the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Oct 2023
Organic Matter Database (OMD): Consolidating global residue data from agriculture, fisheries, forestry and related industries
Abstract. Agricultural, fisheries, forestry and agro-processing activities produce large quantities of residues, by-products and waste materials every year. Inefficient use of these resources contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and non-point pollution, imposing significant environmental and economic burdens to society. Since many nations do not keep statistics of these materials, it has not been possible to accurately quantify the amounts produced and potentially available for recycling. Therefore, the objectives of the present work were to provide: (1) definitions, typologies and methods to aid consistent classification, estimation and reporting of the various residues and by-products; (2) a global organic matter database (OMD) of residues and by-products from agriculture, fisheries, forestry and related industries; and (3) preliminary estimates of residues and by-products potentially available for use in a circular bio-economy. To the best of our knowledge, the OMD is the first of its kind consolidating quantities and nutrient concentrations of residues and by-products from agriculture, fisheries, forestry and allied industries globally. The OMD and its associated products will be continuously updated as new production data are published in FAOSTAT, and this information is expected to contribute to evidence-based policies and actions in support of sustainable utilization and the transition towards a circular economy. The estimates in OMD are available only at the national level. Due to the lack of uniform methodology and data across countries, it was difficult to accurately estimate the quantities of all agricultural, fisheries and forestry residue and by-products. Therefore, we strongly recommend investment in the inventory of agricultural, fisheries and forestry residues, by-products and wastes for use in a circular bio-economy and as amendments.
- Preprint
(724 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-288', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Nov 2023
reply
Review of “Organic Matter Database (OMD): Consolidating global residue data from agriculture, fisheries, forestry and related industries” by Sileshi et al.
ESSD-2023-288
The authors carried out an interesting topic aiming at unifying the definitions, typologies, and methods of residues and estimating global organic matter database of residues. However, despite its valuable goals, several critical limitations significantly curtail its application and value. The oversimplified methodology, overbroad definition, and unclear use of residues pose considerable constraints. The current version appears more suited as a FAO report or a methodological document. Further improvements are essential before considering it for publication in ESSD, as detailed below.
1. Ambiguity in objectives: This paper focuses on estimating a global organic matter database of residues from diverse production systems. However, it predominantly emphasizes soil application of residues as the effective way, with recurrent mentions of soil fertility, soil health, and soil amendment. While this approach might suit some residues, the recommendation to uniformly transfer all residues for soil application neglects their multifaceted existing uses. Lots of these residues have already been used in a variety of effective ways, such as feed and bioenergy. I couldn't agree with the recommendation for making use of all kinds of residues for soil application without considering the practical efficiency.
2. Limitations in Database Applicability
- Oversimplified methodology. The methodology applied seems overly simplistic and general, overlooking the difference between countries and over time. For example, the total agro-processing by-product of barley is calculated by multiplying barley product with 0.29 for all countries and all years. Another example is manure production, which varies substantially due to many factors such as species, feed, and environment. Using average manure excretion rates introduces substantial biases. I would suggest using regional and country-specific parameters, at least for the major producers, and publishing these parameters.
- Overbroad definition. The residue defined in this paper is too broad for different products. For example, the residue of meat processing by-products is simply defined as the rest part of an animal by excluding carcasses and hides/skins. However, different parts of the residue such as head, feet, fat, and blood can be used in a variety of ways. I would suggest further splitting the residues into finer categories for more accurate estimations and insights into their varied utilization.
- Unclear use of residues. Residues from different sectors can be used differently. Some of the residues have already been effectively utilized as fertilizer, biogas, feed, etc. The paper overlooks the diverse and existing effective uses of residues. I think it would be more valuable to provide the estimates on those unused or wasted residues. I would suggest estimating the share of different uses of each residue.
3. Inclusion of residue quality: I would suggest adding the quality of the residues such as carbon and nutrients content along with quantity. Such data would add depth and clarity to readers. It is difficult for readers to understand the values of tonnes of fishery residues. It is also difficult to compare the values of residues among different products by using quantity.
4. I would suggest re-organizing the overall structure of this paper to make different sections to be closer connected and easier to follow.
- Introduction: I would suggest introducing other uses of residues. The current content emphasizes too much on the importance of residues in soil amendments via crop residue burning, synthetic fertilizer use, and a combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Without introducing other uses, readers may think the goal of this paper in utilizing residues is for soil fertility. The characteristics of residues such as lignin and polyphenol contents discussed in line 91-108 seems irrelevant to this section. I would suggest removing them or moving them to discussion.
- Methods: I couldn’t find any results and supplementary database of carbon and nutrients of residues described in lines 147-158 and Table 1.
- Results: The oversimplified methodology makes the comparison of residues between countries meaningless. Since the uniform parameters were applied to all countries, the difference in residue reflects the differences in production among countries.
- Discussion: I feel the discussion section is disconnected from the previous context. I would suggest adding some discussions about the different shares of residues by countries and regions, as well as the difference of uses in residues across regions and countries. For example, comparing maize and soybean residues against sugar by-products in North America could add depth.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-288-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sileshi W Gudeta, 03 Jan 2024
reply
Review of “Organic Matter Database (OMD): Consolidating global residue data from agriculture, fisheries, forestry and related industries” by Sileshi et al.
ESSD-2023-288
The authors carried out an interesting topic aiming at unifying the definitions, typologies, and methods of residues and estimating global organic matter database of residues. However, despite its valuable goals, several critical limitations significantly curtail its application and value. The oversimplified methodology, overbroad definition, and unclear use of residues pose considerable constraints. The current version appears more suited as a FAO report or a methodological document. Further improvements are essential before considering it for publication in ESSD, as detailed below.
We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and suggestions. We have responded to all comments briefly, but we will address all comments in detail in the revised manuscript. Our responses are indicated in italic font under each comment.
- Ambiguity in objectives: This paper focuses on estimating a global organic matter database of residues from diverse production systems. However, it predominantly emphasizes soil application of residues as the effective way, with recurrent mentions of soil fertility, soil health, and soil amendment. While this approach might suit some residues, the recommendation to uniformly transfer all residues for soil application neglects their multifaceted existing uses. Lots of these residues have already been used in a variety of effective ways, such as feed and bioenergy. I couldn't agree with the recommendation for making use of all kinds of residues for soil application without considering the practical efficiency.
Response: We agree with the reviewer that many of these residues are already being used in a variety ways. Our intention was not to recommend use of all kinds of residues for soil application. Although a large body of literature exists on the value of agricultural residues as soil amendments and in maintaining soil carbon, their use has often been neglected in policy circles. Information is also not systematically collected on the production and use of agricultural residues as soil amendments at the national or global level. Therefore, this wark focused on that aspect to raise awareness about the potential use of agricultural residues for soil amendment. In the revised manuscript we will further clarify the objectives. We will also highlight the other alternative uses of the various categories of residues when revising the manuscript.
- Limitations in Database Applicability
- Oversimplified methodology. The methodology applied seems overly simplistic and general, overlooking the difference between countries and over time. For example, the total agro-processing by-product of barley is calculated by multiplying barley product with 0.29 for all countries and all years. Another example is manure production, which varies substantially due to many factors such as species, feed, and environment. Using average manure excretion rates introduces substantial biases. I would suggest using regional and country-specific parameters, at least for the major producers, and publishing these parameters.
Response: We totally agree with the reviewer the methodology we used does not account for difference between countries and changes over time. This is because we did not have information on country level residue product ratios or other conversion factors for agro-processing residues. Similarly, regional or country-specific parameters are lacking for manure excretion rates. The methodology we applied has been used in scientific publications. In the revised manuscript, we will highlight this as a limitation of this work. Wherever available we will also use regional and country-specific parameters for the major producers. We will also publishing those parameters Wherever available.
- Overbroad definition. The residue defined in this paper is too broad for different products. For example, the residue of meat processing by-products is simply defined as the rest part of an animal by excluding carcasses and hides/skins. However, different parts of the residue such as head, feet, fat, and blood can be used in a variety of ways. I would suggest further splitting the residues into finer categories for more accurate estimations and insights into their varied utilization.
Response: We totally agree with the reviewer regarding the broad definitions. In the revised manuscript we will further split the residues into finer categories as much as possible.
- Unclear use of residues. Residues from different sectors can be used differently. Some of the residues have already been effectively utilized as fertilizer, biogas, feed, etc. The paper overlooks the diverse and existing effective uses of residues. I think it would be more valuable to provide the estimates on those unused or wasted residues. I would suggest estimating the share of different uses of each residue.
Response: We totally agree with the reviewer regarding lack of clarity on the use of residues. This is due to lack of information on the alternative uses of residues and absence of data on the quantities used for the different purposes at the country level. Even at the global level, empirical data are virtually lacking to estimate the share of different uses of each residue. In the revised manuscript we will make an effort to provide such estimates wherever possible.
- Inclusion of residue quality: I would suggest adding the quality of the residues such as carbon and nutrients content along with quantity. Such data would add depth and clarity to readers. It is difficult for readers to understand the values of tonnes of fishery residues. It is also difficult to compare the values of residues among different products by using quantity.
Response: We have now added residue quality as a supplementary materials. Following is the DOI associated with it in ZENODO. 10.5281/zenodo.10450921
- I would suggest re-organizing the overall structure of this paper to make different sections to be closer connected and easier to follow.
- Introduction: I would suggest introducing other uses of residues. The current content emphasizes too much on the importance of residues in soil amendments via crop residue burning, synthetic fertilizer use, and a combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Without introducing other uses, readers may think the goal of this paper in utilizing residues is for soil fertility. The characteristics of residues such as lignin and polyphenol contents discussed in line 91-108 seems irrelevant to this section. I would suggest removing them or moving them to discussion.
Response: We agree with the reviewer. In the revised manuscript we will describe other uses of residues in the Introduction section. We will also remove characteristics of residues such as lignin and polyphenol contents discussed in line 91-108.
- Methods: I couldn’t find any results and supplementary database of carbon and nutrients of residues described in lines 147-158 and Table 1.
Response: We will add a file on residue quality as a supplementary materials when submitting the revised manuscript. We have already uploaded a file for this supplementary material on ZENODO with a DO: 10.5281/zenodo.10450921
- Results: The oversimplified methodology makes the comparison of residues between countries meaningless. Since the uniform parameters were applied to all countries, the difference in residue reflects the differences in production among countries.
Response: In the revised manuscript we will use regional or country-specific parameters for the major producers wherever such parameters are available.
- Discussion: I feel the discussion section is disconnected from the previous context. I would suggest adding some discussions about the different shares of residues by countries and regions, as well as the difference of uses in residues across regions and countries. For example, comparing maize and soybean residues against sugar by-products in North America could add depth.
Response: In the revised manuscript we will add discussions on the different shares of residues by countries and regions, as well as the difference of uses in residues across regions and countries.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-288-AC1
Data sets
Organic Matter Database (OMD) [data set] G. W. Sileshi, E. Barrios, J. Lehmann, and F. N. Tubiello https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8158727
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 371 | 90 | 24 | 485 | 17 | 25 |
- HTML: 371
- PDF: 90
- XML: 24
- Total: 485
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1