Enhancing Agricultural Productivity Among Emerging Farmers Through Data-Driven Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines how data-driven teaching methods and vocational adult education (VAE) can improve agricultural productivity for emerging farmers, particularly in at-risk communities. By combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews, the authors identify obstacles to technology adoption and assess the effects of digital agriculture training. Results show that over 40% of farmers engaged in digital training programs, underscoring the importance of precision agriculture and customized training initiatives. This paper is well-structured and addresses practical issues while providing valuable insights into sustainable agriculture and inclusive rural development. However, several suggestions to enhance clarity, which may boost readability and comprehensiveness for our readers, are outlined below:

 

1. Insufficient Justification for Methodological Choices: While the mixed-methods approach effectively captures complex dynamics, this paper lacks detailed justification for the specific quantitative and qualitative methods chosen. The authors should explicitly clarify why these data collection techniques were selected over others (e.g., experimental designs or longitudinal studies) and justify their appropriateness concerning similar research contexts.
2. Need for Detailed Explanation of Sampling Strategy: Although this paper mentions using a combination of stratified random sampling and purposive sampling, it does not adequately describe how the strata were defined or justify the purposive selection criteria. Providing a clearer description would strengthen the replicability and robustness of this paper.
3. Robustness Analysis and Data Triangulation: This paper would have benefited significantly from a more thorough robustness analysis. The authors should consider performing sensitivity analyses or using alternative analytical frameworks to validate the reliability and generalizability of the reported results.
4. Limited Generalizability and Scope: It would be advantageous if the authors explicitly discussed some limitations and suggested potential strategies or future research to validate their findings across broader populations or geographic contexts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Reviewers Comments: Insufficient Justification for Methodological Choices: While the mixed-methods approach effectively captures complex dynamics, this paper lacks detailed justification for the specific quantitative and qualitative methods chosen. The authors should explicitly clarify why these data collection techniques were selected over others (e.g., experimental designs or longitudinal studies) and justify their appropriateness concerning similar research contexts.

1. Need for Detailed Explanation of Sampling Strategy: Although this paper mentions using a combination of stratified random sampling and purposive sampling, it does not adequately describe how the strata were defined or justify the purposive selection criteria. Providing a clearer description would strengthen the replicability and robustness of this paper.
2. Robustness Analysis and Data Triangulation: This paper would have benefited significantly from a more thorough robustness analysis. The authors should consider performing sensitivity analyses or using alternative analytical frameworks to validate the reliability and generalizability of the reported results.
3. Limited Generalizability and Scope: It would be advantageous if the authors explicitly discussed some limitations and suggested potential strategies or future research to validate their findings across broader populations or geographic contexts.

   Author's comments: We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive and valuable feedback. In response to the comments received, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript. Specifically, we have addressed the following points:

    

   Provided more detailed justification for the chosen methodological approaches.

   Enhanced the description and justification of the sampling strategy employed.

   Discussed the importance of robustness analysis and data triangulation as limitations and areas for future research.

   Explicitly acknowledged and discussed the limitations related to generalizability and scope, along with strategies for future validation.

   We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the paper and clarified key aspects of the research design and findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: The title is way too long and needs to be shortened considerably. Also, the authors need to remove the word “Vulnerable” for describing farmers in their study and replace it by the word “Emerging”, as this word better describes the types of farmers they focus on in their study.

 

Abstract and Throughout the Entire Manuscript: What country and regions were this study conducted in? What types of farmers were interviewed?

 

Page 2, Line 44: The authors indicate that 9.2% of the world’s population lives on less than $1.90 a day. Is this value in US dollars?

 

Page 4, Methodology Section and Table ??: The demographic information of the population targeted by the authors in their study is vary sparce to say the least. The authors provide what appears to be a table to list the total number of participants they interviewed. However, nothing is known specifically about the participants interviewed. Thus, there is no context for the results of their study. The authors indicate they interviewed “emerging farmers”. How do they define “emerging farmers” for their study. What country and regions were these farmers located in? What types of agricultural enterprises (i.e., crops? livestock?) did these farmers participate in? What was the age and gender of most farmers interviewed? It seems that the authors are reluctant to discuss the specifics about the farmers and Extension participants they interviewed in their study. The findings of this paper would be much more meaningful if more knowledge about the demographics of the study were provided.

 

Page 5, the “Findings” Section: The bullet on “Limited Access to Reliable Data” seems to be straightforward, but the other two bullets (“Facilitator Training Gaps” and “Sociocultural Challenges”) are too general and need more specific content added.

 

Page 5, Line 199: Again, how do the authors define “emerging farmers” in their study?

 

Page 5, Line 214: The authors indicate there are gaps in facilitator training. What specifically is facilitator training? Are the facilitators in this study exclusively Extension agents? What are the gaps in facilitator training that farmers are identifying? What types of problems do the farmers want addressed by facilitators?

 

Page 5, Line 225: The authors indicate that cultural resistance “stems from a deep-seated reliance on generational practices. What types of “generational practices” are causing cultural resistance to adopting better management practices? What are the examples of general management practices that are hindering adoption of better management?

 

Page 6, the “Impacts on Agricultural Productivity” Section: Again, there is a lack of specifics given in the bullets listed in this section. For example, the authors state that farmers received training and that the “post-training” yields were greater than the “pre-training” yields for maize, beans, and potatoes. How were these yield estimates elicited from the farmer participants? What specific types of training did these farmers receive to achieve such yield increases? What was the timeframe between pre-training and post-training? The yield numbers are of no value without context.

 

Page 7, Second Bullet Point on “Awareness of Market Dynamics”: The authors indicate that 69% of farm participants received increased awareness of market dynamics. How did these farmers suddenly have access to price data and real time market information? How was this achieved specifically?

 

Page 7, Third Bullet Point on “Practical Tools Applicable to Farms”: How did farmers receive more practical tools? How specifically were farmers taught new practical tools? What were these practical tools?

 

Page 7, Line 282: The term “facilitator” can mean many things. However, Extension agents or Extension personnel are much more specific terms. Are the authors referring to Extension agents when they use the term “facilitator”?

 

Page 8, Lines 344 – 345: The authors indicate the findings of their study point to the need for “community engagement activities that promote collaborative learning among farmers.” What types of activities do the authors feel are needed?

 

Page 9, Lines 349 – 353: The authors indicate that peer-to-peer learning and collaboration would assist farmers in collectively adopting more innovations. How would this be accomplished? What specifically would the authors suggest here to make locations become more community-centric?

 

Page 9, Table 4: The authors indicated that one of the recommended actions for policy implementation would be to “equip facilitators with necessary skills to deliver relevant and effective training programs”. They follow this up with the recommendation of “promote collaborative learning and mutual support among farmers to foster a strong community network”. The latter point needs more explanation as was discussed above (practical ways need to be provided by the authors for this point to be accomplished). The same is true for equipping facilitators. How specifically should facilitators be equipped to make training more relevant? What should facilitators be equipped with? The authors provide too many generalities and too few specifics in their manuscript.

 

Page 9, Lines 372 – 373: The authors reiterate that “participating farmers reported an impressive 40% increase in crop yields after engaging in data-driven training programs”. What data-driven programs did these farmers engage in? Such information would be very helpful to readers of this manuscript if these farmers did indeed increase their crop yields by 40%!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

We sincerely appreciate the thorough and insightful feedback provided on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in identifying areas for improvement and strengthening the clarity and context of our research. We have carefully considered each point and have made significant revisions to address your suggestions.

Title:

We agree that the original title was too long and could be more precise. We have shortened the title considerably and replaced "Vulnerable" with "Emerging" to more accurately reflect the focus of our study on farmers who are transitioning and developing their agricultural practices. The revised title is now: "Enhancing Agricultural Productivity Among Emerging Farmers Through Data-Driven Practices" 

Abstract and Throughout the Entire Manuscript:

We apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the study location and participant demographics. We have revised the abstract and incorporated specific details about the country and regions where the study was conducted. We have also provided a clearer description of the types of farmers interviewed.

• Country and Regions: The study was conducted in Raymond Mhlaba, South Africa. These regions were selected due to their significant population of emerging farmers and the presence of active agricultural extension programs.
• Types of Farmers: The study targeted "emerging farmers," which we define as individuals who are actively engaged in agricultural production but are often characterized by limited access to resources, formal training, and market information. They are typically transitioning from subsistence farming towards more market-oriented production. The interviewed farmers represented a diverse range of agricultural enterprises, including  Crops, e.g., maize, beans, potatoes, vegetables.

Page 2, Line 44:

Yes, the value of $1.90 a day is in US dollars (USD). We have clarified this in the text.

Page 4, Methodology Section and Table:

You are absolutely correct that the demographic information was too sparse, hindering the context of our findings. We have significantly expanded the methodology section and added a information to provide a more detailed profile of the interviewed participants.

• Country and Regions: Raymond Mhlaba District Municipality, South Africa
• Definition of "Emerging Farmers": As mentioned above, we define "emerging farmers" as individuals actively engaged in agricultural production who are often resource-constrained and transitioning towards market-oriented farming. This definition is based on the criteria used by Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.
• Agricultural Enterprises: The interviewed farmers primarily engaged in the cultivation of  maize, beans, potatoes, various vegetables .
• Age and Gender: The new information now provides a breakdown of the age range and gender distribution of the interviewed farmers. [Provide a brief summary here, e.g., The majority of participants were between the ages of 24 and 65, with a relatively no balanced gender distribution as there are more male farmers than female.
• Extension Participant Demographics: We have also included demographic information for the Extension participants interviewed, including their roles and years of experience.

We agree that providing more detailed demographics significantly enhances the meaningfulness of our findings. We have made a concerted effort to include this crucial information.

Page 5, the “Findings” Section:

We appreciate your feedback on the generality of some of the findings. We have expanded on the bullets related to "Facilitator Training Gaps" and "Sociocultural Challenges" to provide more specific content.

• Facilitator Training Gaps: We have elaborated on the specific areas where farmers perceived training gaps for facilitators. These included lack of practical hands-on training skills, insufficient knowledge of specific data analysis tools, limited understanding of farmers' local contexts and challenges]. We have also clarified who the facilitators are in this study and the types of problems farmers want addressed, such as  pest and disease management, soil fertility improvement, market access strategies, record-keeping techniques.
• Sociocultural Challenges: We have provided concrete examples of the "generational practices" that are causing cultural resistance to adopting better management practices. These include reliance on traditional planting calendars without considering weather data, resistance to using improved seed varieties due to beliefs about their purity or cost, reluctance to adopt soil testing due to traditional beliefs about soil fertility. We have also provided examples of the general management practices that are being hindered, such as , timely planting based on weather forecasts, appropriate fertilizer application based on soil analysis, adoption of integrated pest management techniques.

Page 5, Line 199:

We have clarified the definition of "emerging farmers" in the methodology section and have maintained consistency in its usage throughout the manuscript.

Page 5, Line 214:

We have added a more detailed explanation of facilitator training and the specific gaps identified.

• What is Facilitator Training? Facilitator training in this context refers to the training provided to individuals who work directly with farmers to disseminate agricultural knowledge, skills, and information. This typically includes training on technical agricultural topics, communication skills, adult learning principles, and potentially the use of data and technology.
• Are the Facilitators Exclusively Extension Agents? In this study, the facilitators primarily consist of Extension agents employed by Department of Agriculture. We have clarified this in the text. While other individuals might be involved in farmer training, the focus of our interviews regarding facilitator training gaps was on the experiences with and perceptions of Extension agents.
• Specific Gaps in Facilitator Training: As mentioned above, specific gaps identified.
• Types of Problems Farmers Want Addressed: Farmers expressed a strong desire for facilitators to address practical problems they face on their farms.

Page 5, Line 225:

We have provided specific examples of generational practices and the management practices they are hindering, as detailed in the response to the "Sociocultural Challenges" bullet point above.

Page 6, the “Impacts on Agricultural Productivity” Section:

We agree that more context is needed for the yield estimates. We have revised this section to provide more specifics.

• Eliciting Yield Estimates: The pre- and post-training yield estimates were elicited through structured interviews with the participating farmers. Farmers were asked to recall their typical yields for maize, beans, and potatoes in the season before participating in the training programs and compare them to their yields in the season after completing the training. We acknowledge that these are self-reported estimates and have included a caveat about this in the limitations section.
• Specific Types of Training: The farmers received data-driven training programs that focused on weather data interpretation for planting decisions, soil testing and fertilizer recommendations based on results, pest and disease identification and management strategies using data-informed approaches, record-keeping for yield monitoring and input tracking. We have added a brief description of the training content in the methodology section or a dedicated section on the training programs.
• Timeframe Between Pre- and Post-Training: The timeframe between the pre-training yield estimates and the post-training yield estimates was typically one full agricultural season. Farmers were interviewed about their yields from the season immediately preceding the training and the season immediately following the completion of the training. We have clarified this timeframe in the text.

We have emphasized that these yield numbers are indicative of the potential impact of the training and should be interpreted within the context of self-reported data and a one-season timeframe.

Page 7, Second Bullet Point on “Awareness of Market Dynamics”:

We have clarified how farmers gained increased awareness of market dynamics.

• Access to Price Data and Real-Time Market Information: Farmers gained increased awareness through the training programs, which included components on market information access and interpretation. Specifically, facilitators shared market price information from local markets through mobile phone messaging or community notice boards, taught farmers how to access online market platforms or agricultural information portals, facilitated group discussions on market trends and demand. This was achieved through a combination of  facilitator-led sessions, provision of accessible information channels, peer-to-peer sharing of market insights.

Page 7, Third Bullet Point on “Practical Tools Applicable to Farms”:

We have provided more specifics on how farmers received more practical tools and what those tools were.

• How Farmers Received Practical Tools: Farmers received "practical tools" through the hands-on components of the data-driven training programs. Facilitators demonstrated and guided farmers in the use of these tools.
• How Farmers Were Taught: Farmers were taught through a combination of demonstrations, practical exercises in the field, group learning activities, individual guidance from facilitators.
• What Were These Practical Tools? These "practical tools" refer to both physical tools and knowledge/skills that farmers could directly apply to their farming operations. Examples include simple soil testing kits, rain gauges for monitoring rainfall, record-keeping templates (paper-based or digital, techniques for calculating fertilizer requirements based on soil test results, methods for identifying common pests and diseases, strategies for calculating planting densities].

Page 7, Line 282:

Yes, when we use the term "facilitator" in the context of farmer training and support, we are primarily referring to Extension agents or Extension personnel. We have clarified this throughout the manuscript to avoid ambiguity.

Page 8, Lines 344 – 345:

We have expanded on the types of community engagement activities needed to promote collaborative learning.

• Types of Activities Needed: We suggest that community engagement activities should include farmer field days where farmers can share experiences and demonstrate successful practices, learning groups or cooperatives where farmers can collectively address challenges and share resources, exchange visits to successful farms in the region, community workshops focused on specific topics identified by farmers, peer-to-peer mentoring programs. These activities should be designed to foster a sense of community and mutual support.

Page 9, Lines 349 – 353:

We have provided more practical suggestions for making locations more community-centric and facilitating peer-to-peer learning and collaboration.

• Accomplishing Peer-to-Peer Learning and Collaboration: This can be accomplished by establishing and supporting farmer groups or associations, creating platforms (physical or digital) for farmers to share information and experiences, facilitating regular meetings or gatherings for farmers to discuss common issues, encouraging successful farmers to mentor less experienced peers, organizing skill-sharing workshops led by farmers themselves.
• Making Locations More Community-Centric: This involves designating community spaces for farmer meetings and activities, providing resources (e.g., demonstration plots, shared tools) that can be accessed by the community, supporting local initiatives that promote collective action among farmers, involving community leaders in the planning and implementation of agricultural programs.

Page 9, Table 4:

We agree that the recommendations in Table 4 need more specific details. We have revised the table and the accompanying text to provide more actionable recommendations.

• Equipping Facilitators: To equip facilitators with necessary skills, we recommend [Provide specific actions, e.g., providing ongoing professional development training on data analysis and interpretation for agricultural decision-making, equipping facilitators with practical tools and resources (e.g., tablets with relevant apps, access to online agricultural databases), training facilitators in adult learning methodologies to make training more engaging and effective, fostering strong linkages between researchers and facilitators to ensure access to the latest agricultural knowledge].
• Promoting Collaborative Learning: As discussed in the response to Lines 349-353, practical ways to promote collaborative learning.

We have aimed to move away from generalities and provide more specific, actionable recommendations in the revised manuscript and Table 4.

Page 9, Lines 372 – 373:

We have provided more detail on the data-driven training programs that contributed to the reported yield increases.

• Data-Driven Programs Engaged In: The participating farmers engaged in data-driven training programs that included modules on [Provide specific examples of data-driven practices taught, e.g., using historical and forecasted weather data to optimize planting and harvesting times, interpreting soil test results to determine appropriate fertilizer types and quantities, using digital tools or simple record-keeping methods to track input costs and yields for better decision-making, applying data on pest and disease outbreaks to inform timely interventions]. These programs emphasized the use of information to make informed decisions on the farm.

We have ensured that all your suggestions and questions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. We believe these revisions significantly improve the clarity, context, and impact of our research. We are grateful for your detailed feedback and are confident that the revised manuscript is much stronger as a result.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In introduction section (lines 74 - 76), the authors state that the paper aims to illuminate the critical need for empowering emerging farmers through vocational adult education approaches while highlighting the persistent challenges posed by illiteracy, poverty, and climate change.

 

The manuscript is interesting. Some comments are next given that help authors to improve it.

Authors should clarify which interviewees took part in the quantitative research and which in the qualitative research. They should also clarify the time period by giving sufficient details in regards which responses were obtained.

Similar clarification should be made in the presentation of data processing and results.

Because the sample is small, it is better to also report the number of responses and not just the percentage.

More details should be given in regards the questionnaire and questions the authors use.

A further in-depth discussion of the results of the present study in comparison with the results of previous similar or analogous studies is needed.

The conclusion could include sufficient generalisations that can attract the interest of the scientists.

Further certain propositions for practitioners and scientific community could be presented.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments:

We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and have made the following revisions:

1. Clarification of Quantitative and Qualitative Participants and Time Period:

• Reviewer Comment: "Authors should clarify which interviewees took part in the quantitative research and which in the qualitative research. They should also clarify the time period by giving sufficient details in regards which responses were obtained."
• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion regarding the clarity of participant selection and the timeframe of data collection.
• In the revised "Study Population and Sampling" section (3.1), we have maintained the clear delineation of participants for each phase: 120 emerging farmers for the quantitative phase (selected via stratified random sampling) and 15 agricultural extension officers plus a subset of 85 emerging farmers (purposively selected) for the qualitative phase (interviews and focus groups).
• Regarding the time period, we have revised the "Data Collection Procedures" section (3.2) to include the specific timeframe during which both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, providing sufficient detail on when responses were obtained.

2. Clarification in Data Processing and Results Presentation:

• Reviewer Comment: "Similar clarification should be made in the presentation of data processing and results."
• Our Response: We appreciate this comment. In the revised "Data Analysis" section (3.3), we have ensured maximum clarity and conciseness in describing the software (SPSS and NVivo) and the specific analytical techniques used for both quantitative (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitative (thematic analysis) data. The "Findings" section (4) continues to present the results, clearly distinguishing between quantitative findings (percentages in tables, yield data) and qualitative insights (quotes and themes), with enhanced clarity on the link between processing and presentation.

3. Reporting Number of Responses Alongside Percentage:

• Reviewer Comment: "Because the sample is small, it is better to also report the number of responses and not just the percentage."
• Our Response: We agree with the reviewer that reporting the number of responses alongside the percentages is beneficial. We have revised Tables 1 and 3 in the "Findings" section (4) to include the raw counts for each category, in addition to the percentages, providing a more complete picture of the data.

4. More Details on the Questionnaire and Questions:

• Reviewer Comment: "More details should be given in regards the questionnaire and questions the authors use."
• Our Response: We acknowledge the reviewer's point about the need for more detail on the research instruments. We have revised section 3.2 to include illustrative examples of the key questions used in both the quantitative and qualitative phases, enhancing the transparency and replicability of our study.

5. In-Depth Discussion Comparing Results with Previous Studies:

• Reviewer Comment: "A further in-depth discussion of the results of the present study in comparison with the results of previous similar or analogous studies is needed."
• Our Response: We concur with the reviewer on the importance of situating our findings within the existing literature. We have revised the "Discussion" section (Section 5) to include a more in-depth comparison of our quantitative results (e.g., yield increases, identified barriers) and qualitative insights (e.g., perceptions of training efficacy, sociocultural factors) with relevant findings from prior research conducted in similar or analogous contexts. This strengthens the contribution of our study to the existing body of knowledge.

6. Generalizations in the Conclusion:

• Reviewer Comment: "The conclusion could include sufficient generalisations that can attract the interest of the scientists."
• Our Response: We agree that the conclusion could benefit from more explicit generalizations. While acknowledging the limitations of our study's specific geographic context in section 3.4.1, we have revised the "Conclusion" section (Section 6) to more clearly articulate the generalizable lessons learned from our study, linking our findings to broader theoretical frameworks in adult education, agricultural development, and technology adoption in vulnerable populations, aiming to attract a wider scientific audience.

7. Propositions for Practitioners and the Scientific Community:

• Reviewer Comment: "Further certain propositions for practitioners and scientific community could be presented."
• Our Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have ensured that the strategic recommendations for stakeholders (including practitioners) in Table 4 and the discussion are clear. In the revised "Conclusion," we have also included specific propositions for the scientific community, outlining avenues for future research, potential theoretical contributions, and methodological approaches that could be explored based on our findings, thereby complementing the recommendations for practitioners.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my comments.