Effect of Three Post-Harvest Methods at Different Altitudes on the Organoleptic Quality of C. canephora Coffee

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, this is a very interesting study for the coffee industry. I would however like to point out, that the coffee species referred to in this study is canephora.

In scientific publications the coffee species should be correctly named, i.e. C. Canephora and not as in most cases of this paper as "robusta".

Please inform about the localization of the processing unit, i.e. elevation, day / night temperatures. Were all coffees processed in the sam location, or have the samples been prepared in different processing units. If they have been processed in one single unit, how long have been the transportation times to the unit from each different farm plot?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

• Point 1: First of all, this is a very interesting study for the coffee industry. I would however like to point out, that the coffee species referred to in this study is canephora. In scientific publications the coffee species should be correctly named, i.e., C. Canephora and not as in most cases of this paper as "robusta".

Response to point 1: The term robusta has been replaced by C. canephora. The clarification is appreciated.

• Point 2: Please inform about the localization of the processing unit, i.e., elevation, day / night temperatures. Were all coffees processed in the same location, or have the samples been prepared in different processing units. If they have been processed in one single unit, how long have been the transportation times to the unit from each different farm plot?

Response to point 2: Each farm featured its own their processing units, whose altitudes and temperatures are listed in Table 1. Therefore, no single unit was used. 

We would like to thank the Reviewer for having taken in reviewing our manuscript so thoughtfully. We have carefully taken the comments into consideration in preparing our revision. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The topic of the paper is important because of food chemistry and its practical point of view. Hence this topic falls into the scope of the journal and merits a publication in Beverages. The paper is based on modern and well-selected papers. It is worth to point that it is well-written and the Introduction clearly presents what is the major point of this paper. The results are clearly presented with a rather detailed analysis of the obtained results. It should be noted that the conclusions are justified. 

Appreciating, the effort of the Authors I would recommend minor revision, and some detailed points which should be addressed are listed below.

More information about sensorial analysis should be added.

Are five testers enough for a full sensory analysis?

Author Response

Point 1: More information about sensorial analysis should be added.

Thank you for bringing attention to this. The description of sensory analysis has been improved.

Point 2: Are five testers enough for a full sensory analysis?

There was an unintentional omission in the text indicating that five people performed the sensory analysis at each altitude. Therefore, there were a total of twenty-five testers, as there were five distinct elevations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript describes the variations on the organoleptic quality of two varieties of Coffea canephora (Robusta coffee) depending on their plantation altitude and post-harvest treatment method. The manuscript is interesting and well presented. There are some minor revisions that I suggest here below:

 

Lines 24-25: Would there be a way to express these amounts differently (kg instead of bags)? Or at least precise how many kg are contained in a bag?

Line 31: According to reference number 9, the growing areas would move by 300m UP, not lower. Please correct.

Line 35: Wouldn’t it be ‘previously favorable’ rather than ‘previously unfavorable’?

Lines 50-55: Please briefly introduce the honey and wet processes before these lines, as you did with the dry process in lines 45-47.

Line 72: Please specify that it is 4 different altitudes for each coffee variant so the reader could understand that they are not the same for both. In fact, in this line you mention four altitudes and then it results confusing when the reader finds five different altitudes when arriving to Table 1.

Figure 1: This figure is never mentioned in the text.

Lines 94-95: Here, you write ‘once again’ but you never mentioned a sorting phase before this line. Please correct. Besides, it would be good to briefly explain which kind of sorting is done.

Lines 118-119: Is there a specific reference for the mentioned SCA protocol?

Lines 149-173: Please indicate to which Figure/Table is referring each of these paragraphs.

Line 202: I believe that it should be (12 to 40 m) and not (12 to 80m).

Lines 205-210: This paragraph is almost the same as the previous one. Please remove.

Line 222: Honey from 40 m would also be an exception.

Line 289-290 & 298-300: Similar information is transmitted in these two sentences, but the references are different.

Conclusion section: This paragraph gathers a summary of your results, but I find that the main idea expressed in a simple and quick way is missing, which is: the higher the altitude, the better the coffee & wet processing coffees are preferred.

Lines 326-327: Please remove.

Author Response

 

• Point 1: Lines 24-25: Would there be a way to express these amounts differently (kg instead of bags)? Or at least precise how many kg are contained in a bag?

The sentence has been amended to “The world coffee production up to 2020 was 169.34 million 60-kilogram bags”.

• Point 2: Line 31: According to reference number 9, the growing areas would move by 300m UP, not lower. Please correct.

Thank you for highlighting this.

• Point 3: Line 35: Wouldn’t it be ‘previously favourable’ rather than ‘previously unfavourable’?

Thanks for noticing.

• Point 4: Lines 50-55: Please briefly introduce the honey and wet processes before these lines, as you did with the dry process in lines 45-47.

Information was added.

• Point 5: Line 72: Please specify that it is 4 different altitudes for each coffee variant so the reader could understand that they are not the same for both. In fact, in this line you mention four altitudes and then it results confusing when the reader finds five different altitudes when arriving to Table 1.

The sentence has been amended.

• Point 6: Figure 1: This figure is never mentioned in the text.

The sentence has been amended.

• Point 7: Lines 94-95: Here, you write ‘once again’ but you never mentioned a sorting phase before this line. Please correct. Besides, it would be good to briefly explain which kind of sorting is done.

Manual sorting was carried out in order to exclude overripe or fermenting beans. The sentence has been amended.

• Point 8: Lines 118-119: Is there a specific reference for the mentioned SCA protocol?

The SCAA simply uses the term "cupping protocol". The following reference may be found by following this link:

https://www.scaa.org/PDF/resources/cupping-protocols.pdf

• Point 9: Lines 149-173: Please indicate to which Figure/Table is referring each of these paragraphs.

Thank you for the clarification. The references are included.

• Point 10: Line 202: I believe that it should be (12 to 40 m) and not (12 to 80m).

Corrected.

• Point 11: Lines 205-210: This paragraph is almost the same as the previous one. Please remove.

Removed.

• Point 12: Line 222: Honey from 40 m would also be an exception.

The sentence has been amended.

• Point 13: Line 289-290 & 298-300: Similar information is transmitted in these two sentences, but the references are different.

Corrected.

• Point 14: Conclusion section: This paragraph gathers a summary of your results, but I find that the main idea expressed in a simple and quick way is missing, which is: the higher the altitude, the better the coffee & wet processing coffees are preferred.

Thank you for highlighting this.

• Point 15: Lines 326-327: Please remove.

Deleted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf