Comment on Verteramo Chiu, L.J.; Gomez, M.I. A Tale of Two Strawberries: Conventional and Organic Open-Field Production in California. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14363

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The commentary on the article "Conventional and Organic Open-Field Production in California" in Sustainability 15 is an example of much-needed scientific debate in the current time. The authors pointed out shortcomings and errors in the study, including the omission of fumigation in the conventional system and incorrect calculation of the impact of fertilizers.

In my opinion, these two remarks are absolutely valid and should be fully agreed upon.

 

Author Response

We very much appreciate the reviewer's positive comments. No change was made accordingly since the reviewer did not request a revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this comment article, the authors pointed out two aspects as major drawbacks of the published article by Verteramo & Gomez (2023), one of which is the lack of analysis on the chemical fumigation in the conventional strawberry production, and the other one of which is the analytical result of manure use in the organic strawberry production.

The former concern is reasonable and should have been analyzed accordingly before the publication. However, the sentences “Fumigants may be eliminated in California……. ………beneficial microbes in the soil (Dangi et al., 2017)” are irrelevant to the published article.

Regarding the latter concern, the authors' point that manure is rarely used in organic strawberry production in California is noteworthy. However, providing additional literature support would strengthen this argument. The authors also highlight the difference in nitrogen mineralization rates between raw poultry manure and composted poultry manure, citing Geisseler et al. (2020). While this claim is also noteworthy, it should be considered in future studies.

Every study has its limitations, and LCA is not an exception. The LCA, in which secondary and tertiary data are collected, is always subject to such limitations. However, considering the significance of fumigants in conventional strawberry production, addressing this factor in the published article would have provided a more accurate and comprehensive analysis.

Author Response

We very much appreciate the reviewer's comments on improving our manuscript.

Comment: “The former concern is reasonable and should have been analyzed accordingly before the publication. However, the sentences “Fumigants may be eliminated in California……. ………beneficial microbes in the soil (Dangi et al., 2017)” are irrelevant to the published article.”

Response: We disagree with the reviewer’s comment that these statements are irrelevant to the published article. The authors evaluated “Human carcinogenic toxicity, " “Human non-carcinogenic toxicity,” and “Terrestrial ecotoxicity” in this paper using LCA (see Table 2). Although these sentences may not be particularly relevant to the LCA itself, these facts would provide a larger context of the fumigant toxicity issue in California, which is lacking in the paper. As the reviewer pointed out, LCA has limitations and adding these sentences will inform readers about this critical facts and background information regarding fumigant usage in California.

Comment: “Regarding the latter concern, the authors' point that manure is rarely used in organic strawberry production in California is noteworthy. However, providing additional literature support would strengthen this argument.”

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We added a reference below to strengthen our argument. This reference states, “Non-composted manure is a source of human pathogens and should not be used in strawberry fields.” (page 1).

California Strawberry Commission, 2005. Food Safety Program. California Strawberry Commission, Watsonville, CA, p. 94. https://caff.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Strawberry-GAPs-FSP_English.pdf

Comment: The authors also highlight the difference in nitrogen mineralization rates between raw poultry manure and composted poultry manure, citing Geisseler et al. (2020). While this claim is also noteworthy, it should be considered in future studies.

Response: We believe that this factor should be considered when selecting an appropriate organic amendment for this paper's LCA analysis, not only in future studies.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that Drs Muramoto and Bolda's observations and comments on the article by Verteramo and Gomez (2023) are appropriate. Furthermore, Drs. Muramoto and Bolda’s comments included relevant references to the research, and I consider their arguments to be coherent, balanced and compelling.

Author Response

We very much appreciate the reviewer's positive comments. No change was made accordingly since the reviewer did not request a revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I completely agree with you. The chemical fumigation of straw, the labor and energy for applying, removing, and disposing of the TIF tarp should be included in the LCA analysis for the conventional systems. The article ‘A Tale of Two Strawberries: Conventional and Organic Open-Field Pro-duction in California’ should be corrected.

Author Response

We very much appreciate the reviewer's positive comments. No change was made accordingly since the reviewer did not request a revision.