Assessing the Potential for Rainwater Harvesting Use in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Region in the South of Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article considers an important and interesting topic on rainwater harvesting for animal husbandry. The objectives are clearly set along with several and up-to-date referenced literature. But there still are many concerns about the manuscript as listed in bullets below:

There are many format, spelling, unit and English language comments/suggestions marked on the edited text.

Almost all the cited references are in a different language than English (which makes it hard to follow) and most of the internet links cannot be currently reached. To give some examples are: Tucci, 2007; Miele et al., 2010; ABCS/SEBRAE (2016); Brasil, 2018; Russo, 2019.

The main concern is in the presentation of results. Firstly, Figure 1 should be provided close to Table 1 so that the reader can follow the names, locations much easier. Table 2 through Table 5 tabulates numbers in different format and units compared to Figure 2 to Figure 5. Therefore, it becomes hard to compare locations (each municipality to general), values (10⁶ lt/yr or % of available/demanded water to 10³ m³/yr of potential).

Conclusion is more clear and comprehendible, but the presentation of results that should derive to this conclusion need modifications.

Good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Reference links have been tested and are working. Only (Tucci, 2007) does not have internet link because it is a physical book by a relevant Brazilian author;
2. Figure 1 was moved next to Table 1;
3. Units was updated to unify in m³;
4. English have been updated and changes are green highlighted;
5. Other minor updates requested, mainly in the results, are also green highlighted;
6. Table 2 – the municipality’s territory area was excluded of the table. The areas was used only in the determination of the average precipitation by Thiessen Polygon method.
7. Regarding the annual average precipitation obtained, it was not possible to include in Figure 1 as it would cause a lot of visual pollution, given that there are different averages for each municipality.
8. Table 5 – The standard deviation (σ) was maintained as it results from the variation of the average annual precipitation in the municipalities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study and the authors have included more than one dataset to calculate water amount (demand/ available ). The paper is generally well written and structured. However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings regarding data analyses and text. since the authors chose not to focus on one municipality nor one category of animal, the presentation of the methods and the results were not very clear, and this needs to be improved to give a better understanding to the reader.

In the attached file, the original manuscript, I have provided some remarks which I think can improve the text. 

Good Luck

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. English have been updated and changes are green highlighted;
2. Other minor updates requested, mainly in the results, are also green highlighted;
3. Table 2 – the municipality’s territory area was excluded of the table. The areas was used only in the determination of the average precipitation by Thiessen Polygon method.

4. Added a figure with the distribution of precipitation during the year.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article considers an important and interesting topic on rainwater harvesting for animal husbandry demonstrating an example in Brazil. The article has substantially improved from the earlier version, but there is still room for improvement in the quality of presentations and explanations. The following are the suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

- It would really improve the paper to assist the topic of RWHS with some more international references rather than keeping many numbers and citations local.

- Some of the calculated values cannot be followed easily by the reader. There are many numbers gathered from different references (this is good and given clearly in tables), but how these numbers are crunched and what is found in parts is not presented, although the final value is given. For example, it would be beneficial to show how precipitation, roof area, Va, Vd and r are calculated, may be in municipality terms (just like Table 2), to assist Figure 3 and 4 in tabular format. From these clear values it could be easier to follow how 5.2 million m3/yr is saved.

- There are still some references that cannot be reached on the web with the given links. Please check the marked references.

- There are still many places either to correct the English language mistakes or to give better explanations on the issue of concern. These are marked on the text where appropriate. It would be very valuable to have the text proofread before submission.

Once these concerns are fulfilled, the paper has a potential to be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1 - The "CAFO" term was standardized: CAFO when a singular system and CAFOs when set of systems;

2 - It was not possible get the CAFO rooftop area by remote sensing because the scarce available resources.  There was no  GPS coordinate data of each CAFOs, which are dispersed in the rural areas of the municipalities. Thus, the estimate based on the number of animals was adopted, which was the most accurate data.

3 - some international references were added;

4 - References links was checked;

5 - The text was proofread by an official english reviewer;

6 - Tables with step-by-step calculations were not inserted due to the large number of data required.

7 - Modifications can be checked in review mode.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has substantially improved since the beginning and the flow of text is much easier to read and understand at its current state. There are minor spelling and format corrections needed. It is now worth publishing. Best of luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf