Difference in Soil Fertility Agricultural Training, Local Livestock Feed Use and Weather Information Access: A Comparative Study of Small-Scale Farmers in Mozambique and Zambia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comparative analysis of sustainable soil fertility and livestock feed management in Mozambique and Zambia. The study addresses a timely and important topic, especially considering the agricultural challenges faced by smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, including climate change and soil degradation. The mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and focus group discussions, is appropriate for capturing both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the research. The identification of disparities in training, feed formulation, and weather information access between the two countries is a key contribution. The manuscript is generally well-structured and clearly written.

Weaknesses of the Manuscript:

Sample Size Disparity and Implications: While acknowledged as a methodological limitation (p. 150-151), the significant difference in sample sizes between Zambia (n=312 from two districts) and Mozambique (n=186 from one district) warrants more detailed discussion regarding its impact on the statistical power and generalizability of the comparative findings. The authors mention the chi-square test is sensitive to small sample sizes, but further elaboration on how this impacts the interpretation of differences between the countries would be beneficial.

Depth of Discussion on Specific Technologies: While the abstract and introduction mention concepts like biochar and agroforestry, the results section and discussion could benefit from more detailed exploration of farmers' current adoption levels, perceptions, and challenges related to specific sustainable soil fertility and livestock feed management technologies, beyond general training. For instance, the quote about biochar (p. 174-176) is insightful but could be expanded upon in the discussion.

Gender and Information Dissemination: While gender is discussed in the demographic section and a citation [63] is provided regarding gender-based gaps in information sharing, the connection between gender and the specific access and utilization of agricultural training and weather information could be more explicitly explored in the discussion. The findings in Table 5 regarding weather information adequacy show variations between countries, and a deeper dive into how gender might influence this perception would be valuable.

Methodological Limitations - Causal Relationships: The authors correctly state that statistical tests detect differences, not causal relationships (p. 152-153). However, the discussion could more explicitly acknowledge this limitation when drawing conclusions about why certain disparities exist. For example, when discussing differences in training, it's correlation rather than causation.

Minor Presentation Issues: Some sentences could be slightly rephrased for improved flow and clarity (e.g., the beginning of section 3.3). Table captions could be more descriptive.

Literature Review: The literature review could be more comprehensive and up-to-date. The authors should include more recent studies on sustainable agriculture and climate change adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Author Response

Find attached the Word document with the authors' responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good info, well written and well presented.  A few specific concerns noted below.

Overall objectives of work are not clear, are authors simply reporting on disparities and needs in these two countries?

Line 99 – are you comparing all farmers to each other, or farmers from Mozambique to farmers from Zambia?  This is not clear from phrasing.

Not clear how figure 4 is related to prior paragraph.  The outcomes were not mentioned and feel key to the figure.

Section 2.4 needs content on how study participants were identified/located/recruited.  Did the research assistance drive to farms?  Did they advertise meetings and recruit from attendees?  This affects the interpretation of responses.

Line 189-193 is unclear as the numbers don’t add up and not clear where overlap occurs.  Are some of the numbers for Mozambique?

The quotes indicate rather pointed needs from an informed workforce but the reported data points show a much simpler picture.  It’s hard to align these different pieces of information as presented.  Could the quotes be moved to a separate section? Examples of reorganization could be: quantitative and qualitative data, or survey report and future needs.

Author Response

Find attached the Word document with the authors' responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on the Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Soil Fertility and Livestock Feed Management: A Case of Mozambique and Zambia. The two regional agricultural production problems addressed in this study do not have universality. And the scientific information provided in this study is limited, with insufficient theoretical depth.

Abstract: There are no significant results or conclusions obtained from this study.
Suggest merging Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Find attached the Word document with the authors' responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines differences in sustainable soil fertility and livestock feed management practices among smallholder farmers in Mozambique and Zambia. Employing a combination of questionnaire surveys and focus group discussions, it analyzes disparities between the two countries in agricultural training, access to weather information, and utilization of local feed resources. The research topic holds practical significance, employing a relatively systematic methodology with detailed data presentation. However, the paper exhibits significant shortcomings in linguistic expression, structural logic, and depth of data analysis. Substantial improvements are required, particularly in defining research questions, ensuring coherence between results and discussion, and enhancing the quality of charts and tables. 1. The title is overly broad and fails to highlight the core comparison (between two countries), primary variables, or methodology. It is recommended to clearly define the research subjects and key indicators. 2. The abstract should describe the sample size, primary survey/analysis methods, key quantitative findings, and most significant conclusions/recommendations. The current abstract merely states the phenomenon without providing evaluable numerical evidence. 3. Background and literature review lack systematic rigor. The introduction inadequately references existing international/regional research and fails to clearly identify knowledge gaps or the study's unique contributions. Core literature must be supplemented, and research questions or hypotheses should be clearly articulated. 4. The research objectives are not sufficiently specific. The introduction should clearly state the research goals or hypotheses in the final paragraph, enabling readers to assess the relevance of the methods and results. 5. Insufficient description of regional selection and sample design. Clearly specify geographical/climatic/soil type variations within the study areas and rationale for selection. Provide detailed explanations of sampling methods, sample size, assessment of sample representativeness, and ethical approvals. 6. Questionnaire and interview methods are not detailed. The questionnaire design rationale, operationalization of key variables, pre-testing/reliability and validity checks, selection criteria for interviewees, and recording/processing methods should be attached or described. 7. Data analysis methods are insufficiently stated. The statistical or qualitative analysis methods to be used must be clearly specified. 8. Results lack necessary quantitative details and statistical tests. Some conclusions should be supported by specific numerical values, standard deviations/confidence intervals, and p-values. Additionally, figures should include error bars, sample size annotations, and statistical significance labels. 9. The hierarchical structure of results is unclear. Quantitative findings (survey statistics) and qualitative discoveries (interview highlights) should be presented separately yet mutually corroborated. If regression or multivariate analyses are conducted, report model coefficients, R^2 values, and tests for multicollinearity among variables. 10. The discussion section fails to sufficiently integrate findings with existing literature or theoretical frameworks, resulting in isolated conclusions. Potential mechanisms explaining why the two countries differ on certain indicators should be proposed, supported or refuted by relevant research. 11. Implications for policy and practice remain rather general. To effectively inform decision-making or implementation, more concrete and actionable recommendations are needed. 12. Figure 1-4 is overly simplistic and requires improvement. The data analysis is also insufficiently thorough.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs improvement

Author Response

Find attached the Word document with the authors' responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made appropriate modifications and it is recommended to accept.

Author Response

Find attached the responses in the Word document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions to the paper are not entirely satisfactory.
1. Furthermore, the manuscript includes additional authors and affiliations that were not previously disclosed.
2. The original comment 12 was not thoroughly revised. Figure 1-4 is overly simplistic and requires improvement. The data analysis is also insufficiently thorough.
3. The current language still needs polishing.

Author Response

Find attached responses in the Word document 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current revision is largely satisfactory, but the depth of research needs to be enhanced, and in addition the language of the paper needs to be touched up.