Cumulative Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Potato and Tomato Production in Southeast Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I Have gone through the manuscript entitled “Cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions from potato and tomato production in Southeast Brazil” Current manuscript tells about the estimate of the cumulative energy demand (CED), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint in 12industrial potato and tomato production systems in the Southeast region of Brazil, identifying 13mitigation strategies in different scenarios. Its a good attempt about estimating the energy and  GHGs emission understanding of sustainability, of any cropping system. Now days energy conservation is very important for the sustainable agriculture, but need to improve from given suggestions

In methodology, Assumptions used in the calculations (e.g., energy coefficients and emission factors) are to be critically discussed for better understanding.

The mitigation scenarios are insightful, but they need deeper analysis of practicality, cost implications, and contextual comparisons to enhance their feasibility assessment.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your careful reading and dedication of your time to improving our manuscript.

 

I Have gone through the manuscript entitled “Cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions from potato and tomato production in Southeast Brazil” Current manuscript tells about the estimate of the cumulative energy demand (CED), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint in 12industrial potato and tomato production systems in the Southeast region of Brazil, identifying 13mitigation strategies in different scenarios. Its a good attempt about estimating the energy and  GHGs emission understanding of sustainability, of any cropping system. Now days energy conservation is very important for the sustainable agriculture, but need to improve from given suggestions

In methodology, Assumptions used in the calculations (e.g., energy coefficients and emission factors) are to be critically discussed for better understanding.

The mitigation scenarios are insightful, but they need deeper analysis of practicality, cost implications, and contextual comparisons to enhance their feasibility assessment.

Authors’ response: We are grateful for the reviewer's valuable contributions. The main objective of our study was to identify the key sources of GHG emission and energy consumption, as well as to propose solutions with lower carbon and energy intensity. Brazil is a country in which agriculture plays an important role in economic development, but the economic viability impact of these solutions will have to be analyzed in subsequent more specific research

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This is an up-to-date study in which agricultural carbon footprint is calculated. I would have a few suggestions for the authors to improve the article.

1. The research problem—that is, the need to assess tomato and potato production in terms of energy consumption and carbon footprint—should be clarified in the introduction. It is also necessary to highlight the study's limitations and scope.

2. Could you elaborate on the article's relationship to previous research in the literature? In what way does this research contribute to the body of literature?

3. Could you provide more specific justification for the geographic areas or production systems you choose to concentrate on in the study?

4. Could you talk about how your results might vary depending on the location or climate?

5-How do your results provide recommendations for sustainable agricultural policies? Can you provide more details about these suggestions?

6.  An explanation of the recommendations' relevance and recommendations themselves should be included in the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your careful reading and dedication of your time to improving our manuscript.

 

Dear authors,

This is an up-to-date study in which agricultural carbon footprint is calculated. I would have a few suggestions for the authors to improve the article.

1. The research problem—that is, the need to assess tomato and potato production in terms of energy consumption and carbon footprint—should be clarified in the introduction. It is also necessary to highlight the study's limitations and scope.
   Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 60-63.
2. 
   Could you elaborate on the article's relationship to previous research in the literature? In what way does this research contribute to the body of literature?
   Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, we believe that this relationship is made in lines 46-63 of the introduction. We have added the lines 60-63.
3. 
   Could you provide more specific justification for the geographic areas or production systems you choose to concentrate on in the study?
   Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 77-84
4. 
   Could you talk about how your results might vary depending on the location or climate?

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, in lines 317 to 335 we present the main reasons for the variation in the results obtained in Brazil and other countries, which is mainly due to the difference in the energy matrix and crop productivity.

5-How do your results provide recommendations for sustainable agricultural policies? Can you provide more details about these suggestions?

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 308-311

6. An explanation of the recommendations' relevance and recommendations themselves should be included in the conclusion.

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 366-370

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the cumulative energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon footprint of potato and tomato production systems in southeast Brazil. Overall, the manuscript exhibits a clear structure and provides potential implications for facilitating emission reduction strategies. The authors are required to consider the following suggestions.

(1) A detailed uncertainty analysis of the greenhouse gas accounting outcomes ought to be expounded.

(2) What are the innovative aspects of this research? In what ways can it offer inspiration for further studies?

(3) The discussion should delineate the limitations of the current study as well as the potential directions for future research.

(4) The resolutions of Figure 1 and Figure 4 are rather low. The authors should supply more distinct and high-resolution images.

 

Additional comments:

(1) What is the academic significance of studying the GHG and CF of industrial potato and tomato production systems? The explanation regarding this aspect in the introduction is inadequate and therefore requires a detailed elaboration.

(2) The literature review presented in Lines 46-53 is overly simplistic. A more meticulous sorting of the existing literature is called for. For instance, what specific methods were employed by previous studies in the calculation of CED, GHG, and CF? What outcomes were achieved? And what are the merits and limitations? It is recommended that the authors incorporate a table in which previous works can be concisely reviewed. In fact, through such a table, their contributions can be better demonstrated.

(3) What is the range of fluctuation for the accounting results? A detailed uncertainty analysis of the greenhouse gas accounting outcomes ought to be expounded.

(4) In Lines 55-57, the author states that "In the literature, no studies were found using LCA to assess the cumulative energy demand and the impact of GHG emissions from these vegetables in the country." This cannot support the academic innovation points of this paper. What are the innovative aspects of this research? How can it inspire further studies?

(5) lines 291-345, apart from making comparisons with relevant results, the discussion should also clarify the deficiencies of the current study as well as the directions for future research expansion.

(6) The resolutions of Figure 1 and Figure 4 are rather low. The authors are urged to supply more distinct and high-resolution images.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your careful reading and dedication of your time to improving our manuscript.

 

This paper investigates the cumulative energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon footprint of potato and tomato production systems in southeast Brazil. Overall, the manuscript exhibits a clear structure and provides potential implications for facilitating emission reduction strategies. The authors are required to consider the following suggestions.

(1) A detailed uncertainty analysis of the greenhouse gas accounting outcomes ought to be expounded.

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, in the lines 349-354, we point out that the results of the study are subject to the uncertainties which are inherent of this type of analysis, mainly associated with the emission factors applied . These factors are based on the IPCC methodology, which recognizes the uncertainties and provides a statistical breakdown of the emission factors to indicate their reliability. We therefore believe that a qualitative argument on the uncertainties is appropriate for this type of study.

(2) What are the innovative aspects of this research? In what ways can it offer inspiration for further studies?

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 57-63.

(3) The discussion should delineate the limitations of the current study as well as the potential directions for future research.

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 354-358.

(4) The resolutions of Figure 1 and Figure 4 are rather low. The authors should supply more distinct and high-resolution images.

Authors’ response: We provide a separate file with the images in better resolution.

Additional comments:

(1) What is the academic significance of studying the GHG and CF of industrial potato and tomato production systems? The explanation regarding this aspect in the introduction is inadequate and therefore requires a detailed elaboration.

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 60-63 and 77-84.

(2) The literature review presented in Lines 46-53 is overly simplistic. A more meticulous sorting of the existing literature is called for. For instance, what specific methods were employed by previous studies in the calculation of CED, GHG, and CF? What outcomes were achieved? And what are the merits and limitations? It is recommended that the authors incorporate a table in which previous works can be concisely reviewed. In fact, through such a table, their contributions can be better demonstrated.

Authors’ response: We understand and appreciate the reviewer's valuable contribution. However, we feel that including such details would result in an excessively exhaustive text. Furthermore, we believe that the suggested comparison would be more pertinent in a literature review on the application of these methods, which, however, is not the focus of this study.

(3) What is the range of fluctuation for the accounting results? A detailed uncertainty analysis of the greenhouse gas accounting outcomes ought to be expounded.

Authors’ response: The fluctuation for the accounting results can be seem in the table 4.  About uncertainties, in the lines 349-354, we point out that the results of the study are subject to the uncertainties mainly associated with the emission factors used. These factors are based on the IPCC methodology, which recognizes these uncertainties and provides a statistical breakdown of the emission factors to indicate their reliability. We therefore believe that a qualitative argument about uncertainties is appropriate for this type of study.

(4) In Lines 55-57, the author states that "In the literature, no studies were found using LCA to assess the cumulative energy demand and the impact of GHG emissions from these vegetables in the country." This cannot support the academic innovation points of this paper. What are the innovative aspects of this research? How can it inspire further studies?

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 60-63.

(5) lines 291-345, apart from making comparisons with relevant results, the discussion should also clarify the deficiencies of the current study as well as the directions for future research expansion.

Authors’ response: We have improved. See the lines 354-358.

(6) The resolutions of Figure 1 and Figure 4 are rather low. The authors are urged to supply more distinct and high-resolution images.

Authors’ response: We provide a separate file with the images in better resolution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the important issue of energy consumption and emissions in agricultural production. The study is quite technical in nature and focuses on providing numbers describing energy consumption and GHG emissions generated in potato and tomato production in Southeast Brazil. However, it does not solve any specific scientific problem, but the information provided in the study as a result of the calculation can be useful to other researchers. Hence, in my opinion, the text can be published. It is obvious that the results depend on the assumptions made. However, it seems the Authors have presented the calculation methodology quite accurately, which is a plus for the study. However, the descriptions should be checked carefully because, for example, in line 225, we have the information that “ for tomatoes” 59553.56 MJ/ha is equal to 0.54MJ/kg; while “for potatoes” 57992.02 MJ/ha is equal to 1.44 MJ/kg. Is this correct?

The most scientific is the 3rd objective of the study, i.e. “to identify strategies for reducing the demand for energy use and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of these vegetables in different production scenarios.” At the same time, this objective is the least accomplished. What was the methodology for identifying these strategies? How do the authors understand the concept of strategies? Are the indicated scenarios C1, C2 and C3 the identified strategies? I have doubts, but maybe the Authors should discuss this thread more thoroughly. Can you somehow address the feasibility of these scenarios - what are the limitations, aren't these scenarios completely theoretical? Is it feasible to replace synthetic N with organic N or chemical fertilizers with biological ones? Or replacing tractors with internal combustion engines with electric tractors? What would be the consequences for yields, economics, and society? These issues seem much more complex than presented in the article. I would encourage the authors to try to analyze this by at least deepening the literature review. This is the most interesting part of this paper and, unfortunately, is presented very perfunctorily. Conducting an LCA analysis is a fairly technical activity (it can be replicated for many activities in different regions of the world); it provides information but does not indicate solutions. The question of a mitigation strategy seems to be the most important component of this article here, and this issue is worth addressing first and foremost in the conclusions.

On a minor issue: I do not understand why, in Figure 1, the first phase (manufacturing) is marked as “Phase 3”. It seems that this numbering is not necessary. In the “Introduction,” it would be worthwhile to present the problem of GHG emissions from Brazilian agriculture in a little more detail, particularly regarding deforestation. Wouldn't replacing pesticides and N fertilizers with organic equivalents result in lower yields and consequently more pressure for further deforestation?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your careful reading and dedication of your time to improving our manuscript.

Reviewer: The paper deals with the important issue of energy consumption and emissions in agricultural production. The study is quite technical in nature and focuses on providing numbers describing energy consumption and GHG emissions generated in potato and tomato production in Southeast Brazil. However, it does not solve any specific scientific problem, but the information provided in the study as a result of the calculation can be useful to other researchers. Hence, in my opinion, the text can be published. It is obvious that the results depend on the assumptions made. However, it seems the Authors have presented the calculation methodology quite accurately, which is a plus for the study. However, the descriptions should be checked carefully because, for example, in line 225, we have the information that “for tomatoes” 59553.56 MJ/ha is equal to 0.54MJ/kg; while “for potatoes” 57992.02 MJ/ha is equal to 1.44 MJ/kg. Is this correct?

Author’s response: Yes, that's correct. The values in MJ/kg correlate the total energy spent in the system with the energy production by each vegetable (tomato and potato). This correlation is better explained in lines 147-170.

Reviewer: The most scientific is the 3rd objective of the study, i.e. “to identify strategies for reducing the demand for energy use and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of these vegetables in different production scenarios.” At the same time, this objective is the least accomplished. What was the methodology for identifying these strategies? How do the authors understand the concept of strategies? Are the indicated scenarios C1, C2 and C3 the identified strategies? I have doubts, but maybe the Authors should discuss this thread more thoroughly. Can you somehow address the feasibility of these scenarios - what are the limitations, aren't these scenarios completely theoretical? Is it feasible to replace synthetic N with organic N or chemical fertilizers with biological ones? Or replacing tractors with internal combustion engines with electric tractors? What would be the consequences for yields, economics, and society? These issues seem much more complex than presented in the article. I would encourage the authors to try to analyze this by at least deepening the literature review. This is the most interesting part of this paper and, unfortunately, is presented very perfunctorily. Conducting an LCA analysis is a fairly technical activity (it can be replicated for many activities in different regions of the world); it provides information but does not indicate solutions. The question of a mitigation strategy seems to be the most important component of this article here, and this issue is worth addressing first and foremost in the conclusions.

Authors’ response: We are grateful for the reviewer's valuable contributions, whose questions are pertinent and could be addressed in future research. The main objective of our study was to identify the main sources of GHG emissions and energy consumption, as well as to propose solutions with lower carbon and energy intensity. The economic viability and social impact of these solutions will have to be analyzed in subsequent, more specific research, within the context of each area of application of the suggested solutions.

Reviewer: On a minor issue: I do not understand why, in Figure 1, the first phase (manufacturing) is marked as “Phase 3”. It seems that this numbering is not necessary. In the “Introduction,” it would be worthwhile to present the problem of GHG emissions from Brazilian agriculture in a little more detail, particularly regarding deforestation. Wouldn't replacing pesticides and N fertilizers with organic equivalents result in lower yields and consequently more pressure for further deforestation?

Authors’ response: We drew the system flowchart and divided it into 3 phases to make it easier for readers to understand the boundaries of the system, which is common in this type of study. Since agricultural emissions are responsible for direct emissions, we have called them phase 1, while the other phases (2 and 3) have been called sequential.

We are grateful for the reviewer's valuable contributions, but the result in lower yields and consequently more pressure for further deforestation by replacing pesticides and N fertilizers with organic equivalents need to be analyzed in subsequent more specific research.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review should be improved, as I suggested in the first-round review. A too-simplistic literature review makes the work's marginal contribution unconvincing.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

 

We appreciate your careful reading and dedication of your time to improving our manuscript.

We understand the request and are forwarding the new version with improvements made to the Introduction, as requested. We hope to be successful and that the new version will be of better quality and well-founded. We have also corrected the numerical citations of the references in the text and in the References section. We are very grateful for the attention and time dedicated to us. We eagerly await the decision. However, if there are any other improvements that need to be made, we are at your disposal.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf