Sustainable Energy Management: Energy Flow and Economic Analysis of Grape Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance of the research is due to the need to determine the efficiency of the energy flow and economic assessment of the viability of agricultural systems, which is the fundamental basis for sustainable energy management and development. This study presents the structure of the energy pyramid for assessing the efficiency of the energy flow and conducting an economic analysis to study the viability of grape production systems, which determines the possibility of correlation between consumption and production and provides a solution to a number of problems in managing the efficiency of the energy flow of production.

The purpose of this article is to develop an agricultural energy management plan for vineyards, including strategies for energy conservation, efficiency

and economic viability. However, the comments should include the fact that in the text of the manuscript it is necessary to indicate a clear separation of economic and energy factors affecting the process under study. The original aspects of this manuscript include the research methodology, but it requires some clarification, namely, what criterion was used to perform the energy assessment, and the statement on line 316 "... Variable costs included human labor, fertilizers, repair and maintenance of electric pumps and machines, fuel, electricity and chemicals ..." is not entirely clear, and the costs of planting material and care activities are not taken into account by this model.

The conclusions should indicate the prospects for further implementation of the obtained research results. In addition, it is not entirely clear what the sample of 220 grape producers was due to during the 2020-2021 growing season. Winegrowers who were randomly selected from six villages in the study area.

The results of the presented studies reflect the goal reflected in the manuscript, but they should be supplemented with the results of statistical processing of the results obtained for Figures 3 and 4, in addition, a presentation of empirical dependencies determining the reliability of their receipt should be performed in the text of the article. Thus, the above-mentioned shortcomings do not reduce the value of scientific research, and the manuscript should be accepted after minor corrections.

Author Response

Comment 1:

"The relevance of the research is due to the need to determine the efficiency of the energy flow and economic assessment of the viability of agricultural systems, which is the fundamental basis for sustainable energy management and development. This study presents the structure of the energy pyramid for assessing the efficiency of the energy flow and conducting an economic analysis to study the viability of grape production systems, which determines the possibility of correlation between consumption and production and provides a solution to a number of problems in managing the efficiency of the energy flow of production."

Response: Appreiciate for recognizing the relevance of the research. We are greatful for your positive feedback on the importance of energy flow efficiency and economic assessment in agricultural systems, particularly grape production. We agree that these aspects are fundamental for sustainable energy management and development, and we have ensured that this perspective remains central to the revised manuscript.

Comment 2:

"The purpose of this article is to develop an agricultural energy management plan for vineyards, including strategies for energy conservation, efficiency and economic viability. However, the comments should include the fact that in the text of the manuscript it is necessary to indicate a clear separation of economic and energy factors affecting the process under study."

Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have made efforts to clarify the distinction between the economic and energy factors in the manuscript. We recognize that these two dimensions are interlinked but need to be clearly articulated. While we have attempted to highlight these factors separately, there were certain limitations due to data availability and model constraints that made a full separation challenging. Nonetheless, we believe the revised text better addresses this concern.

Comment 3:

"The original aspects of this manuscript include the research methodology, but it requires some clarification, namely, what criterion was used to perform the energy assessment, and the statement on line 316 "... Variable costs included human labor, fertilizers, repair and maintenance of electric pumps and machines, fuel, electricity and chemicals ..." is not entirely clear, and the costs of planting material and care activities are not taken into account by this model."

Response: Thank you for highlighting the need for clarification on the research methodology. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded on the criteria used for the energy assessment, detailing the specific energy conversion factors and models applied in table 1. Regarding the variable costs, we have revised the explanation to make it clearer and more precise. However, we would like to clarify that certain costs, such as planting material and care activities, were not included in this study due to the scope and data limitations. We plan to address these factors in future research, and we have mentioned this limitation in the updated manuscript.

Comment 4:

"The conclusions should indicate the prospects for further implementation of the obtained research results."

Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have revised the conclusions to better emphasize the prospects for future implementation of the research results in recommendation section. We have outlined potential applications for the agricultural energy management plan, including its role in future vineyard management practices and the broader implications for agricultural systems in similar climates. We also discuss opportunities for future research to expand upon the findings presented in this study.

Comment 5:

"In addition, it is not entirely clear what the sample of 220 grape producers was due to during the 2020-2021 growing season. Winegrowers who were randomly selected from six villages in the study area."

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the methodology behind the sample selection of the 220 grape producers. We explain that the sample was randomly selected from six villages to ensure representation from various production types, and this was done during the 2020-2021 growing season to align with the study's timeframe. Further details on the sampling method have been added to enhance clarity.

Comment 6:

"The results of the presented studies reflect the goal reflected in the manuscript, but they should be supplemented with the results of statistical processing of the results obtained for Figures 3 and 4, in addition, a presentation of empirical dependencies determining the reliability of their receipt should be performed in the text of the article."

Response: We understand the importance of statistical processing to support the results. However, due to limitations in available data, we were unable to perform further statistical analyses for Figures 3 and 4. We have added a discussion about the sensitivity analysis we conducted to ensure the reliability of the results. While more detailed statistical testing was not feasible within the scope of this article, we believe the sensitivity analysis provides a robust foundation for the conclusions.

Comment 7:

"Thus, the above-mentioned shortcomings do not reduce the value of scientific research, and the manuscript should be accepted after minor corrections."

Response: Thank you for your understanding and for recognizing the value of the research despite the mentioned shortcomings. We have made the necessary revisions based on your feedback and believe the manuscript is now clearer and more comprehensive. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations, and we are grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript in light of your thoughtful suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Relevance of the study: In modern conditions, when energy security and resource efficiency are becoming key factors of sustainable development, energy efficiency research in viticulture is of particular importance. Viticulture is an important branch of agriculture in the world, and optimising energy costs in this sector will help to increase the competitiveness of products and reduce the negative impact on the environment.

Critical remarks:
1. In econometric models based on production functions, there is a risk of endogenous variables or omitted factors that may affect the results; additional endogeneity testing and inclusion of additional regulatory variables could increase the reliability of the findings.
2. The analysis is based on data for a specific period (2020-2021); it would be interesting to investigate how energy flow efficiency and economic performance change over time, especially given the impact of modern technological changes or energy price fluctuations.
3.  The spatial analysis using GIS allows visualising spatial heterogeneity; a more detailed analysis of the impact of environmental and climate factors could further enhance the practical value of the recommendations.

Overall conclusion: Despite these comments, the paper makes a significant contribution to the study of energy efficiency in viticulture. 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Thank you for your insightful comments and recommendations. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has helped strengthen the rigor of our study. While incorporating these suggestions would enhance the paper, addressing them fully would require additional data that was not feasible to obtain. Consequently, we have limited our analysis to tests for which our available data is sufficient and reliable. Below are our detailed responses to each comment:

1. Endogeneity Risk in Econometric Models

Comment: In econometric models based on production functions, there is a risk of endogenous variables or omitted factors that may affect the results. Additional endogeneity testing and inclusion of regulatory variables could increase the reliability of the findings.

Response: Thank you for raising this important concern. We acknowledge that endogeneity is a potential limitation in econometric models. However, obtaining additional regulatory variables was not feasible due to data unavailability, particularly in developing regions. We ensured that our dataset was robust and reliable within the given constraints, and we applied standard econometric techniques to minimize bias. Future research could incorporate a more extensive dataset to conduct deeper endogeneity testing.

2. Temporal Limitations of the Data (2020-2021)

Comment: The analysis is based on data for a specific period (2020-2021); it would be interesting to investigate how energy flow efficiency and economic performance change over time, especially given the impact of modern technological changes or energy price fluctuations.

Response: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. Extending the study across multiple years would indeed provide deeper insights into technological advancements and energy price impacts. However, obtaining reliable long-term data—especially from developing countries—proved challenging due to gaps in historical records and inconsistencies in reporting standards. We acknowledge this as a limitation and plan to explore longitudinal data collection in future studies to capture temporal trends more comprehensively.

3. GIS-Based Spatial Analysis of Environmental and Climate Factors

Comment: The spatial analysis using GIS allows visualizing spatial heterogeneity; a more detailed analysis of the impact of environmental and climate factors could further enhance the practical value of the recommendations.

Response: This is an excellent point, and we agree that incorporating GIS-based spatial analysis would significantly enhance the study’s practical applications. Unfortunately, we could not access high-resolution spatial data for all study regions, limiting our ability to conduct a comprehensive spatial analysis. We acknowledge this as an important future research direction and aim to integrate GIS-based methodologies in subsequent studies where spatial data is more readily available.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1: The coordinate information, direction marks and corresponding scale of the map of the grape production area in Figure 1 are missing in the original article, which requires the author to supplement and add it in Figure 1 of the original article. At the same time, the author also needs to describe the relevant geological information about the grape production area shown in Figure 1 in Section 2.1 to show the geological characteristics more clearly.

2: Does the energy supply required for grape production shown in Table 1 apply to grape production processes in any region of the world? Does it correspond to the energy and economic relationship of grape production in the target region of Iran shown in Figure 1? At the same time, the reviewer wonders whether the chemicals "4. Chemicals (kg)" in Table 1 can also form the energy input of the grape production process?

3: The basis for the division of farmers into age ranges of 35 and 50 shown in Table 2 needs to be justified by the author, or some corresponding evidence needs to be listed in the original literature. In addition, how were the data on the share of total average energy input in grape production in Figure 3 obtained? Are these data applicable to grape production in Takestan County?

4: Energy supply is crucial to regional grape production and economic profitability.The above description is added in the introduction and supported by previous papers: ----The Crack Propagation Behaviour of CO2 Fracturing Fluid in Unconventional Low Permeability Reservoirs: Factor Analysis and Mechanism Revelation. -----Wellhead Stability during Development Process of Hydrate Reservoir in the Northern South China Sea: Evolution and Mechanism.

5: What ways does the model of the relationship between energy and economic benefits of grape production created by the author in the original article differ from existing models? How much difference can these advantages make in the economic benefits of grape production? If possible, the author should provide a brief analysis of the above questions in the original article.

Author Response

Thank you for your invaluable comments and thoughtful feedback. Below are our responses to each point:

Comment 1 : The coordinate information, direction marks and corresponding scale of the map of the grape production area in Figure 1 are missing in the original article, which requires the author to supplement and add it in Figure 1 of the original article. At the same time, the author also needs to describe the relevant geological information about the grape production area shown in Figure 1 in Section 2.1 to show the geological characteristics more clearly.

Response:

1. Geographic Information & Scale in Figure 1
• We have added coordinate information, direction markers, and a scale to Figure 1. Additionally, we have incorporated geological details about the grape production area in Section 2.1 to enhance clarity.

Comment 2: Does the energy supply required for grape production shown in Table 1 apply to grape production processes in any region of the world? Does it correspond to the energy and economic relationship of grape production in the target region of Iran shown in Figure 1? At the same time, the reviewer wonders whether the chemicals "4. Chemicals (kg)" in Table 1 can also form the energy input of the grape production process?

Response: 

1. Energy Supply & Chemical Inputs in Table 1
• Our results are specific to Takestan, Iran, during the studied period. While they may be compatible with other regions, further research is needed to confirm broader applicability.
• Any input, including chemicals, requires energy for production and is therefore considered in the energy analysis and economic estimations.

Comment 3: The basis for the division of farmers into age ranges of 35 and 50 shown in Table 2 needs to be justified by the author, or some corresponding evidence needs to be listed in the original literature. In addition, how were the data on the share of total average energy input in grape production in Figure 3 obtained? Are these data applicable to grape production in Takestan County?

Response: 

1. Farmer Age Classification & Data in Figure 3
• The age classification (35 and 50 years) was based on the nature of the dataset and the researchers' decision to profile the sample while emphasizing the role of labor.
• Considering labor's importance in energy productivity, this classification provides a strong basis for discussing why labor plays a key role in grape production efficiency.
• The data in Figure 3 were obtained from regional surveys and official reports, and while specific to Takestan, they can serve as baseline information for future studies.

Comment 4: Energy supply is crucial to regional grape production and economic profitability.The above description is added in the introduction and supported by previous papers: ----The Crack Propagation Behaviour of CO2 Fracturing Fluid in Unconventional Low Permeability Reservoirs: Factor Analysis and Mechanism Revelation. -----Wellhead Stability during Development Process of Hydrate Reservoir in the Northern South China Sea: Evolution and Mechanism.

Response: 

1. Energy Supply & Economic Profitability
• The relationship between energy efficiency and economic benefit is strong, as all inputs and outputs involve energy in some form. Higher energy efficiency and productivity directly contribute to greater profitability.
2. Comparison of Energy-Economic Models

Comment 5: What ways does the model of the relationship between energy and economic benefits of grape production created by the author in the original article differ from existing models? How much difference can these advantages make in the economic benefits of grape production? If possible, the author should provide a brief analysis of the above questions in the original article.

Response: 

1. Our model differs by incorporating region-specific energy flows and productivity factors, ensuring realistic estimations for Takestan.
2. The advantages of our approach lie in its detailed energy accounting, making it a valuable reference for improving economic outcomes in grape production systems.
3. We have provided a brief comparative analysis in the manuscript, highlighting how these differences influence economic benefits.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted