Traditional Rice Varieties, Consumer Segmentation, and Preferences: A Case Study from Kerala, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I congratulate you and consider that the article meets the conditions to be published.
Good job!

Author Response

Comment 1 : The main weakness is the literature review. Before presenting the aspects studied in your investigation, you should report on previous studies to justify the gap that your article intends to contribute to.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. The Introduction has been revised accordingly. Relevant literature has been incorporated in the second and third paragraphs to better establish the research gap and justify the need for this study. The changed text is given below. 

Rice cultivation encompasses diverse farming systems tailored to different conditions. Traditional cultivation led to the evolution of upland and lowland varieties, salt- and alkaline-tolerant varieties, and varieties valued for their aromatic or medicinal properties. These TRVs have demonstrated long-term resilience to local conditions and typically require lower inputs, making them inherently more sustainable. Given these traits, there is a growing interest in conserving and promoting TRVs for targeted crop improvement and wider cultivation [1]

Although India is considered a global hotspot of traditional rice biodiversity, modern scientific studies on the nutritional and health benefits of TRVs remain limited. This gap is primarily due to insufficient scientific data and public awareness [2]. Each agro-climatic region has developed local landraces, yet many remain undocumented. Several organizations are working to promote the conservation and cultivation of TRVs, and some studies suggest a growing interest among younger farmers [3-4]. While marketing remains challenging for TRV producers, urban consumers appear increasingly willing to pay a premium for these varieties [4]. Despite their reputed health benefits, TRVs display wide variation in biochemical composition [5-6], making scientific validation important for promoting their adoption. 

Comment 2: The theoretical and managerial contributions the paper suggests are missing in the manuscript as well as the limitations of the study.

Response 2: We appreciate this suggestion. Paragraph 4 of the Conclusion section has been added to highlight the theoretical and managerial contributions of the study. Additionally, Paragraph 5 has been modified to reflect the limitations. The changed text portion is given below. 

Our findings underscore the importance of promoting TRVs demonstrating nutritional value and sensory appeal, though from within the inherent limitations of sample size in varieties and respondents. Targeted extension strategies should be developed to reach specific consumer segments, enabling faster and more effective positive outcomes.

Government food support programs should also consider incorporating TRVs, given their multifaceted benefits beyond nutrition and economics. These varieties offer added value through medicinal and cosmetic applications and as potential suitability for infant nutrition—areas that warrant further investigation. Finally, broader consumer-oriented traits such as taste and grain appearance should guide varietal choices among large-scale rice producers. This holistic approach is essential for preserving the genetic diversity of TRVs and enhancing sustainability and resilience in rice cultivation.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for re-submitting your work. Improvements have been made. I still think that the link to sustainability is insufficient and that the empirical work is too descriptive to carry the implications and conclusions that you suggest. Best of luck with this interesting field of study!  

Author Response

Comment 1 Thank you for re-submitting your work. Improvements have been made. I still think that the link to sustainability is insufficient and that the empirical work is too descriptive to carry the implications and conclusions that you suggest. Best of luck with this interesting field of study!  

Response 1:  Thank you for the above comment. We have modified the introduction part to bring out the link to sustainability in a more coherent way and added a new reference to that extent too. The first and second paragraph of introduction is given below with the modifications made afresh, made bold. 

Rice is one of the earliest cultivated crops in human history, and numerous landraces have emerged over time through natural selection and traditional farming practices. Scientific breeding and selection introduced high-yielding varieties, significantly enhancing rice productivity, but the rate of rice yield increase based on genetic changes has declined in recent decades [1]. The widespread adoption of modern varieties also contributed to the marginalization of traditional rice varieties (TRVs) in most regions.

Rice cultivation encompasses diverse farming systems tailored to different conditions. Traditional cultivation led to the evolution of upland and lowland varieties, salt- and alkaline-tolerant varieties, and varieties valued for their aromatic or medicinal properties. These TRVs have demonstrated long-term resilience to local conditions and typically require lower inputs, making them inherently more sustainable. Given these traits, there is a growing interest in conserving and promoting TRVs for targeted crop improvement and wider cultivation [2]. Farmers preferring to cultivate these varieties are on the rise, owing to their better adaptation to local climatic and soil conditions and evolved resistance to endemic stresses leading to sustainability of the rice cultivation [1].

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please add Figure 1 in text (you do not have the information in text.. In Figure 1 we state...)

At the final of each result section add a phrase which state which variety is the best according to that specific result, the same you did for line 239

Add more explanations for Table 2 and Table 7 (with data from the table).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Please add Figure 1 in text (you do not have the information in text.. In Figure 1 we state...)

Response 1 : Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have added the following text to explain Figure 1. 

In Figure I we are showing the distribution of six selected nutritional attributes in the selected varieties. All varieties exhibited high carbohydrate content, ranging from 71.10 g 100 g^–1 (Thondi) to 80.40 g 100 g^–1 (Ayirammeni). Fiber content ranged from 1.67 g 100 g^–1 (Uma) to 3.88 g 100 g^–1 (Thondi), with no significant differences observed between Thondi, Kaipad, Sreyas, and Jaya. Among the varieties TRVs Thondi and Kaipad exhibited the highest fiber content.  Fat content ranged from 1.08 g 100 g^–1 (Chembavu) to 2.67 g 100 g^–1 (Kaipad), with no significant differences among Kaipad, Thondi, and Jaya. Protein content ranged from 6.10 g 100 g^–1 (Chembavu) to 7.90 g 100 g^–1 (Uma), with Chembavu showing significantly lower levels than the other varieties.

Anthocyanin and antioxidant contents were generally higher in TRVs, with antioxidants being significantly higher. TRVs Kaipad, Chembavu, and Ayirammeni had the highest antioxidant content among the varieties.

Comment 2: At the final of each result section add a phrase which state which variety is the best according to that specific result, the same you did for line 239

Response 2 : Thank you for this. The following summing up was added at the end of the results about physico chemical and nutritional attributes. 

In overall observation, moisture content was highest in Athira (MRV), Sodium highest in Valichoori (TRV), Potassium and Phosphorus contents highest in Jaya (MRV), Calcium, Iron, Fat, Anthocyanin and Antioxidant contents highest in Kaipad (TRV), Carbohydrate content highest in Ayirammeni (TRV), Fiber content highest in Thondi (TRV) and Protein content highest in Uma (MRV).

Comment 3: Add more explanations for Table 2 and Table 7 (with data from the table).

Response 3 : Thank you very much. We have added the following explanation under Table 2. 

The TRV Valichoori held the highest rank in four of the five sensory attributes, viz. color, odor, taste and overall acceptance. The TRV Ayirammeni was the next best preferred which had the second highest ranks in three attributes, color, odor and overall acceptance. Ayirammeni held the highest rank in the attribute grain shape and size. TRV Thondi was the third most preferred, having the third highest rank in three attributes, grain shape and size, odor and overall acceptance. Thondi also had the second highest rank in taste and fourth rank in color. The widest cultivated MRV in Kerala, Uma had the fourth highest ranks in odor and taste. Another widely cultivated MRV Jaya, was ranked lowest in four attributes, grain shape and size, odor, taste and overall acceptance.

Table 7 : Thank you very much again for bringing this up. The cluster explanations were given under Table 6, which depicts the initial cluster centroids. These explanations are drawn mostly from Table 7, so they are more apt to be placed under Table 7. Now the cluster descriptions are moved under Table 7, and a line of explanation of Table 6 is added under it too, which is given below. 

"The initial cluster centroids obtained under each cluster are shown in Table 6, based on the scores."

The cluster explanations, which consist of four paragraphs and were already there in the manuscript, are not repeated here, for fear of taking too much space. But by placing them in their more rightful place, we are happy that the article has much more clarity now. 

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes to compare traditional rice varieties with modern rice varieties. It investigates 10 types of rice (5 of each one type: traditional vs. modern).

The main weakness is the literature review. Before presenting the aspects studied in your investigation, you should report on previous studies to justify the gap that your article intends to contribute to.

For the organoleptic evaluation, 100 evaluators were randomly chosen from the University’s staff and postgraduate students. For study consumer preference, survey was conducted among 340 customers from 10 supermarkets.

The greatest contributions of this article are undoubtedly the results, and the analysis carried out. Sensory attributes allow us to identify and recognize the characteristics of each rice and how they are perceived. Next, cluster analysis allows us to identify the preferences of each group.

The theoretical and managerial contributions the paper suggests are missing in the manuscript as well as the limitations of the study.

I had a great interest and pleasure in reading this first version of the paper, may the authors be thanked and encouraged.

I give this paper a favorable opinion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Understanding the nutritional values of traditional and modern rice varieties as well as exploring consumer preferences for one or the other are interesting themes to explore. It would also be relevant to investigate sustainability characteristics and perceptions of such rice species. You offer a study on nutritional values and consumer perceptions that is overall well done, nevertheless, I do have very significant concerns regarding the consideration of your work for our journal.

 

LACK OF FIT.
The paper does not fit Sustainability. It seems to be a much better fit with the mdpi publication Foods, or perhaps with a specific marketing journal – see my next comment.

 

INCOHERENT FLOW.
You aim to integrate two studies / perspectives that do not fit well together. One is a study on the objective, scientific nutritional values of the different rice species. The other is a study on consumer perceptions of and preferences for these species together with a relevant identification of consumer segments through cluster analyses. You have material for two distinct papers, none of which fits Sustainability. Also for other journals, readers would not see a coherent connection between the nutritious values view and the consumer perceptions debate that would justify putting the two in one manuscript.

 

UNCLEAR CONTRIBUTION.
Regarding the contribution of the study on nutritious values, you would need to do much more to explain why your study is needed, given the extensive research that has been done on nutritious values of different rice species.

 

I wish you good look with the interesting work and that you find a home where it fits!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

For table 4 please add some explanations about the most important values and their significance.

Same for section 3.5. You can not just add number without explanations (even if you consider them self explanatory).

Line 333- please name the figure (Fig. 1......) then add the explanation.

You have many old references. Add a couple from the last 10 years (you only have 16 from the last 10 years).

For physicochemical analysis please add some graphs (they are much more suitable).

Line 266- add (Table 6). You do not refer to it in your paper

For senior you added an age group. Please do the same for the young (cosmopolites and localites)

Table 7 is not referred in your paper. Please refer it in your text.

For antioxidant activity you do not have the results! Please add them. Same goes for the anthocyanin. yes, you do mention them vaguely in table 3 but you need more explicit results and explanations for them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf