The Cost-Benefits and Risks of Using Raffia Made of Biodegradable Polymers: The Case of Pepper and Tomato Production in Greenhouses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Although the manuscript has some extent novelty, the results and discussion section are yet to improve with essential clarity.

 Abstract line 28: The recovery period was 18.50 and 13.45 years for tomato and pepper, respectively. How to calculate this? It was not found in the methods as well as the results section.

Line 176: What does it mean the subsection here?

Please check the line numbers 420-421.

Author Response

-Abstract line 28: The recovery period was 18.50 and 13.45 years for tomato and pepper, respectively. How to calculate this? It was not found in the methods as well as the results section.

It was calculated by dividing the sum of all investments made during the useful life of the greehouse () by the average annual profit (F): (see in PDF Attached)

-Line 176: What does it mean the subsection here?

We have put the correct name: “Incomes”

-Please check the line numbers 420-421.

Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations on your research reaching this level in the publishing process. I am addressing both the positive aspects and the issues to be addressed in my comments below. Please know that these comments are my opinion as a reviewer, and I respectfully put those forth for you to consider in your revision. They are in no way meant to take anything away from the hard work and rigor you have already put into the research and manuscript development process.

Positive aspects of the manuscript:

1. The manuscript is generally well-written, logical to follow, easy to read, grammatically correct, and organized logically.

2. This research addresses an existing gap in the literature and is relevant to a product development opportunity in the tomato and pepper industry.

3. The introduction does a good job of referencing literature regarding the use of plastics-based inputs in the industry and in telling the story of why this research is needed (find a more sustainable option for training the plants).

4. The objectives of the research are a logical end to the needs of the vegetable industry and its need to be more cost effective to ensure long-term viability of the alternative productive systems, respectively.

5. The literature reviewed and contained in the manuscript is appropriate for the topic, reinforces the need for this research, and up to date.

6. The methods are applicable to the research objectives being addressed. NPV and IRR analyses are a welcome addition to the literature, which has focused primarily on payback analyses in the past. Also, the use of OWA methods is a superb application of this tool.

7. The results are presented in an orderly and logical manner and adequately describe the analyses conducted. The tables and figures are easy to follow, and the titles/captions are complete so that they "stand alone" from the narrative.

Suggestions to consider in your revision:

A photograph that shows the alternatives in use in the greenhouse would be a nice addition to the manuscript.

Some of the table titles need to be more descriptive to understand their content.

 

Author Response

I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of Jan 12^th, 2022, Ref. manuscript Ms. horticulturae-1540863), we are now re-submitting a new version (R2) of our work “The cost-benefits and risks of use raffia made of biodegradable”

 

We agreed with the suggested changes and comments, and therefore we included here a point by-point letter of response to the reviewer and we have added a text highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

Response to reviewer´s comments:

 

-Some of the table titles need to be more descriptive to understand their content.

We have added to table 3 and 4 “The opinion is expressed in triplets (a,b,c) bein a, b and c the lowest, most possible value and the highest expected value”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The assessed work entitled: "The cost-benefits and risks of use raffia made of biodegradable polymer: the case of pepper and tomato crops under greenhouses" analyzes interesting aspects of the advantages and disadvantages of using plastics in horticulture and the related risks, hence it deserves for publication. However, the authors did not avoid mistakes, therefore the work should be improved before it is published.

Here are the detailed comments:

• The introduction of the work should better justify the research undertaken.
• Lack of a clearly stated goal of the work, which should be at the end of the introduction to work.
• The presented research should also include an alternative research hypothesis to the null hypothesis, and then this hypothesis should be verified later in the paper.
• Subchapter 2.1. "Material" requires supplementing because not all assumptions are clear and unambiguous, and there is no description of the test conditions, and these have no less impact on the yield than agrotechnical conditions.
• The section 2.2 "Economic study" is extensively described, and the Authors deserve praise for it, but there is no description of the statistical methods used. Using only the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation does not make it possible to state the significance of differences, e.g., between the observation dates. Two-way ANOVA or MANOVA analysis can be successfully used here
• There is no discussion at the work, or it is only partially treated in chapter 3. "Results"
• The work does not contain a chapter "Conclusions" or "Summary". They should be formulated.
• The literature should also be supplemented with the latest items from the last 3 years and used in the introduction and discussion.

Author Response

I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of Jan 12^th, 2022, Ref. manuscript Ms. horticulturae-1540863), we are now re-submitting a new version (R2) of our work “The cost-benefits and risks of use raffia made of biodegradable”

 

We agreed with the suggested changes and comments, and therefore we included here a point by-point letter of response to the reviewer and we have added a text highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

Response to reviewer´s comments:

 

-The introduction of the work should better justify the research undertaken.

Risk is introduced in agriculture using a discount rate higher than the risk-free rate [10,11]. However, recent studies in agriculture used the decoupled net present value, based on the incorporation to the study of all the risks inherent to the crop, using the risk-free rate as the discount rate [12]. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of all the existing risks in a crop is required

 

-Lack of a clearly stated goal of the work, which should be at the end of the introduction to work.

We have added: “Consequently, the objective of this work is to estimate the risk of breakage of biode-gradable raffia. For this, a survey has been carried out among farmers who have used this type of raffia to estimate the percentage of weekly breakages. Different aggregators are proposed to improve the quality of the results obtained. Finally, the annualized yield of the crops with the different materials used, as well as the recovery period and the current net value.”

-The presented research should also include an alternative research hypothesis to the null hypothesis, and then this hypothesis should be verified later in the paper.

We have proposed in the text: “the hypothesis that we put forward in this study is that the use of biodegradable raffia allows a positive annualized yield”

-Subchapter 2.1. "Material" requires supplementing because not all assumptions are clear and unambiguous, and there is no description of the test conditions, and these have no less impact on the yield than agrotechnical conditions.

We have improved the description of the test conditions. Soil, irrigation, temperature, experimental design, harvest.

-The section 2.2 "Economic study" is extensively described, and the Authors deserve praise for it, but there is no description of the statistical methods used. Using only the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation does not make it possible to state the significance of differences, e.g., between the observation dates. Two-way ANOVA or MANOVA analysis can be successfully used here

In order to adequately capture the uncertainty inherent in the experts' responses, fuzzy logic has been used. In this way, the average values and the entire range of values provided through triangular fuzzy numbers are treated appropriately. In order to show their variability, the aggregation results have been shown using various aggregators such as Ordered Weighted Averages (OWAs), arithmetic means, probabilities and Ascending Ordered Weighted Averages (AOWAs). In other works, this information has been treated using ANOVA in a fuzzy environment as in "J.M. Brotons, M.E. Sansalvador (2020). The relation between corporate social responsibility certification and financial performance: An empirical study in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 27 (3), 1465-1477 ". However, we believe that such analysis, due to its complexity, is not appropriate for treatment in this article.

-There is no discussion at the work, or it is only partially treated in chapter 3. "Results"

We have improved the discussion in “results and discussion” section

-The work does not contain a chapter "Conclusions" or "Summary". They should be formulated.

The chapter conclusions is presented as:

Current horticultural production systems use many synthetic materials such as polyethylene. An example of this is raffia, whose removal is extremely difficult, which is why the present study analyzed the economic implications of its replacement with biodegradable polymers. The main conclusions obtained are the following:

It is of particular importance to determine the final percentage of plantation breakages and the date of their breakage since the earliest breakages generate a more significant loss than those that occur at the end of the season.

The breaks were higher in tomatoes than in peppers, with the compostable biopolymer being the treatment that showed lower breaks in both cases. On the contrary, cellulose was the one that presented a higher percentage of breakages in both crops.

The economic risk of breakage was higher in tomatoes than peppers and cellulose, followed by cellulose plus Kraft paper. The most significant risk was concentrated in the central weeks of harvesting, so the strategies must be aimed not only at reducing breakages but also at increasing the temporary duration of the materials.

The incorporation of biodegradable raffia reduced the profit of the farms since its price was higher, and they present the risk of breakage, although there was no cost associated to the removal of the raffia. Cellulose was the most affected material, with the compostable biopolymer having a more favorable behavior than the control.

Productivity indicators were affected by lower profits. In spite of this, the IRR was negative for cellulose in tomatoes, as the lower benefits did not allow the initial investment to be recovered until 30.10 years

-The literature should also be supplemented with the latest items from the last 3 years and used in the introduction and discussion.

We have added some new references

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the revised manuscript, the authors carefully addressed the raised questions and concerns. Overall, the manuscript reads well, has clarity, and communicates the work of the authors. In my opinion, this manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal. 

Author Response

Thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The authors of the work entitled : "Costs, benefits and risks of using raffia made from biodegradable polymer: the case of growing peppers and tomatoes under greenhouses" have made sufficient corrections and additions to the work. In the current version, the work is suitable for printing.

Author Response

I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript

Yours sincerely,

Josefa Lopez