Do Erratic Rainfalls Hamper Grain Production? Analysis of Supply Response of Rice to Price and Non-Price Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study aims to assess the impact of rainfall patterns on the supply of rice in Malaysia, while evaluating the impacts of both price and non-price factors. The authors aim to model the impact of each variable on crop production.
Despite of the presented results, I will regretfully have to reject this MS because it lacks to present a proper answer to the main question: Does the rain have an impact on rice production or not? The MS lacks information, only showing the final results without the proper information that supports them.
The authors should be able to re-write the work by following these outlines:
Introduction
The review may be more focused. The authors should shorten the introduction, focusing only on the specific aspects that will be address in this study.
Material and Methods
3.1. Study Area and Data Source: No information is given about the study region (e.g. location, climate, yields, prices, …). To better understand what was made in this study, one needs to have information about the rice productions systems.
3.2. Empirical Model and 3.3 Analytical Approach: Both these sections need to be rewritten. Why were theses model adopted? What does β stands for? What non-price factors other than are and rain were used? Or why only these?
Results
All the findings are highly dependent on the information that supports them.
Concluding, this MS should be rejected in its present form. It requires among other issues a more focused review, a more appropriate description of the study area and rice cropping systems, and how the modelling was performed.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript "Do erratic rainfalls and seasonal variation hamper grain production? Analysis of supply response of rice to price and non-price factor" before acceptance to publication in Agronomy MDPI Journal need improvement and correction.
Manuscript title suggested rice production variation depended on rainfall irregularity. Authors presented only total amount of rainfall as a descriptive factors. In another climate condition (f. ex. moderate climate) not only rainfall yearly amount is important - also rainfall distribution mostly in main crop growing stages.
L. 32-35. Malaysia rice domestic production was only 1.5 million tons and rice consumption was 2.1 million tons which consist 71.43% not 68.23%. Additionally FAOSTAT data (2019) for Malaysia rice production was much higher around 3 millions tons. Manuscript presented not actually rice production data?
Below copy from FAO web site.
QC Crops 131 Malaysia 5510 Production 27 Rice, paddy 2019 2019 tonnes 2912203 Official data
Please correct also yield per ha.
L. 44-45. Total rice production in Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Myanmar was 179 millions tons (FAOSTAT 2019) which consist only 26.7% of world production (total rice production was 755.5 millions tons) and presented percentage need correction (was not 87%).
More explanation for readers need term and also please add units of prices elasticity. For example in line 97 Authors presented range for price elasticity from 0.57 to 0.72 (in respect to production). Further (in lines 102) elasticity ranged from 1.15 -1.45 (wet and dry season) or 0.26-0.33 (also for wet and dry season - line 104) while lowest elasticity value (0.1048) presented in relation to irrigation. In another part (L 125-126) elasticity presented in relation to rice prices. To many different value and relation but explanation is not adequate my opinion.
L. 146 Information about rice cultivation presented in table 1. What kind of information? My opinion only ha - means rice area.
Table 1 No units for selective variables (KG1, KG2, P1, P2, Planted1, Planted2, Rainfall). For KG1, and KG2 given units in note below table 1.
L. 233. Manuscript data base on data from years 1970-2015. Please correct period in line 233.
Conclusion need correction. Partly repeated the same information presented in the other manuscript part. Conclusions should be focus on the new information obtained during this research.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors really improved the MS following the reviewer’s remarks. However, some issues still arise.
Material and Methods
3.1. Research design: this section sounds a little rushed. A lot of new data is presented but the form should be rethought. Farming areas are (normally) dependent on markets. A simple correlation between each variable would help to better understand why are the authors aiming for their objectives.
3.2. Model specification: I’m still struggling to understand how the modelling was performed. This section should be rewritten in a simpler form. Also, I don’t quite understand where/how the variable presented in Table 2 were used.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors mostly accepted changing proposal from previous review. Still manuscript need additional work. Mostly figures need improvement. Detailed remarks below:
L. 37 no space in 82kg
L. 164 no figure number
L. 188-189 please add currency for output-prices P1 and P2 P1 denotes output-price of rice for main season, P2 denotes output-price of rice for off-season
Correct figure number (L. 172 vs 205)
Correct title of figure 3
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
