Tasmanian Dairy Farmers’ Attitudes towards Using E-Extension Methods; Strengthening the Dairy Extension System for a Sustainable Dairy Industry in Tasmania, Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript aims to explore the attitude of dairy farmers to the use of E-extension. This is an interesting topic especially in global COVID-19 restrictions. Though the factors affecting the attitudes towards E-extension were investigated, I think the reason for affecting the attitudes based on the factors should also be explored, and then giving some corresponding strategies to improve the extension method for a sustainable dairy industry.   

Author Response

We truly appreciate the reviewer’s encouraging remarks and constructive comments on the manuscript. Considering the adopted framework of our study based on the impact of usefulness and ease of use of a particular system, and the factors that emerged from the results affecting the adoption of E-extension methods, we have added some strategies that may help in strengthening the dairy extension system in Tasmania. We have also made some changes to the manuscript according to your valuable feedback in lines 343-346, 451 and 456.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors try to elucidate dairy farmers' attitudes towards the use of information communication tools. The provided information is up to dated and valuable to promote and design further proper means of acceptance as well as new strategies for incorporating such technology.

There are some minor points that to my opinion will strength the impact of the manuscript. 

1. Introduction. Authors should highlight the importance of dairy sector in Tasmania.

2. Results. This section should renamed to Results and Discussion as "Discussion" part is missing

3. Before Conclusions authors could propose measures how elderly people could accept and incorporate in their daily routine such technology.

Author Response

We truly appreciate the reviewer’s encouraging remarks and constructive comments on the manuscript. All three points have been addressed and updated accordingly. Recommendations based on the results incorporating strategies to enhance E-extension ease of use to increase adoption have been added and appear in lines 343-346.

Reviewer 3 Report

Major comments:

The revised manuscript aims to tackle a problem which is both relevant and current in the agricultural sector overall and in the dairy industry in particular. It is of interest for many other dairy industries in the world where academic/extension institutions are facing the challenges of adapting their engagement process with farmers and advisors in order to became more effective, innovative  and sustainable. 

The  described model of acceptance studied by two factors (perceived usefulness and ease of use) appears original to the dairy systems literature.

However, I cannot see that the results described and discussed here provide any relevant or new information to either the farming systems literature or the decision making of researchers, extensionists and advisors in the field. In addition, the two factors described in the TAM (U and EoU) could have provided a novel insight and new elements for the design of extension startegies. But since the study design does not allow to provide an analysis of each of them, there is no new information for the reader in relation to such factors, beyond the elements described in the introduction.

I transcribe the three more relevant statements of the conclusions to sustain the previous arguments:

1.       “Dairy farmers who are young, educated, handling a relatively big dairy business and are more engaged with extension activities are more inclined towards using new ways of interaction”

2.       “Positive attitude does not mean that dairy farmers want a complete replacement to face-to-face activities”

3.       “E-extension methods should complement already the established extension system in a hybrid framework to assist and support dairy farmers in varying conditions and circumstances”

Stakeholders and colleagues could have arrived to these statements with the evidence provided in the references  (Byrne and Wims, 2015; Irvine, 2013; Watson, 2015). Hence, I do not see why this manuscript should be published. For a paper to be published I suggest to complement this study with a follow-up one where some new evidences on U and EoU factors and an analysis of different E-extension methods could be included and provide new information for the literature and relevant stakeholders.

Minor comments (detailed in revised pdf):

- The introduction is too long and need to re-arrange some paragraphs to be included in M&M  

- initial paragraph of conclusions should be eliminated 

- some references missing and mixing citing styles (numers and names)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We truly appreciate the reviewer’s encouraging remarks and constructive comments on the manuscript. Attached file is our point-by-point response to reviewer’s comments/concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

That is OK.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have addressed your comments accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction has been improved regarding the clarification of objectives, more in line with the following research strategy described in M&M, Results and Discussion. However it remains too long, unnecessarily.

The first paragraph of the conclusion should be eliminated: it´s a repetition of the introduction and none of the statements in it are based on the actual results of the study.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback. We have addressed your comments accordingly and removed the first paragraph from the conclusion section.