Characterisation of the National Network of Silos and Granaries in Castilla y León, Spain: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This case study is a local study. I don't think it will contribute to universal science. This study is at a level that will be published in national journals in Spain. I believe that publishing it in such a journal with a high impact factor will reduce the quality of your journal. For these reasons, it is not appropriate to publish the article in your journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

sustainability-2181043

REFEREE 1

Ref#1.01: The research study made a case study by examining some existing silos in Spain. This case study will not benefit researchers in various countries around the world. For example, what would the number or capacity of silos in Spain do to me, or to any researcher in the United States, the Netherlands or Brazil? I'm having trouble understanding this. Therefore, this study is mostly of interest to researchers in Spain. For this reason, it is more correct to publish it in a national journal.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your suggestions, which have enabled us to improve the information presented in our manuscript.

Networks of grain storage silos do exist in other countries besides Spain, such as Portugal and Italy. Spain’s grain storage infrastructure was built in the mid-20th century and, although the network has since fallen into disuse, it is now part of the rural landscape as well as being an important component of the national heritage. These silos require proper management so they can be repurposed or preserved. Furthermore, the kind of work we did to inventory silos in Spain can be applied to other kinds of now-abandoned infrastructure that were once a significant part of a country’s rural heritage, like slaughterhouses, flour mills, industrial kilns and mining infrastructure. Repurposing these often-abandoned elements of the national heritage can help spur fresh activity in economically inactive areas.

Ref#1.02: In addition, the subject of the study is extremely far from originality. It is a repetition of routine work. I did not see any new information in the study.  I could not see any statistical analysis work on the available data.

The article’s originality lies in the inventory methodology it proposes and its application of the methodology to a case study. Our review of the state of the art found no international publications proposing a methodology for characterising silos or any other kind of heritage infrastructure. One of this article’s objectives was to design a methodology for inventorying and systematically classifying silos. In addition, as the reviewer rightly points out, the methodology has been applied to a case study of the national network of silos and granaries in Castilla y León, Spain.

Given the sheer amount of information gathered in the inventory stage, it was decided to present the information in two tables, Table S1 and Table S2, both of which are available in Supplementary Materials. Line 143 of the manuscript states that the data were subjected to basic statistical analysis. A new table, Table 4, has been created for the express purpose of summarising the results, expressed as percentages, based on the inventory data given in Table S1.

Ref#1.03:  In addition, I could not see information about which products are stored in these silos and how much is the amount of products stored?

As indicated in Lines 49-50 of the introduction, the silos were primarily built to store wheat, although in some cases they were also used to store barley and even other grains, like oats and rye. These silos were not suitable for storing maize, which generally needs to go through a dryer before it can be stored. This information has been added to the introduction.

Ref#1.04: How many of the silos are made of concrete and how much of steel is not available?

This information is given in Supplementary Materials, Table S1, in the ‘Construction material’ column. There are six CB silos (made of concrete blocks), 107 RB silos (made of reinforced brick), one RC silo (made of reinforced concrete) and nine SS silos (made of sheet steel). Table 4 (newly added) gives a summary of this information in percentage terms.

Ref#1.05: What is the construction year of these silos?

This information is given in Supplementary Materials, Table S1, in the ‘Year’ column. The mean, maximum and minimum are given in Table 4 (newly added).

Ref#1.06: What is the share of the state and commercial companies in these silos?

As stated in the introduction, the silo and granary network used to belong to the state, first through the National Wheat Service (SNT), then through the National Farm Product Service (SENPA) and later through the country’s agricultural guarantee fund, the Fondo Español de Garantía Agraria (FEGA). Since 2004 some of the silos have been auctioned off or directly awarded to companies. Others have been turned over to the towns where they are located. This information is provided in Supplementary Materials, Table S1, in the ‘Ownership’ column, and it is summarised in Table 4 (newly added).

Ref#1.07:  Is the capacity sufficient for the storage of agricultural products produced in Spain? Such questions need to be answered in the study.

Castilla y León currently produces a mean of 3 to 3.5 million tonnes of wheat per year. Bearing in mind that reception silos used to work with a turnover ratio of 3 to 4, and transition and reserve silos and transition macro-silos used to work with a turnover ratio of 5 to 10, the silo network’s storage capacity would have been on the low side. Nevertheless, the network was sized to suit the needs of the mid-twentieth century, when grain production was lower than it is now.

Ref#1.08: The subject of this study brings a lot of innovation to universal science. There is no new information revealed. The authors collected and combined the available information. This type of work is very valuable nationally. But it is not internationally valuable and
innovative. The researcher who wants to get information about this subject in Spain can reach all of them by applying to the relevant institutions.

The study of the state of the art found that there is no official inventory describing silo characteristics. Official information only contains information on location, year of construction, category and construction typology. However, many silo characteristics were modified or adapted at or during construction in response to site conditions. As a result, there is some range of variability amongst silos that supposedly share the same characteristics. Our inventory furnishes information on silos and their characteristics that can only be gathered on site, like ownership, use, state of conservation, storage capacity (t), ground plan, roof shape, tower position, number of cells, shape of cells, cell construction material, position of cell rows, machinery capacity (t/h), weighbridge (t) and railway facilities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors want to tell the development of Spain national network of silos and granaries in Castilla y leon during the period of 1995-2022. This is a very interesting paper. I recommend to accept this paper after minor revision. I hope the authors could give some information about the changes in grain storage technology during the 27 years.

Author Response

sustainability-2181043

REFEREE 2

Ref#2.01: The authors want to tell the development of Spain national network of silos and granaries in Castilla y leon during the period of 1995-2022. This is a very interesting paper. I recommend to accept this paper after minor revision. I hope the authors could give some information about the changes in grain storage technology during the 27 years.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your suggestions, which have enabled us to improve the information presented in our manuscript.

In answer to your question, silo grain storage technology has changed little in the last 27 years. The main improvements are in energy efficiency and the introduction of sensors to monitor grain condition throughout the storage infrastructure. The biggest changes in the national silo network have to do with how farm products are marketed within the framework of the EU’s common agricultural policy and globalisation. National silo networks can become important again; they are strategic elements of infrastructure that can mitigate a country’s dependence on grain imports in adverse scenarios, such as conflicts like the current war in Ukraine, pandemics and blocked trade routes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting topic for the cultural historical and spatial characterization of Castilla y Leon. I would suggest to further elaborate on the potential of a good inventory of the silos also in view of sustainability…. Sustainability is actually barely addressed in the paper, although I can envision the implicit references, but it would benefit the paper if this would be made more explicit.

The paper promises “a new methodology”, but it is unclear what is “new”. If it is a “new” methodology, it is suggested that there are also “old” methodologies, but those are not mentioned and the paper also doesn’t present work on developing a methodology. The methodology used seems rather straight forward (using different sources to make an inventory, group based on characteristics and draw conclusions); so no innovation there. For me the most important innovation lies in the systematic inventory (and possibly it's drawbacks) itself that could be useful for many others… I would suggest to elaborate on that more, than on “proposing a new methodology” which in my opinion just isn’t the topic of the paper.

No references are made to other inventory projects and how those were taken on; what to learn from that, etc. 

Section 2. materials and methods is presenting too little. I.e. table 2 should be in section 2 instead of section 3. Elaborate more on what has been done and particularly why it has been done like that. For example table 2 gives an overview of variables that were used to inventory the 123 silos, but it doesn’t state why those variables are used and why those are relevant. Most of the variables don’t come back in the results section, so they seem not relevant for the paper, where other aspects (eg state of conservation) are mentioned in the discussion an not in the methods section. Please align both.

Basic network versus secondary network: lines 70-72 of the introduction point out that the focus of the paper is on the so called "secondary network", but all over the paper the basic network keeps on coming back. This is confusing for the reader. I would suggest to introduce the existence of a ‘basic network’ and leave it out for the rest of the paper, as indeed the main focus is on the secondary network.

Table 3 and 4 have a column “typology”. It’s not clear from the text, whether this is a grouping made by the authors or this is a typology from literature. Line 130 talks about “all categories”; does this refer to typology (table 3) or to another grouping? What are the typologies about (spatial, period, etc.)?

Why is capacity relevant (table 4)? Please introduce this in the methods section. Same counts for the types of roofs (line 159-164): why is this relevant? Also 3.3 ownership, use and condition as well as 3.4 (line 218 onwards). I’m not doubting the relevance of those topics, but they should be explicitly introduced in the methods section to point at the relevance for this research and consequent paper.

Table 3: what is the relevance of number of silos in Spain; paper is about a region, not about the country. Numbers are not used in the rest of the paper: so suggested to leave out.

Combine table 3 and 4?

The percentages seem to be very (too) precise… As the paper is not about the exact calculations, I would suggest to give rougher numbers…

Photos in figure 6 are not so clear to me. What does it illustrate?

3.3 discusses data that hasn’t been presented before. i.e. the statement that 71,5 % of silos is in good condition can’t be verified from the data of the paper and neither a method used is presented to come to this conclusion.

Line 272 and further. “As explained….”. As far as I can see this hasn’t been addressed in the materials and methods section

Table S2 (line 274). What is that?

English needs to be checked; many small errors.

Copyright of photographic material all lies with authors? If not, indicate. It also seems relevant to indicate the year of the photos taken.

It seems that there is quite a large number of references uses. Difficult to judge whether those are all relevant (and necessary) to the paper. Please take a critical look.

Main conclusion:

-   Interesting and relevant topic

-  Materials and methods section doesn’t address all relevant aspects and should be elaborated on

-   Most content of 3.3 and 3.4 could move to the introduction or “state of the art”

-   Remaining part of 3.3 and 3.4 could form the discussion section where it discusses the outcomes of the inventory as presented in 3.1 and 3.2. This also helps to split results and discussion

-        -  Focus in introduction and discussion/conclusion on relation with “sustainability”

 

Author Response

sustainability-2181043

REFEREE 3

Ref#3.01: Interesting topic for the cultural historical and spatial characterization of Castilla y Leon. I would suggest to further elaborate on the potential of a good inventory of the silos also in view of sustainability…. Sustainability is actually barely addressed in the paper, although I can envision the implicit references, but it would benefit the paper if this would be made more explicit.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your suggestions, which have enabled us to improve the information presented in our manuscript.

The article has been modified to include explicit references to sustainability and the importance of having a solid inventory of silos. The results are shown in two tables, which for size reasons have been provided outside the article itself; please see Table S1 and Table S2 in the ‘Supplementary Materials’ document. The data from Table S1 are summarised in the manuscript in a new table, Table 4.

Ref#3.02 The paper promises “a new methodology”, but it is unclear what is “new”. If it is a “new” methodology, it is suggested that there are also “old” methodologies, but those are not mentioned and the paper also doesn’t present work on developing a methodology. The methodology used seems rather straight forward (using different sources to make an inventory, group based on characteristics and draw conclusions); so no innovation there. For me the most important innovation lies in the systematic inventory (and possibly it's drawbacks) itself that could be useful for many others… I would suggest to elaborate on that more, than on “proposing a new methodology” which in my opinion just isn’t the topic of the paper.

The methodology was created first, to enable the inventory to be conducted. Nevertheless, the ‘Materials and Methods’ section has been rewritten to place special emphasis on the inventory. The review of the state of the art failed to locate any international publications proposing a methodology for characterising silos or any other kind of heritage infrastructure.

Ref#3.03. No references are made to other inventory projects and how those were taken on; what to learn from that, etc. Section 2. materials and methods is presenting too little. I.e. table 2 should be in section 2 instead of section 3.

The study of the state of the art found that there is no official inventory describing silo characteristics. Official information only contains information on location, year of construction, category and construction typology. However, many silo characteristics were modified or adapted at or during construction in response to site conditions. As a result, there is some range of variability amongst silos that supposedly share the same characteristics. Our inventory furnishes information on silos and their characteristics that can only be gathered on site, like ownership, use, state of conservation, storage capacity (t), ground plan, roof shape, tower position, number of cells, shape of cells, cell construction material, position of cell rows, machinery capacity (t/h), weighbridge (t) and railway facilities.

Table 2 has been moved to the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.

Ref#3.04. Elaborate more on what has been done and particularly why it has been done like that. For example table 2 gives an overview of variables that were used to inventory the 123 silos, but it doesn’t state why those variables are used and why those are relevant. Most of the variables don’t come back in the results section, so they seem not relevant for the paper, where other aspects (eg state of conservation) are mentioned in the discussion an not in the methods section. Please align both.

The variables were selected to provide the most relevant information, and they were classified into four categories to ascertain: 1) general points identifying each silo (General features), 2) data for systematically classifying silos according to building morphology (Constructive features), 3) information for evaluating each silo’s potential for reuse or repurposing (Technological facilities) and 4) data on the possibilities of success of proposals for silo preservation or reuse (Socioeconomic aspects).

All variables used in the inventory are listed in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section, in Table 1. The ‘Current condition’ label has been changed to ‘State of conservation’ in Table 1 and in Supplementary Materials, Table S1.

Ref#3.05. Basic network versus secondary network: lines 70-72 of the introduction point out that the focus of the paper is on the so called "secondary network", but all over the paper the basic network keeps on coming back. This is confusing for the reader. I would suggest to introduce the existence of a ‘basic network’ and leave it out for the rest of the paper, as indeed the main focus is on the secondary network.

This has been changed throughout the article to avoid confusing readers.

Ref#3.06. Table 3 and 4 have a column “typology”. It’s not clear from the text, whether this is a grouping made by the authors or this is a typology from literature. Line 130 talks about “all categories”; does this refer to typology (table 3) or to another grouping? What are the typologies about (spatial, period, etc.)?

The term ‘typology’ was established by Spain’s National Wheat Service (Servicio Nacional del Trigo, SNT), which assigned each kind of silo construction a letter according to its form. There are six categories of silos (port silos, reception silos, transition and reserve silos, transition macro-silos, seed selection silos and grain drying silos). Some of these categories contain a number of constructive typologies; for instance, reception silos may be of typology A, B, C, D, etc.

Ref#3.07. Why is capacity relevant (table 4)? Please introduce this in the methods section. Same counts for the types of roofs (line 159-164): why is this relevant? Also 3.3 ownership, use and condition as well as 3.4 (line 218 onwards). I’m not doubting the relevance of those topics, but they should be explicitly introduced in the methods section to point at the relevance for this research and consequent paper.

The variables were selected to provide the most relevant information, and they were classified into four categories: 1) General features, 2) Constructive features, 3) Technological facilities and 4) Socioeconomic aspects. Ownership is an important variable for evaluations of possible reuse or repurposing. Roof shape and the other constructive features are also relevant for producing a systematic, true-to-life classification of silos as actually constructed.

Ref#3.08. Table 3: what is the relevance of number of silos in Spain; paper is about a region, not about the country. Numbers are not used in the rest of the paper: so suggested to leave out.

The point was to show that Castilla y León contains a large number of silos compared to the country’s total. In view of the reviewer’s suggestion, however, it has been decided to eliminate this.

Ref#3.09. Combine table 3 and 4?

The tables have been combined.

Ref#3.10. The percentages seem to be very (too) precise… As the paper is not about the exact calculations, I would suggest to give rougher numbers…

When the inventory data were put through basic statistical analysis, it was decided to express figures in terms of percentages to one decimal place. In view of the reviewer’s suggestion, however, it has been decided to give rougher silo statistics in order to streamline the text.

Ref#3.11. Photos in figure 6 are not so clear to me. What does it illustrate?

The caption for the new Figure 5 (old Figure 6) is ‘The state of conservation of the secondary network silos in Castilla y León is very diverse: the silos located at Tordesillas, Valladolid (a), and Alcañices, Zamora (b), are well preserved, whilst other silos present serious structural deterioration because of leaky roofs (silo at Nava del Rey, Valladolid: c) or lacks in vertical enclosure (silo at Piedrahita de Castro, Zamora: d).

Ref#3.12. 3.3 discusses data that hasn’t been presented before. i.e. the statement that 71,5 % of silos is in good condition can’t be verified from the data of the paper and neither a method used is presented to come to this conclusion.

These data are furnished in Supplementary Materials, Table S1, in the ‘State of conservation’ column. A new Table 4 has also been included with the summarised data. The classification criteria are as follows:

• (1) good condition: The silo is in good condition, i.e., it has no significant construction defects, although its mechanical facilities are in a poor state of repair.
• (2) fair condition: The silo has leaks, has water in its elevator shaft, has broken perimeter fencing, has loose roof tiles, is missing electrical wiring due to burglary, etc.
• (3) unusable: The silo is badly damaged or is even in ruins.
• (4) demolished/collapsed: The silo has been demolished or blown over.

Ref#3.13. Line 272 and further. “As explained….”. As far as I can see this hasn’t been addressed in the materials and methods section

This has been changed and addressed in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.

Ref#3.14. Table S2 (line 274). What is that?

It refers to Table S2, which is provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Ref#3.15. English needs to be checked; many small errors.

The English has been checked by a native expert. We enclose a certificate issued by the translator.

Ref#3.16. Copyright of photographic material all lies with authors? If not, indicate. It also seems relevant to indicate the year of the photos taken.

All photographic material was produced by the authors between 2021 and 2022.

Ref#3.17. It seems that there is quite a large number of references uses. Difficult to judge whether those are all relevant (and necessary) to the paper. Please take a critical look.

Before the paper was written, an extensive bibliographical review was conducted. Only the most pertinent references are included in the manuscript. The citations included will enable readers to find further information on all aspects covered by this paper.

Ref#3.18. Main conclusion:

-   Interesting and relevant topic

-  Materials and methods section doesn’t address all relevant aspects and should be elaborated on

-   Most content of 3.3 and 3.4 could move to the introduction or “state of the art”

-   Remaining part of 3.3 and 3.4 could form the discussion section where it discusses the outcomes of the inventory as presented in 3.1 and 3.2. This also helps to split results and discussion

-  Focus in introduction and discussion/conclusion on relation with “sustainability”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the suggestions made, the article was developed sufficiently.