Agronomic, Economic and Environmental Comparative of Different Aeration Systems for On-Farm Composting
and Concepción Paredes 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review is provided in the attached word document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The paper titled "Agronomic, economic and environmental comparative of different aeration systems for on-farm composting" presents a comparative study of two aeration systems for on-farm composting of agro-livestock wastes: pile turning (PW) and combination of turnings with forced aeration (PR). The research is highly interesting, and the issue is pertinent. The text is easy to read, clear, and focused on the relevant information. The introduction provides appropriate context for the study. The research design is appropriate, and the methods and results are well-described, although there are some minor suggestions/corrections that are indicated above.
Abstract:
- A reference to temperature results, as one of the most important parameters in composting, may be added.
Done, see lines 18 and 19.
- The abbreviation for "pile turning" (PW) should be added on line 12 as the first mention.
Done
Introduction section:
- Line 95: Perhaps it would be better to specify the parameters considered regarding the effects of the aeration system on the composting process in accordance with the results presentation sequence, that is: composting process (thermal profile and principal physicochemical and biological parameters of the piles).
Done. See lines 103 and 104
Material and methods section:
It is confusing to understand the combinations of mixtures used in the composting experiment with so many abbreviations. Perhaps a schematic presentation of the composting experiment design could benefit the reader's understanding of the general scheme and some details that may be more easily perceived in that way.
On page 4, a new figure has been included with a schematic presentation of the composting experiment design.
Results section:
- In the first paragraph, perhaps the first mention of the abbreviations PW and PR should be followed or preceded by the full meaning of the abbreviations, just to remind the reader of the two aeration systems under study.
Done. See lines 249 and 250
- The numeration should be corrected in line 442 to "3.4." instead of "2.4."
Done
In line 472 (results) and 476 (conclusions), the term "periodic turnings" was used for the PW abbreviation, although in the abstract, it was referred to as "pile turning" (lines 12, 15, 28). This should be corrected and uniformized throughout the paper to avoid confusion and maintain consistency.
The term "periodic turnings" has been replaced by “pile turning”. See lines 176, 490 and 494
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2251477
Title: Agronomic, economic and environmental comparative of different aeration systems for on-farm composting
The manuscript is about the evaluation of two different methods of composting aeration.
The optimization of composting from agricultural and livestock wastes is relevant to obtain a compost with adequate agronomic value but also environmentally safe and with economic value. So, the topic of the manuscript is relevant since it can provide detailed information about an important step to obtain compost at farm level such as the aeration of the compost piles.
The manuscript is well done, with appropriate methodology, and also with detailed information about the results obtained. The results are well presented and discussed, and conclusions are also well supported by the results.
So, I agree with the publication of the manuscript after some minor revisions:
1. Introduction
Lines 52-57 – Please add more advantages of compost use regarding for example the soil C sequestration and soil health.
Lines 59 - 61 – Please clarify what kind of vegetable wastes did the authors refer, because some wastes are easily decomposed.
Lines 87 - 91 – Please refer some conclusions that are relevant for the hypothesis of this work reported by the references cited in this paragraph.
Line 94 – The manures used in this work are fresh manures, so the authors can refer to them as fresh manures.
2. Materials and methods
Lines103 - 104 – Please clarify if the authors used residues from vegetables and crops other than the pruning residues.
Line130 – The VW is a mixture of what kind of residues?
- Did the authors used any statistical design in the compost experiment?
Line 211 – How did the authors calculated the mean value of each parameter. Did the experiment have replicates?
Author Response
The manuscript is about the evaluation of two different methods of composting aeration.
The optimization of composting from agricultural and livestock wastes is relevant to obtain a compost with adequate agronomic value but also environmentally safe and with economic value. So, the topic of the manuscript is relevant since it can provide detailed information about an important step to obtain compost at farm level such as the aeration of the compost piles.
The manuscript is well done, with appropriate methodology, and also with detailed information about the results obtained. The results are well presented and discussed, and conclusions are also well supported by the results.
So, I agree with the publication of the manuscript after some minor revisions:
- Introduction
Lines 52-57 – Please add more advantages of compost use regarding for example the soil C sequestration and soil health.
This modification has been included in the lines 56 and 57 and referenced to "De Corato, U. Agricultural waste recycling in horticultural intensive farming systems by on-farm composting and compost-based tea application improves soil quality and plant health: A review under the perspective of a circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 139840."
Lines 59 - 61 – Please clarify what kind of vegetable wastes did the authors refer, because some wastes are easily decomposed.
Vegetable residues with a high C/N ratio and difficult to degrade have been specified (see lines 63 and 64)
Lines 87 - 91 – Please refer some conclusions that are relevant for the hypothesis of this work reported by the references cited in this paragraph.
This modification has been included in the lines from 89 to 99
Line 94 – The manures used in this work are fresh manures, so the authors can refer to them as fresh manures.
Done (see line 102)
- Materials and methods
Lines103 - 104 – Please clarify if the authors used residues from vegetables and crops other than the pruning residues.
In this work, the vegetable wastes were composed of residues from different herbaceous and horticultural crops, pruning residues from fruit trees (apricot, cherry and citrus) and non-marketable vegetables and fruits. The vegetable residues of these crops are indicated in the material and methods section (see lines from 112 to 114).
Line130 – The VW is a mixture of what kind of residues?
The vegetable residues used in this work are indicated in page 3, lines from 112 to 114.
- Did the authors used any statistical design in the compost experiment?
In this work, six large and heavy piles were made, since the composting process was carried out on a semi-industrial scale. For this reason, a statistical design was not carried out in the composting experiment with replicas of each pile carried out.
Line 211 – How did the authors calculated the mean value of each parameter. Did the experiment have replicates?
The mean value of each parameter was calculated from the triplicate performed in all the analyses of the samples from the composting piles. This has been indicated in Analytical and statistical methods sub-section, see lines 213 and 214.
