Estimating Supply and Demand of Organic Seeds in Europe Using Survey Data and MI Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the very interesting and demandable manuscript “Estimating the potential of the organic seed market in the EU 2 and Switzerland using survey data and MI techniques” But I suggest the authors do the following to improve the article

·       1. EU full meaning should be used in the title part.

·         2. The manuscript will be greatly improved if the author(s) synthesize previous works, identify gaps and clearly delineate how this study fills the gaps.

·        3. The methodology adopted is appropriate. However, the author needs to provide more clarity about econometrics estimation.

·        4.  MI method of choice depends on the pattern of missingness in the data and the type of the imputed variable. Need to clarify, why the author(s) have used MI for missing data management?

Author Response

Please see our responses in the attached file below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to estimate the organic seed demand and supply of 12 crops in EU. While this paper merits publication in Sustainability, there are a few areas the authors could strengthen the paper, including framing and presentation of the results.

(1) Framing. The theoretical and conceptual framing of this study is primarily based on the EU Farm to Fork Strategy and its ambition to achieve at least 25% of agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. This framing is very important to generate policy recommendations but the authors could have introduced a better theoretical framing of local seed saving/seed exchange versus proprietary organic seed production. It could be relevant to bring the on-farm biodiversity conservation aspects of the Convention on Biodiversity, including breeders' rights and farmers' rights. Although breeding of organic seeds is still emerging, the authors could have discussed whether this approach reinvents the wheel of intellectual property rights we have seen in mainstream agriculture.

(2) Multiple Imputation. Much of the discussion in the Materials and Methods section is devoted to the MI technique. This could have been mentioned very briefly, perhaps moved to Annex so that the paper could follow more easily from the initial framing to the discussion and conclusion. Some of the data tables/figures could also be moved to Annex.

(3) Estimation and projection.

The IM technique was used to estimate the supply and demand of organic seeds from 2014 to 2018. What could be more interesting was how this demand grows over time at least until 2030 to that the information could be more relevant for policy making. At times, I was confused about whether this paper is methodological or substantive to generate an evidence base for organic seed policy.

(4) Regional differences. The presentation of regional differences in organic seed supply and demand was interesting but the authors could make policy recommendation more clear based on this finding. The reference to the UK and Switzerland in the study could have been better elaborated particularly in the context of the UK's departure from the Union.

Author Response

Please see our response in the attached file below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting. The authors made a detailed analysis of the data on cultivation with the use of organic seeds. The obtained results indicate the importance of acquiring detailed knowledge on the use of organic seeds.

Author Response

Thank you for your nice words! We attach here for your perusal the responses to the other reviewers' remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Graphical Abstract: Please add appropriate graphical abstract for this article.
2. Highlights: Should be rewritten as they don't convey the message. Also make sure that each highlight contain maximum 80 characteristics with spacing.
3. The introduction should be more comprehensive. Add recent literature.
4. Word 'via' should be italicized. Please check it throughout.
5. Add future prospects of this work at the end of discussion
7. Don't add 'etc.' at the end of the sentence as it shows sentence has not significance value. If have any example, please provide directly.
8. Word 'i.e.' should be italicized. Similar applies for all words related to "i.e"
9. There should be no lumps of references. No two or more references together.
10. Please provide more references with similar works as a comparison so the reviewer can understand the novelty of this work.
11. Conclusion is too long and can be concise and precise.
12. Problem statement in abstract can be improved with major changes.
13. Remove lumping of references. Please check all manuscript.
14. Would you analysis the cost effectiveness ?
15. English language of the paper must be re-checked.
16. Add proper quantification in the abstract and conclusion.
17. Non-impact and too old references must be omitted
18. Carbondioxide should be CO2...change in the text.
19. References style should follow Journal format. Please re-check the author information pack.
20. Figures are blurred.
Closing comments
Paper needs small changes and it can be accepted after minor revision. However, the authors need to improve the English language of the manuscript as well. Avoid lumping references. Instead, summarise the main contribution of each referenced paper in a separate sentence. Please carefully go through the entire manuscript.

For the text clarity would you refrain from using additional words, mostly meaningless filler words, which can be omitted or some archaic words see, e.g. "respectively", "thus", "hence", "therefore", "furthermore", "thereby", "basically,", "meanwhile", "wherein", "herein", "Nonetheless", "Perceivably," etc. ?
Would you use symbol h for an hour, y for a year, d for a day, s for a second and min for a minute?

Would you use SI symbol t for a ton, g for gram, m for the meter, km for a kilometre, k for thousand and M for a million?

Author Response

Please see our response in the attached file below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf