Potential for Farmers’ Cooperatives to Convert Coffee Husks into Biochar and Promote the Bioeconomy in the North Ecuadorian Amazon
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled, “Promoting bioeconomy through the conversion of agro-residues into biochar in the North Ecuadorian Amazon? Insights from the integration of pyrolysis facilities in farmer’s organizations” presents an interesting case analysis of the possible implementation of pyrolysis technology for the production of biochar in four communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. It examines the policies of the region that influence the management of agro-residues, compares technologies for carbonization of agro-residents to a guideline for sustainable biochar production, considers links between this production and the nexus, and conducts a SWOT analysis of the implementation of the pyrolysis approach. While this paper is interesting, it is lacking in theoretical framing and focus. Overall, there are two main weaknesses that need to be revised in order for this paper to be accepted:
First, the theoretical framing is lacking. What is the main body of literature you are pulling from? What is the argument of the paper? The "so what" is lacking and there needs to be a clear explanation of the foundation from which this research is based. And how can we generalize from this studies to others and/or to the body of theory? Why does this matter outside of the specific case(s) you study? The findings from this research also need to be connected back to the literature so that it is clear how this contributes towards the advancement of theory and/or application beyond just this specific case.
Second, you include a lot of different comparisons and methodologies here—policy analysis, examinations of biochar technologies, comparison to the Nexus and to other domains, and SWOT analysis—which makes the paper difficult to follow and causes the reader to lose track of the purpose of this research. I suggest that the authors either (a) pair down the analyses to the specific ones that address the research question or (b) giving greater rationale for why you choose to do all these analyses together (as oppose to simply selecting one of two analyses). Furthermore, explicitly stating the purpose of your research paper and reach question(s) would help guide your decisions in this matter and improve the organization of the overall paper.
Beyond these general comments, the comments below pertain to specific sections:
INTRODUCTION
The introduction lacks a strong theoretical framing. The structure of the introduction is sufficient—describing the Amazon case to emphasize its uniqueness, explaining the local bioeconomy, and describing the biochar technology—but it is not clear from which body of literature this builds off of and/or towards which body of literature it contributes. Greater depth of the background literature that is implemented here and a clear description of the theoretical contribution would be helpful.
Please describe what you mean by "Nexus approach." While the food-energy-water nexus or the land-water-energy nexus are increasingly large concepts and literatures, the term "Nexus" itself needs better specification as to what you are describing, as it simply implies the interconnection of resources. Increased citations of the specific conceptualization of the “Nexus” that you are using are also needed.
The statement of purpose of the paper is unclear. What is the purpose of this research? What is the research question it seeks to address? Why did you perform these tasks? It seems like a list of tasks completed (characterizing the post-harvest process, examining policies, determining availability of technologies, description of management, etc) without a unifying reason. Explicitly stating the goal of the paper and its contribution to the literature would be helpful to the reader.
Lines 38-41: The sentences are awkwardly written. Consider combining the sentences for better grammar.
Line 93: Consider changing “getting relevant” to “becoming increasingly more relevant.”
Line 107: This sentence is awkwardly written and difficult to understand.
METHODOLOGY
A description of the data used (and the participatory action methods used to obtain that data) would be helpful. While you're mentioned literature reviews and policy analysis, it's not clear where the empirical data for the paper is coming from. Please provide a description of the of the empirical data collected (e.g., the participant selection criteria, data collection process, data analysis process) from the participatory action engagements.
Study region: Some of the detail that describes the case in the introduction can be moved to the "study region" section. This would allow the introduction to focus on the theoretical framing and theoretical contribution without becoming distracted by the details of the case there. Additionally, why were these four cases selected? What makes them similar? Or if they are different, what is being compared across them? Please describe the case selection process.
Figure 1: Could you make the numbers larger or zoom into the map more? It's hard to see exactly where the sites are located.
Policy analysis: Consider rephrasing lines 172-173 to include more about how the policy analysis was conducted, instead of simply listing the two laws that are relevant.
Biochar applications: If the Nexus concept is the theoretical framing used in the paper, the domains (and the accompanying literature) should be addressed in the introduction/background literature review. Additionally, it would be important to specify why (using theoretical support) you chose to consider the cross dimensions of waste, soils, water, and energy (instead of simply the land-water-energy nexus). Please provide greater clarity—preferably in the background section, but potentially here in the methodology section if needed—about your use of the Nexus.
Biochar applications: In line 200, what did you consult these databases for? How did you explore the resource integrations between the Nexus and biochar? Greater explanation of the process of analysis is needed in the methodology.
Biochar applications: This is a large number of cross-sector resources to consider, in combination with the Nexus recourses. How are all of these cross-sections relevant to your research question? It seems like you include a lot of information and considerations, but it may not all be relevant to the goal of this research/the research question. Please consider either reducing the number of cross-integrations that are considered or providing clear explanation as to why each of these resource integrations were chosen and how examining all of them is needed for the case analysis.
Line 178: Change “applies for combustion” to “applies to combustion” for better grammar.
Line 196: “It is explored” is awkwardly written; consider revising for grammar.
Line 227: Change “systematical review” to “systematic review” for better grammar.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Information from the first sentence (line 233-235) should be included in the study site description.
Figure 2 & 3: These photos do not add to the results and are not needed.
Policies and standards: First, it would be helpful to add a table that lists the names and descriptions of the policies and regulations that were examined. Please consider adding a table of the policies and regulations. Second, the “policies and standards linked with the energetic use of agro-residues in Ecuador” section seems to simply provide a description of several policies and regulations with how they influence biochar production. It might be helpful to rearrange this section to first describe the policies that hinder biochar and then provide the ones that support it.
Technological alternatives: Similar to the last section, using a table to compare the technologies to the six criteria from table 1 would allow the reader to visually see which technologies meet or exceed the conditions from table 1 and which do not. You can also use colors (e.g., blue for cells where a technology meets the condition and red for where a technology does not) to add a more visual component to the table.
Figure 3: The figure with the flow chart is mislabeled; there are two figures labeled “figure 3.”
Table 2: The second column, “effect attributed to the use of biochar,” would be easier to read with the content in bullets. Consider changing.
Please explain how the selected “domains relevant for the NEA” are actually relevant. Why did you choose these additional domains? How do they add to your results over just the Nexus comparison.
I don't fully see how you're connecting to the nexus in the results. The Nexus implies an integrated resource system where there are trade-offs, relationships, and synergies between the three resources—simply saying that biochar can be used in soil, water, and energy is not actually a nexus approach but simply just a comparison of biochar to other resources. Are you saying that biochar can help address the synergies between the resources? Or that it is imbedded in all three? Please consider the integration of the system, not the resources independently, in your consideration of biochar in the nexus in the discission.
Line 282: Change “husks are rich” to “husks are being” for better grammar.
Line 293: Change “lixiviation” to “leaching” for better grammar.
Line 425: Change “prevent” to “preventing” for better grammar.
CONCLUSION
The main finding of your research—that famers in NEA would benefit from the implementation of the pyrolysis technology as the approach to biochar production—seems a little too simplistic. Why does this matter? How does this relate back to the larger discussion on biochar and to the theoretical literature? I think there's a little more that should be added into this discussion and/or conclusion to emphasize the value of this finding to the academic and research audience.
Line 815-816: How are these 4 cases "representative" of the over 5,000 smallholders? Do they have certain characteristics that are the same across the majority of the 5,000? Are they selected because of particularly unique characteristics? Please provide details.
Finally, there are numerous grammatical errors and poorly worded sentences throughout the manuscript. I have noted several here, but I encourage the authors to thoroughly read the manuscript for editing and receive feedback from a native English speaker if necessary.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
English language has also been checked.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author´s.
Many thanks for Your good overview article.
In general, it may be good to give some more detailed numbers to emphasize Your results and conclusions, at least for Your cases.
Tabel 1 Line 170 point 6: Can You add some more details about the physical and chemical properties You mean?
Line 298: please check newest IPCC results accordingt to methane factor
Line 407: You wrote carbon dioxid - shouldn´t it be carbon monoxid as air polluting flue gas?
Line 419: isn´t it 1200 t/year and not kg?
Line 658: 3.3 that
Best regards.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
English language has been also corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper describes the weaknesses and strengths of a valorization process based on pyrolysis of cocoa and coffee waste generated in small farms in Ecuador. The manuscript is well written and include contrasted information, but, basically from a theoretical point of view. I miss a quantitative balance on the pyrolysis process and a cycle life analysis that would allow a decision on the possibility and interest to carry out a pilot plant study. Moreover, I am worried to the use of European guidelines as an actual example of policy to regulate the production and use of biochar in Ecuador, is that approximation realistic?
The following comments address some comments and/or questions to be considered by the authors in the case that they are interested to include quantitate information to the manuscript:
- Information on the wastes production from the selected farms in required. Production changes versus seasonal period. Farm’s size. Storage capacity. Facilities closed to the farms. Inversion capacity. Operation costs. Market costs. Transport necessities.
- Information on the disadvantages of the pyrolysis could be incorporated in a table (see Table 1).
- A tentative design of the pyrolysis process at pilot plant scale would add value to the manuscript. It can be done from the idea developed in lines 510-514.
- The information of Table 2 is, again, descriptive. The readers can not decided about the best used of the biochar. These options could be analysed for a specific location. Depending on the selected biochar use their production could be less or more supporting.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
The english language has been also corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled, “Promoting bioeconomy through the conversion of agro-residues into biochar in the North Ecuadorian Amazon? Insights from the integration of pyrolysis facilities in farmer’s organizations” presents an interesting case analysis of the possible implementation of pyrolysis technology for the production of biochar in four communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. After revisions, the manuscript is much improved. The revised sections provide greater clarity of the purpose, novelty, and rationale of the study, overcoming concerns about the scientific merit of the study. There are still several minor grammar mistakes that should be fixed; some are provided below, but a complete grammar check is recommended.
Line 510: Capitalize South America
Line 891-892: Change to "It identified" instead of "It were identified"
Line 1605: Remove “Nexus” from the caption on table 4
Line 3161: Change farmer’s to farmers’
Line 3191: Change privates to private
Line 3192-3193: Change "It is worth to highlight" to "It is worth highlighting"
Author Response
The authors paid a granmar review service. The final version of the manuscript has been completely reviewed by a native English speaker. All the changes made cna be consulted in the track changes version of the manuscript attached to this submission.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
After reading the authors' reponses, I have decided to reccommend the acceptation of the manuscript in the present form.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments on this manuscript.
