On-Farm Water Use Efficiency: Impact of Sprinkler Cycle and Flow Rate to Cool Holstein Cows during Semi-Arid Summer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript can be interesting if the authors focus more and emphasize the issue of efficient water use. If they consider that their main objective is to "evaluate the cooling efficiency of these strategies under semi-arid conditions of heat stress" and what to do to make this procedure as efficient as possible from the point of view of water saving. Complementarily, the study of the physiological parameters of cows and milk production in order to assess which is the most efficient procedure in the use of water and the best for the cows' productivity. If the authors do not refocus on the water issue, then this study will be very similar to others that are cited in this manuscript.
Thus, I propose that in the introduction and discussion, they address the issue of water use in milk production. Considering the milk production cycle what is the percentage of water spent cooling the cows. Discuss if there are other ways of cooling cows that could use less water. Also compare their results regarding sprinkler flow rates and sprinkler cycle with those of other authors. Only in this way, the manuscript will have a renewed interest in publication because it gains originality.
This manuscript can be interesting if the authors focus more and emphasize the issue of efficient water use. If they consider that their main objective is to "evaluate the cooling efficiency of these strategies under semi-arid conditions of heat stress" and what to do to make this procedure as efficient as possible from the point of view of water saving. Complementarily, the study of the physiological parameters of cows and milk production in order to assess which is the most efficient procedure in the use of water and the best for the cows' productivity. If the authors do not refocus on the water issue, then this study will be very similar to others that are cited in this manuscript.
Thus, I propose that in the introduction and discussion, they address the issue of water use in milk production. Considering the milk production cycle what is the percentage of water spent cooling the cows. Discuss if there are other ways of cooling cows that could use less water. Also compare their results regarding sprinkler flow rates and sprinkler cycle with those of other authors. Only in this way, the manuscript will have a renewed interest to be published, because it gains originality.
More specific comments can be found in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
This manuscript can be interesting if the authors focus more and emphasize the issue of efficient water use. If they consider that their main objective is to "evaluate the cooling efficiency of these strategies under semi-arid conditions of heat stress" and what to do to make this procedure as efficient as possible from the point of view of water saving. Complementarily, the study of the physiological parameters of cows and milk production in order to assess which is the most efficient procedure in the use of water and the best for the cows' productivity. If the authors do not refocus on the water issue, then this study will be very similar to others that are cited in this manuscript.
Authors Response (AU): We sincerely thank the respected reviewer for his insightful feedback. We fully agree with the comments made and have adjusted our focus towards improving water use efficiency. Our revised study objective now reflects this shift (lines 75–78).
Reviewer’s comment:
Thus, I propose that in the introduction and discussion, they address the issue of water use in milk production. Considering the milk production cycle what is the percentage of water spent cooling the cows. Discuss if there are other ways of cooling cows that could use less water. Also compare their results regarding sprinkler flow rates and sprinkler cycle with those of other authors. Only in this way, the manuscript will have a renewed interest in publication because it gains originality.
AU: We have revised the introduction section, added the information about the share of water used for cooling at dairy farms specially with respect to semi-arid conditions (lines 43-46). Additionally, we have strengthened the discussion section by adding the text about alternative cooling methods (lines 503–513). Also, we have compared our results with the already published studies using different flow rate and sprinkler cycles.
Reviewer’s comment:
Respiration rate (RR)... I think that it is the first time that this parameter is mentioned...
AU: The sentences have been rephrased and the suggestion has been incorporated where applied.
Reviewer’s comment:
I am of the opinion that authors' main objective should be" to evaluate the cooling efficiency of these strategies under semi-arid conditions of heat stress". Indeed, the originality of this manuscript lies on this and not on "The objective of the current study was to assess the effectiveness of different sprinkler cycles and flow rates on physiological, behavioral, and productive responses in Holstein cows". This topic has been approached by several authors cited in the present manuscript. Therefore, the main issue of this manuscript should be "how to keep cows in good conditions with the minimum water consumption, promoting water efficiency Otherwise, this manuscript is nothing more than repetition of the previous studies...
AU: The comments have been acknowledged and the objective has been rephased (lines 75-78). The added text reads as “The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cooling efficiency of different sprinkler timings and flow rates under semi-arid conditions of heat stress. The study was based on the hypothesis that different spray timings and flow rate will affect the efficiency of water use for cooling cows during summer in Pakistan”.
Reviewer’s comment:
It would be very useful to provide photos of the sprinkler cooling system and experimental area.
AU: The shed pictures have been added as Figure 1 after line 111.
Reviewer’s comment:
The figures 1, 2 should be placed before (table 4).
AU: The figures have been renumbered and shifted before the table 4 at lines 253 and 263.
Reviewer’s comment:
A deeper discussion concerning water use and efficiency is missing. Table 6 is not fully discussed. How to improve water efficiency? Is it possible to use alternative sources of water? And what about water-energy nexus?
AU: The discussion has been strengthened with added text from lines 376–386, and 400-407. Table 6 has been revised and discussed under subheading 4.6 with title “groundwater use efficiency” from lines 502 to 522“. The alternative cooling methods have been discussed under subheading 4.7 with title “Opportunities for alternative cooling methods” from lines 523–534. The authors had limited expertise and resources to calculate the energy consumption, therefore the exact energy and water nexus could not be discussed. However, a general statement about energy consumption with the increasing water usage has been presented in lines 519–522. The added text reads as “The increasing use of water in sprinkler cooling systems is likely to result in higher energy consumption. However, due to the limited expertise and resources available, the exact relationship between water and energy consumption was not quantified in the current study.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled “On-farm water use efficiency: impact of sprinkler cycle and flow rate to cool Holstein cows during semi-arid summer” has been written very well and according to the scope of the journal. I recommend the following changes before a final publication.
1. Please add flow chat for the theoretical framework before section 2.
2. Please write the main research questions instead of writing the objectives.
3. You must have to write the main contributions of the study at the end of the introduction section.
4. The results have not been justified with previously published papers.
Author Response
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
General comments:
The article entitled “On-farm water use efficiency: impact of sprinkler cycle and flow rate to cool Holstein cows during semi-arid summer” has been written very well and according to the scope of the journal. I recommend the following changes before a final publication.
Authors Response (AU): We appreciate that the respected reviewer found our study interesting and worthy for the journal.
Reviewer’s comment:
Please add flow chat for the theoretical framework before section 2.
Authors Response (AU): The authors believe that the revised introduction section, is in a much better form to properly identify large quantities of water utilization at farms as a research problem. The reviewed literature concisely presented the severity of the issue and possible ways to address it, including to optimize sprinkler flow rate and cycle. This fulfills the need of a flow chart of the theoretical framework of the study.
Reviewer’s comment:
Please write the main research questions instead of writing the objectives.
Authors: The text in line 70-73 has been added to address the main research question. Furthermore, the objectives have been revised and the hypothesis has been added to highlight the research question.
Reviewer’s comment:
You must have to write the main contributions of the study at the end of the introduction section.
Authors: The text has been added in lines 81-85 indicating the contribution of the study.
Reviewer’s comment:
The results have not been justified with previously published papers.
Authors: More relevant references have been added to discuss the results.
Reviewer 3 Report
The effect of sprinkler flow rate and cycle on cooling efficiency of Holstein Friesian cows was studied to improve on farm water use efficiency. This has significant practical value for improving the production efficiency of dairy cows. However, this article lacks scientific value, which is reflected in the introduction and discussion, and there are no novel conclusions in the results and conclusions. For example: In the abstract, the authors should use simple contents to describe the background and purpose of this study, and focus on the experimental results. How to convert the reduced water into on farm WUE. How to ensure that there is no water vapour exchange between the three groups of treatment, and affect the cool efficiency. In section 2.7, only the first letter can be capitalized.
Author Response
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
The effect of sprinkler flow rate and cycle on cooling efficiency of Holstein Friesian cows was studied to improve on farm water use efficiency. This has significant practical value for improving the production efficiency of dairy cows. However, this article lacks scientific value, which is reflected in the introduction and discussion, and there are no novel conclusions in the results and conclusions. For example: In the abstract, the authors should use simple contents to describe the background and purpose of this study and focus on the experimental results. How to convert the reduced water into on farm WUE. How to ensure that there is no water vapor exchange between the three groups of treatment and affect the cool efficiency. In section 2.7, only the first letter can be capitalized.
Authors Response (AU): We appreciate that the respected reviewer acknowledges the practical importance of the study. The comments of the reviewers to highlight the water use efficiency really changed our approach about this study. To address the concerns of the reviewer regarding the contribution of the study, we have revised the abstract, introduction, and discussion section to shift our focus towards water use efficiency. We believe the revised version is much better than the previous one.
To prevent water vapor exchange between the treatment groups, a distance of at least 05 meters was maintained between the sprinkler nozzles of adjacent groups by disabling nozzle points. This measure ensured that there would be no exchange of water vapor between the groups. The text in line 128-130 has been added. Also, the tying error has been corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript in its present form. I only suggest the improvement of the quality of the figure 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Recommendations: Accept in present form.
The quality of the manuscript is improved and I have no further question.
Reviewer 3 Report
No
