may or may no be applicable to the particular conditions in the three regions of Konya and this must be clarified in the text; Graphic 1 should be labeled Figure 1 and it is not clear without any description in the text of what it signifies and what the source of the data is, plus what are the units of the vertical axis going up to 140, also typos “grup” instead of “group” at bottom of the graphic; Line 193 - .. according to the table,….which Table; Line 220 – you mean Table 3 rather than Table 13; Line 221 – which “similar study” are you referring to; Line 227 and Table 3 – do these data apply to Konya regions and if so, state it in the Table caption, how were the data obtained, provide references; Line 230 - state Table 3; Table 4 – where do the numbers come from, how were they obtained and what are the units? As important what these numbers tell us? There is not any description, and the Table is useless as presented – needs extensive text explanation; Table 5 – same comment, where do the numbers come from, how were they obtained? It appears that they have copied from another publication with no reference given, which can be construed as plagiarism; Line 255 – which study are you referring to; Tables 6 and 7 – how are the data generated or where do they come from? No direct reference is given, if copied from another publication with no reference it is plagiarism; Lines 263-264 – it is vague what analysis results you referring to and you need to explain in the text the conclusions in some detail based perhaps on what is shown in Tables 6 and 7.
Discussion and Conclusions
It is too short and can be expanded to summarize the findings; Lines 286-287 – it would be good to mention earlier in the text / Section on Results, that no government support is provided in the three regions in Konya. I don’t even know why Konya is relevant in your study, although I realize the motivation. However, it confuses the issue: either examine Konya by itself or else use average global date to make your case.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 2, please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed my comments and improved their manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLines 209-210 are not in English. Please correct.
