Making Aquaponics a Business: A Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-written manuscript that proposed a novel framework as a guide to evaluate the economic feasibility of aquaponic enterprises depending on the revenues, costs and investments needed for the chosen system within its operations, market, and environment. I really liked the concept brought by this manuscript which I have not seen so far in the literature being applied to aquaponics. I totally agree with the authors’ conclusion that I quote “By testing different scenarios of fish or plant species, system type, market prices and strategies will help users make fewer mistakes along the way of creating a successful aquaponics venture. This guide allows experimenting with trial and error which is best done during a planning phase where the costs are much lower than while the system is already running.” So true! Indeed, we do need such framework for aquaponics as proposed here in this manuscript for businesses around the world to thrive. It is worth noting though I was intrigued by one of the authors statement on lines 155-157 “One of the most comprehensive books on aquaponics written by a collegiate of research was used: [27] Aquaponics Food Production System – Goddek et al. 2019”. First of all, the main editor of the referenced book is “Goddek”, who happens to be the senior author signing this manuscript as well. So making such bold statement about his/her own publication in the manuscript may sound as a convenient self-promotion or improper self-citation. I would be careful saying that because it may sound as, if the referred book “Goddek et. Al 2019” is the most comprehensive book on aquaponics”, which, by the way, has a whole chapter discussing the business of aquaponics, why would the authors here need to publish this manuscript about the aquaponics business at all? Overall, the framework proposal for aquaponics seems reasonable, although I think it lacked scientific and technical back up sometimes. For instance, biofloc, carbon source and worms? Not sure about those being heavily used in real commercial operations. If authors are proposing an aquaponics business framework, I would think of guidelines that go by the most replicated and proven systems in the scientific and technical world. Biofloc is not a widespread component of commercial aquaponics. Biofloc for aquaponics has been described in just a few scientific papers that show poor plant growth results, but their commercial application is far from being dead set. I checked the reference used to support the “worms” use in aquaponics, and it turned out to be, again, a chapter in the book Aquaponics Food Production System – Goddek et al. 2019. In that chapter, the authors only hypothesize about a potential use for worms in aquaponics concluding that and I quote “It should be noted that vermi-aquaponics is in its infancy and mainly practiced by hobbyists and in research laboratories.”. For these reasons, in my opinion, it is not proper to include “biofloc” and “worms” in the aquaponics business framework. the authors themselves said on lines 451-452 “By using a framework such as this, investors can have a reliable area of questions in which to ask founding partners.”. If that is the case, an investor could ask someone during a pitch “Hey guys, do you use worms in your system?” and, if the people seeking investment say “No we don’t”, then the investor can say “I’m out… I read in a paper that we should have worms in aquaponics”. I recommend thus a reformulation of the biological component of the proposed framework presenting most practical and realistic technologies for aquaponics. I know that on lines 435-437 authors mentioned “These results therefore need to be interpreted with caution as it only contains broad concepts and does not delve into specifics that are needed. Because of the broadness of concepts, these findings will doubtless be scrutinized”. I totally agree with that, but I still believe that the framework could be more refined, especially because authors concluded that “The intent of this framework is to elucidate ALL the possible elements that can be of risk to the viability of the business.”. So in lines 437-437 authors say that the results are broad and not specific, but then concluded that they presented ALL elements to be considered for aquaponics viability. Wouldn’t it be too ambitious or even misleading to conclude that? I known for sure that those were not authors' intentions, but I'm just trying to provide food for thought here because I truly believe this manuscript has a lot of potential and can be improved to become worthy of publication.

I provided a few additional comments below that should be addressed in a revised version of the manuscript so that it can perhaps be reconsidered for publication.

 

• Line 92 – I think the verb “use” here must be in the past tense
• Lines 98-99 – this statement is not relevant and necessary. I suggest removing it.
• Lines 119-120 – the word “factors” is used twice in the same sentence
• Line 211 and 419 – I suggest the word fingerling instead of youngling.
• Line 244 – Wouldn’t it be “inherent” corruption?
• Line 371 – In table 1, you said that energy is used for radiation (PAR), but I think the correct term is artificial lighting. Table 1 itself seems to be just “floating” between lines 371-373, without any mention in the text.
• Lines 374, 421, 499 – The acronym “RAS” was never defined throughout the text. I think RAS stands for Recirculating Aquaculture System, is that correct? If so, then the use of “RAS system” would be redundant like it happened in line 374.
• Line 220 – UV lights for what? I presume you are talking about uv light filters for water, correct? This information needs to be clarified.
• Line 430. “The framework proposes a skeleton for which to plan all the necessary elements...” Isn’t it redundant to have “framework” and “skeleton” in the same sentence? Aren’t they the same thing? How about this: “The herein proposed framework provides a guideline to plan all the necessary elements…”.
• Line 434 – I think the word aquaponics enterprise sounds better than endeavor here.
• Lines 439-441 – I thought that it was your job to do that in this manuscript, I mean, when you say “To develop a full picture of all the elements, it is recommended that the literature review be thoroughly read and additional studies that might close some knowledge gaps specific to the end-user.”, isn’t it what this manuscript is supposed to be doing?
• Line 447 – Isn’t it the right word “funding”?
• Line 473 – I think that “real-word case studies” sounds better than “real study cases”
• Figure 2. Insects? What kind of insects and why? I think you meant beneficial insects as biological pest control, right?
• You use the words “among others” several times throughout the manuscript. I would suggest removing them all. I believe that the use of “among others” in academic writing have been frowned upon as suggesting lack of clear thought.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the manuscript and the scientific approach of the authors are interesting and fit in the journal's scope.

 

Major relevant literature is properly discussed and critically evaluated.

 

Overall, the paper is good reading and is quite elaborate. Unfortunately, for several reasons, it makes the impression of a draft and not the final version of a manuscript. This is especially true for the Appendix: for the reader, it is not clear what the purpose of this compilation is.

 

Comments

 

Figures 1 and 2 look good but make little sense without proper introductions, explanations, and discussion. The connection between the paper of Brown and Katz (2011) and the scheme in Figure 1 is unclear.

  

Tables in the Appendix need a substantially more detailed introduction and explanation. In addition, they need to be carefully reformatted (with special attention to spacing and capitalization of the entries).

 

I may have missed certain definitions in the paper but for me it is unclear

1) What does the word "references" mean in the titles of Tables A.1-4?

2) In what sense does Table A.1.5. represent an analysis?

3) What do the numbers in parentheses (1) and (2) in the titles of Tables A.1-5 stand for?

4) What do the numbers in square brackets, e.g. [22], etc. in the subtitles of Tables A.1-5 stand for?

5) Columns in Table A.3 list a) Chapters, b) Parts, and c) just numbered entries. Why are these in the same Table and what is the connection between them? Are they related to each other? (Poor spacing and messy capitalization of the entries make this Table very confusing.)

6) Although the manuscript discusses chapters and sections, the sections do not appear in the Tables. Why?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors convincingly enough replied to my technical questions and improved the manuscript accordingly. The authors insisted in maintaining “biofloc” and “worms" in their proposed aquaponics framework, but they explained well the reason why keeping it and fixed the framework figure by adding a legend to clarify that the dotted elements are optional and not required fixed. I think that authors explanations and improvements added in the revised manuscript make it suitable for publication in Water. Therefore I am glad to recommend the revised manuscript for publication.

I found just one small detail to be fixed though:

Line 485 - Change "real-word" to "real-world"

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the manuscript has improved significantly after the revisions: it is now suitable for publication in its current form in the journal WATER.