A Platform for GHG Emissions Management in Mixed Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study introduces an innovative platform designed to manage GHG emissions from mixed farms. It can utilize the Internet of Things in agriculture to monitor and manage emissions from different sources. It is a challenging work. The reviewers felt that there are still parts of this manuscript that need to be revised for better publication.

1.     Overall, the manuscript is a very long and complex read, especially since there are 21 figures in the manuscript, which makes it difficult for the reader to understand effectively. It is recommended that the results, interpretations, and conclusions that can be drawn be succinctly described.

2.     The authors present a great deal of background and definitions of GHGs and research methods in the introduction to this manuscript, with very little on research limitations and the current state of research on similar methods, which requires additional description. The introduction should briefly define the purpose of the work and its significance, should scrutinize the current state of the research field and please highlight controversial and divergent hypotheses.

3.     Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 all illustrate the current status of the yearly rise and major components in greenhouse gases. They can be condensed into a single figure or similar figures can be placed in an appendix.

4.     In Materials and Methods, the picture that introduces the accounting module makes it difficult for the reader to read, please increase the resolution and re-layout. The reviewer's suggestion is to keep the main introduction to the computational framework and add the specific formulas and explanations to the appendix.

5.     In the discussion, please add a discussion of how this study compares to other similar studies; it is not enough to mention “This paper [41] reviews various whole-farm modeling approaches for quantifying and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems, evaluating their strengths, limitations, and the potential for integrating climate change impact simulations and adaptation measures. “

6.     This study is supposed to be on greenhouse gas emissions, why is there a focus on air quality and pollutants, please give more explanation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It's OK.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

1. Overall, the manuscript is a very long and complex read, especially since there are 21 figures in the manuscript, which makes it difficult for the reader to understand effectively. It is recommended that the results, interpretations, and conclusions that can be drawn be succinctly described.

We have moved a significant part of the methodology and figures from the introduction into the two annexes.

 

2. The authors present a great deal of background and definitions of GHGs and research methods in the introduction to this manuscript, with very little on research limitations and the current state of research on similar methods, which requires additional description. The introduction should briefly define the purpose of the work and its significance, should scrutinize the current state of the research field and please highlight controversial and divergent hypotheses.

We have provided additional background research, citing approximately, 10 new works, explaining the current status of Decision Support Systems for GHG calculation in agriculture. We have also, highlighted stakeholder requirements, challenges, limitations and future milestones in the field.

 

3. Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 all illustrate the current status of the yearly rise and major components in greenhouse gases. They can be condensed into a single figure or similar figures can be placed in an appendix.

We have moved said figures into the annex.

 

4. In Materials and Methods, the picture that introduces the accounting module makes it difficult for the reader to read, please increase the resolution and re-layout. The reviewer's suggestion is to keep the main introduction to the computational framework and add the specific formulas and explanations to the appendix.

We have replaced the image with an updated, high-resolution image (figure 2). As suggested, we have moved the calculation methodology (previous sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.1) and relevant figures to the annex.

 

5. In the discussion, please add a discussion of how this study compares to other similar studies; it is not enough to mention “This paper [41] reviews various whole-farm modelling approaches for quantifying and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems, evaluating their strengths, limitations, and the potential for integrating climate change impact simulations and adaptation measures. “

We have added a section to clarify the position of our tool in relation to other works, and highlighted its strengths and limitations with respect to the ones presented in the introduction.

 

6. This study is supposed to be on greenhouse gas emissions, why is there a focus on air quality and pollutants, please give more explanation. 

The proposed GHG platform is a part of an extended approach to increase circularity in mixed farming systems as part of Solution4Farming project.  To achieve this objective, the assessment of various solutions will be made using Life Cycle Analysis which requires an important amount of information, including the ones presented in the paper.      

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research introduces a platform designed to manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in mixed farms. The presented paper is of great quality, however, I have a few remarks and questions:

R1. Some of the provided figures contain text with a too small font, so they are hard to read (see Figures 6, 15, 18, 19, and 20). My recommendation is authors to enlarge the text in the mentioned figures. Also, the use of black colour instead of grey would improve the readability of the diagrams.

R2. The section 4. Discussion begins with a brief literature review. I recommend authors to separate the first part (rows 692 to 721) as a new section Related Works.

Q1. The authors give examples with data from Romania, Finland, Poland and Spain. What is the reason for choosing these countries?

Q2. Did the authors research if the farms' managements are interested in the use of such a platform?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

R1. Some of the provided figures contain text with a too small font, so they are hard to read (see Figures 6, 15, 18, 19, 20). My recommendation is authors to enlarge the text in the mentioned figures. Also, the use of black colour instead of grey would improve the readability of the diagrams.

Figure 6 (now 2) has been replaced. Figures 15 & 18 (now 4 & 7) have been replaced.

Figures 19 and 20 (now 8 & 9) have been resized out of the indentation of the template. I hope this can remain like such, as it is not possible at the moment to change the size of the fonts in the software.

 

R2. The section 4. Discussion begins with a brief literature review. I recommend authors to separate the first part (rows 692 to 721) as a new section Related Works

We have added the suggested subtitle “Related Works”.

 

Q1: The authors give examples with data from Romania, Finland, Poland and Spain. What is the reason for choosing these countries?

The results presented in the paper are obtained in the Solution4Farming project which bring together partners from Romania, Finland, Poland and Spain. Another reason is that in this way are investigated systems from different climate area (from Mediterranean, Continental and Artic), different structure at national level of the farm types (mixed, crops specialized, livestock specialized) and history (2 ex-communist countries). Also, in 2020 the total farms number in those countries represents 57% from the total EU27 farms number (based on EUROSTAT data).

 

Q2. Did the authors research if the farms' managements are interested in the use of such a platform?

In the Solution4farming project we have already performed some meetings with various stakeholders (including farmers) to assess the needs for this type of instrument. Results were encouraging considering also the potential future requests discussed at the EU level concerning a potential emissions trading scheme for agriculture, the recommendations included in the Common Agricultural Policy and in the Farm to Fork strategy.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose to introduce “an innovative platform designed to manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in mixed farms” and “to present … a complex tool that is a support system for decisions associated with reducing the impact of activities in mixed farms on the environment”.  The examination of trends in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was conducted using data from the IPCC report and additional references.

The following comments are provided from the perspective of the reviewer:

1) Although the authors claim to adopt "a strategic approach to developing decision support systems," the provided information only includes a description of the information system and emission calculation formulas. However, it remains unclear how the decision-making process is designed to effectively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a specific farm.

2) In the results section, the authors declare that "the main goal of the Solution4Farming platform is to enable farmers and agricultural entities to understand and manage their greenhouse gas emissions effectively." However, there is no provided explanation on how it is achievable to effectively manage greenhouse gas emissions.

3) It is essential to clearly define the purpose of the article, particularly within the context of the design of the decision support system, the decision-making process, and its overall effectiveness.

4) The results section of the article comprises a description of the Solution4Farming platform but lacks an analysis of various scenarios based on the actual conditions on the farm.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The authors propose to introduce “an innovative platform designed to manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in mixed farms” and “to present … a complex tool that is a support system for decisions associated with reducing the impact of activities in mixed farms on the environment”.  The examination of trends in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was conducted using data from the IPCC report and additional references.

The following comments are provided from the perspective of the reviewer:

1) Although the authors claim to adopt "a strategic approach to developing decision support systems," the provided information only includes a description of the information system and emission calculation formulas. However, it remains unclear how the decision-making process is designed to effectively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a specific farm.

 

The architecture of the proposed platform aims to assist the farmer in decisions regarding the reduction of GHG emissions, depending on the sector he can act on and depending on the current financial strength. The purpose of the platform is to indicate high-level emissions to the farmer (contribution analysis). We have also added sections indicating the methods through which the platform provides said “decision-support” (lines 240 – 253: “contribution analysis, scenario analysis, and progress monitoring. Most tools apply scenario analysis. Additionally, many tools enable progress monitoring, letting users repeatedly apply the tool to the same project and save their inputs for continuous assessment. Other less common methods include benchmarking, action plans, comparative assessment, and knowledge transfer. Comparative tools, provide automatic comparisons between multiple outputs (like graphs or scores) within the same interface (e.g., side by side).”)

 

2) In the results section, the authors declare that "the main goal of the Solution4Farming platform is to enable farmers and agricultural entities to understand and manage their greenhouse gas emissions effectively." However, there is no provided explanation on how it is achievable to effectively manage greenhouse gas emissions.

3) It is essential to clearly define the purpose of the article, particularly within the context of the design of the decision support system, the decision-making process, and its overall effectiveness.

The platform includes the major sources of emissions at the level of a mixed farm, allows the quick and precise calculation of emissions, based on input data from the farm and offers the farmer the opportunity to make decisions based on the history of GHG emissions (progress monitoring – lines 685 - 692) or by modifying the described modules, certain parameters that lead to the reduction of emissions (for example, changing the structure of the animal ration, the use of green energy, the use of other types of vegetable crops – (scenario analysis).

 

 

4) The results section of the article comprises a description of the Solution4Farming platform but lacks an analysis of various scenarios based on the actual conditions on the farm.

In the construction of the platform, all subsectors generating GHG emissions were taken into account based on an exhaustive study at the farm level. The platform allows the calculation of GHG emissions, whenever this is desired, by entering the corresponding values ​​in the modules. The variability of the scenarios that can develop at the level of a farm are reproduced in the plasticity of the platform, creating the possibility to visualize in real time which are the compartments that require restructuring or adaptation to the financial possibilities of the farmer, in order to reduce GHG emissions.As with other DSS, the decision-making process is usually tied to the advice of an expert as explained in the newly added section (lines 275 - 285).