Environmental and Economic Assessment of Castor Oil Supply Chain: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper uses a case study approach to consider the supply chain for caster oil.  The methods to compute the environmental impact and the economic assessment are sound, and the approach used to derive reasonable trade-off solutions is well-presented.

My only concern is with the statement in the conclusions that an economic optimum was considered.  In the paper, I don't see any use of an optimization technique, or any discussion of the degrees of freedom in the supply chain which can be altered in order to improve economic or environmental performance.  The authors consider two hybrids, four by-product management scenarios, and two harvesting methods, but choosing the most economically attractive of these cases is in no way an optimization - it simply is the most profitable case of the ones considered.

So while the paper can be considered as a comparative case study, all references to "optimal" should be removed. 

Author Response

REV.1

This paper uses a case study approach to consider the supply chain for caster oil.  The methods to compute the environmental impact and the economic assessment are sound, and the approach used to derive reasonable trade-off solutions is well-presented.

My only concern is with the statement in the conclusions that an economic optimum was considered.  In the paper, I don't see any use of an optimization technique, or any discussion of the degrees of freedom in the supply chain which can be altered in order to improve economic or environmental performance.  The authors consider two hybrids, four by-product management scenarios, and two harvesting methods, but choosing the most economically attractive of these cases is in no way an optimization - it simply is the most profitable case of the ones considered.

So while the paper can be considered as a comparative case study, all references to "optimal" should be removed. 

- Thank you for the remarks. All the typos have been corrected and as you indicated we didn't use an optimization technique, but we identified the cheapest scenario. All references to "optimal" have been removed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research article entitled “Environmental and Economic Assessment of Castor Oil Supply Chain: A Case Study” addresses the environmental impact and economic feasibility of the production of castor oil, using two different castor hybrids and comparing four by-products management scenarios along with two harvesting systems (manual vs mechanical).

The scope of the study is of extreme importance, as the adoption of energy crops is an emergent topic, which could benefit the reduction of fossil energy dependence, improvement of rural economies while achieving environmental goals.

Overall, the ms is well-written, and the objectives are clearly stated. However, I have some concerns about the material and methods organization that have to be improved.

Introduction

L60- Please include references that highlight the limited studies done on castor crop, and which approaches have been performed to denote the novelty of your study.

L71- Please state when the trial experiments were done and for how long.

L93- L101- This information is not Material and methods data, but yet introduction material. I believe that authors could include information regarding the two dwarf hybrids used. Why using these hybrids? Any specific reason? Have these hybrids been improved in agroeconomic traits?

Sections 3 and 4 should be included in the Material and Methods section, and not as single and separate sections. Also, integrate these two sections within Material and Methods is important, since as it is it seems a different approach from the information provided in the Material and Methods Section. Please restructure this whole section in a more structured and comprehensive manner, in order for readers to easily follow your approach.

L264- L279- The first section of the Results and Discussions, seems to not have any specific conclusion regarding the field experiments than just selecting highlighting the influence of the climate and crop management to the phenotype expression of castor hybrids, which is somewhat universal to crops productivity trends. Thus, I would recommend doing a more focused discussion of the results regarding manual versus mechanical harvesting.

Have the authors considered including statistical analysis to detect statistical significance between the two hybrids used under the economic analysis (tables 5 and 6)? This would be important to consider and include in the manuscript.

L394- This last sentence would be important to include more information to highlight which major limitations that could limit the results obtained.

Minor comments:

Throughout the manuscript, please revise the italic font in Ricinus communis, and by removing L. (authority) after the first time is mentioned.

Please check all references as some are presented without numbering as per Sustainability Journal guidelines (e.g. L272, L275).

Check Tables numbering in the text, as it mentions Tables 8 and 9, not provided in the text (probably a typo error).

Also, check the tables legend and include in the legend of the tables 5 and 6, the scenarios 1 or 2 were analyzed.

Author Response

REV.2

The research article entitled “Environmental and Economic Assessment of Castor Oil Supply Chain: A Case Study” addresses the environmental impact and economic feasibility of the production of castor oil, using two different castor hybrids and comparing four by-products management scenarios along with two harvesting systems (manual vs mechanical).

The scope of the study is of extreme importance, as the adoption of energy crops is an emergent topic, which could benefit the reduction of fossil energy dependence, improvement of rural economies while achieving environmental goals.

Overall, the ms is well-written, and the objectives are clearly stated. However, I have some concerns about the material and methods organization that have to be improved.

Introduction

L60- Please include references that highlight the limited studies done on castor crop, and which approaches have been performed to denote the novelty of your study.

Done. The few references available in literature have been integrated in line L73-76.

L71- Please state when the trial experiments were done and for how long.

Done. Information about trials has been integrated at the lines L94-95.

L93- L101- This information is not Material and methods data, but yet introduction material.

Thank you for the remark. The part indicated has been moved to Introduction (L60-L72)

I believe that authors could include information regarding the two dwarf hybrids used. Why using these hybrids? Any specific reason? Have these hybrids been improved in agroeconomic traits?

The hybrids tested are lower than the wild varieties, which is why they are better suited to mechanized harvesting by reducing the biomass entering the combine and thus reducing clogging problems. Their cultivation in Romania was chosen by the association Ecoricinus (National association of Ricinus growers) under the advice of the Israelian seed company KAIIMA, to assess their behaviour and productivity in Romania. More information has been reported on line L67-68, 81-82, 117-121.

Sections 3 and 4 should be included in the Material and Methods section, and not as single and separate sections. Also, integrate these two sections within Material and Methods is important, since as it is it seems a different approach from the information provided in the Material and Methods Section. Please restructure this whole section in a more structured and comprehensive manner, in order for readers to easily follow your approach.

Thank you for the observation. The paragraphs indicated have been included in material and methods. 

L264- L279- The first section of the Results and Discussions, seems to not have any specific conclusion regarding the field experiments than just selecting highlighting the influence of the climate and crop management to the phenotype expression of castor hybrids, which is somewhat universal to crops productivity trends. Thus, I would recommend doing a more focused discussion of the results regarding manual versus mechanical harvesting.

As suggested more information have been reported about the two castor harvesting methods at the lines L301-310.

Have the authors considered including statistical analysis to detect statistical significance between the two hybrids used under the economic analysis (tables 5 and 6)? This would be important to consider and include in the manuscript.

Thanks for the observation. However, as happen in many studies (see e. g. Palmieri et al., 2014; 2020) the economic data comes from a survey (they are obtained partly by the farmer and partly by the Ecoricinus cooperative), and it would not have been useful to carry out statistics. As your suggestion, we have expanded in the Conclusions the aspects related to the limitations that may influence the final results of the study, including also the one related to the difficulty of finding economic data in a supply chain that is being implemented and in the absence of by-product markets.

References

Palmieri, N. Suardi, A. Pari, L. 2020. Italian consumers' willingness to pay for eucalyptus firewood. Sustainability (Switzerland)Open AccessVolume 12, Issue 7, 1 April 2020, Article number 2629.

Palmieri N., Forleo M.B. Suardi A., Coaloa D., Pari L. 2014. Rapeseed for energy production: Environmental impacts and cultivation methods. Biomass and Bioenergy, 69:1-11.

L394- This last sentence would be important to include more information to highlight which major limitations that could limit the results obtained.

Thank you for your suggestion. Other considerations have been included to highlight which major limitations that could limit the results obtained at L437-451.

Minor comments:

Throughout the manuscript, please revise the italic font in Ricinus communis, and by removing L. (authority) after the first time is mentioned.

Done.

Please check all references as some are presented without numbering as per Sustainability Journal guidelines (e.g. L272, L275).

Done.

Check Tables numbering in the text, as it mentions Tables 8 and 9, not provided in the text (probably a typo error).

Done.

Also, check the tables legend and include in the legend of the tables 5 and 6, the scenarios 1 or 2 were analyzed.

Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for replying positively the comments done in an earlier version.

The authors have improved the manuscript significantly, as per suggestions, particularly in  the material and methods section.

Minor corrections: 

L81- In the sentence "The hybrid C-856 is lower, while C-1030 is higher (...)", it seems that some text is missing.

L113- Please move "Table 2" to Line 122. 

L128- Where it reads " by [6] (...)", replace by " by Alexopoulou et al. [6] (...)".

L300- "Alexopoulou (2015)", replace by "Alexopoulou et al. [6]"

Format references as per journal guidelines:

L317- Zhao et al. (2019); L329- Malça (2014); L333- Aguilera (2013)

 

Author Response

Minor corrections: 

L81- In the sentence "The hybrid C-856 is lower, while C-1030 is higher (...)", it seems that some text is missing.

Done. The sentence has been reformulated to improve understanding (L81-83).

L113- Please move "Table 2" to Line 122. 

Done.

L128- Where it reads " by [6] (...)", replace by " by Alexopoulou et al. [6] (...)".

Done.

L300- "Alexopoulou (2015)", replace by "Alexopoulou et al. [6]"

Done.

Format references as per journal guidelines:

L317- Zhao et al. (2019); L329- Malça (2014); L333- Aguilera (2013)

Done. Thank you for the time you spent to conscientiously review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf