Helminth Control as a Part of Animal Welfare Measure Protocol in Grazing Cattle in Slovenia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for writing this interesting article showing the results helminth control in grazing cattle.
The paper is very focused on parasite control, the substances used, their effectiveness and resistance. However, it remains a bit weak on the part about how this helped to increase animal welfare.
However, the study was well performed and reported clearly and fluently.
Some minor typos in the text are described below:
line 124: Strongyloides papillosus, should be in italics line 302: et al. is not in italics line 315: et al. is in italics line 357: there is an extra period
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. It has been carefully reviewed. The comments have been noted and inserted in the text as requested (see attachment of the manuscript).
Clarification of the relationship between the contribution of the manuscript and animal welfare:
Free grazing of cattle is still not practiced in most areas of Slovenia. Until the mid-1990s, tethering was the common practice on farms. Later, new systems were introduced, so now there are more and more animals in free-range stalls. Regardless of whether tethered or free-range, most farms in the past did not have pasture near the barns. In modern farming, animals need to be able to move freely and exercise their behaviors and social contacts. The measure presented in the study aims to improve animal welfare, especially by allowing animals to move freely outside the farm and find their own forage to graze. As pasture grazing poses a modified risk of parasite infestation compared to traditional husbandry methods in Slovenia, the measure introduces mandatory treatment for parasitic diseases. In short, following the program, farmers were encouraged to send the animals to pasture, otherwise they would continue to keep them indoors.
Best wishes, Ožbalt Podpečan.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
the mauscript entitle Helminth Control as a Part of Animal Welfare Measure 2 Protocol in Grazing Cattle in Slovenia is a well descriptive study of the prevalence of helminth diffusion and treatment in grazing cattle in Slovenia. the manuscript should better described the treatment used as to be applied in other geographical area
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. It has been carefully reviewed.
The following text was added into the manuscript:
“The anthelmintics used to treat helminths were macrocyclic lactones, benzimidazoles, levamisole, and oxyclozanide, as indicated by coprological results and records in the veterinary intervention books of the farms. The decision on the need to treat animals in the herd and the categories to be treated, the anthelmintics to be used, and the most appropriate time for treatment was made in consultation between the bovine practitioner and the animal owner. On Slovenian farms, it is usually decided to treat the animals before they go out to pasture. If necessary, the additional use of anthelmintics is decided mainly on the basis of the available pasture area and microclimatic conditions (moisture of the pasture, sun exposure to the pasture, botanical composition of the sward, etc.). Production also plays an important role in the choice of active ingredient in terms of withdrawal periods.”
Best wishes, Ožbalt Podpečan.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction is too large.
Most of the data presented in the introduction is irrelevant to the subject.
Sentences should be short, concise, and meaningful.
Faeces or feces? use the same word throughout the text.
Statistical analysis or Statistical analyses?
Figure 2 labels the Y axis.
The research design of the study is not appropriate. It is just a simple coprological examination study to examine the gastrointestinal parasites. There is no link with the animal's welfare, no clear-cut results of parasitic infection before and after grazing, no treatment strategies, etc.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. It has been carefully reviewed. The comments have been noted and inserted in the text as requested (see attachment of the manuscript).
The manuscript was written in English (UK) and edited by InstaText®.
If decided that a major revision of the English language and style is needed, we are willing to do the editing at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.
Clarification of the relationship between the contribution of the manuscript and animal welfare:
Free grazing of cattle is still not practiced in most areas of Slovenia. Until the mid-1990s, tethering was the common practice on farms. Later, new systems were introduced, so now there are more and more animals in free-range stalls. Regardless of whether tethered or free-range, most farms in the past did not have pasture near the barns. In modern farming, animals need to be able to move freely and exercise their behaviors and social contacts. The measure presented in the study aims to improve animal welfare, especially by allowing animals to move freely outside the farm and find their own forage to graze. As pasture grazing poses a modified risk of parasite infestation compared to traditional husbandry methods in Slovenia, the measure introduces mandatory treatment for parasitic diseases. In short, following the program, farmers were encouraged to send the animals to pasture, otherwise they would continue to keep them indoors.
Our study is in fact a report about the outcomes/effects of a financially supported national program on continuous grazing of cattle and helminth control in Slovenia. The statistically evaluated measurements/findings allow predictions of the effect of future applications of similar approaches in Slovenia and elsewhere.
Additionally, in Figure 2, the percent values are labelled on the Y axis. Because the percent values for the first helminth (upper left sub-figure) are much larger and vary much more than the values for the other helminths, the Y-axis labels (scale) shown for this helminth are different (i.e., 0-100) than the Y-axis labels shown for the other three helminths (i.e., 0-10). If you feel that a common scale would be more appropriate, we can change it. Since the exact percent values are given at the data points, the Y-axis labels could also be omitted.
Best wishes, Ožbalt Podpečan.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have submitted an article that outlines an interesting investigation on helminth control as a part of animal welfare measure protocol in grazing cattle in Slovenia. The results of this study are of importance from the standpoint of animal welfare, animal health as well as food quality and safety.
The title and keywords accurately reflect the content of the manuscript. The authors of this manuscript gave us a clear introduction to the study based on the available scientific literature. However, this section should be shorter. Research aim and hypothesis of the study are clearly defined. The materials and methods are described clearly with sufficient details of the performed measurements and the measurement techniques are appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study. The obtained results are well presented in an unbiased, detailed, clear and easily comparable manner where you can clearly draw the conclusion. There are no unnecessary data presented. From the discussion the conclusion can be easily extrapolated. Conclusions are satisfactorily written. References consist of appropriate and relevant papers.
I do believe this work is worthy of publication in Agriculture journal, but I would recommend a number of minor changes before it is published. My comments and suggestions are outlined in the submitted PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer 4
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. It has been carefully reviewed. The comments have been noted and inserted in the text as requested (see attachment of the manuscript).
Best wishes, Ožbalt Podpečan.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
In line 15, the author used the spelling "faecal" and in line 18, he used "fecal". Both are correct, but use the same format throughout the text.
Line 19: Strongylida, followed by Paramphistomum sp., and Nematodirus sp. (add percentages of each and describe results statistically).
Lines 21–24: The sentence is not clear; rewrite it.
Lines 31–33 and 38–43: Sentences are too lengthy. Sentences should be short, comprehensive, and understandable. Check and rewrite throughout the text.
Still, the introduction contains too much repeated and unrelated material. There is a need to write a comprehensive introduction.
Lines 49–53: These lines can be suitable for discussion, but are not suitable for introduction.
Lines 70–83: These lines are more suitable for review articles or book chapters, but not for the introduction of this paper.
Lines 84–116: These lines should be part of the discussion.
Lines 136-161: Are the points presented in the heading "National Regulation on Animal Welfare Measure Protocol" directly related to the objectives of your study? If not, this heading should be part of the supplementary material.
Line 163: What kind of preservative did you use? What is the percentage of preservatives?
Line 186: The treatment is still not clear. Which specific drug did you use each year? What are the criteria for the selection of drugs? How many animals did you treat in each herd?
Line 196: What kind of statistical analyses were used for the treated groups?
Lines 223, 295, and 296: again faecal
The results of the treated groups were not mentioned in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
Thank you for your revision. See answers and comments bellow. All requirements are included in the attached Manuscript.
Best wishes, Ožbalt Podpečan.
Comment (C): In line 15, the author used the spelling "faecal" and in line 18, he used "fecal". Both are correct but use the same format throughout the text.
Answer (A): Corrected as suggested.
C: Line 19: Strongylida, followed by Paramphistomum sp., and Nematodirus sp. (add percentages of each and describe results statistically).
A: Corrected as suggested. We have added the percentage ranges for two most prevalent/common helminths as observed during the 7-year study period (simple value distribution, a type of descriptive statistics).
C: Lines 21–24: The sentence is not clear; rewrite it.
A: Corrected as suggested. Rewritten in a simplified way.
C: Lines 31–33 and 38–43: Sentences are too lengthy. Sentences should be short, comprehensive, and understandable. Check and rewrite throughout the text.
Still, the introduction contains too much repeated and unrelated material. There is a need to write a comprehensive introduction.
A: Rewritten.
C: Lines 49–53: These lines can be suitable for discussion but are not suitable for introduction.
A: Included in the discussion.
C: Lines 70–83: These lines are more suitable for review articles or book chapters, but not for the introduction of this paper.
A: Deleted from introduction.
C: Lines 84–116: These lines should be part of the discussion.
A: Included in the discussion.
C: Lines 136-161: Are the points presented in the heading "National Regulation on Animal Welfare Measure Protocol" directly related to the objectives of your study? If not, this heading should be part of the supplementary material.
A: Yes, they are directly related to the study by specifying the sampling method/protocol, the number of samples, the treatment period, etc.
C: Line 163: What kind of preservative did you use? What is the percentage of preservatives?
A: Fresh composite samples (consisting of at least 5 individual samples of 20 grammes) were collected from different animals and sent to the laboratory within 24 hours. No preservatives were required or used.
C: Line 186: The treatment is still not clear. Which specific drug did you use each year? What are the criteria for the selection of drugs? How many animals did you treat in each herd?
A: The anthelmintics used to treat helminths were registered as macrocyclic lactones, benzimidazoles, levamisole, and oxyclozanide. As stated in MM (l 161-164) “Treatment of animals with anthelmintics is based on positive results of coprological analysis and professional judgement of the veterinarian, which must be recorded in the farm veterinary intervention book. Dairy cows may be treated during the dry period.” This means that the decision to treat the animals before they go out to pasture was made by a bovine veterinary practitioner. Anthelmintics were selected by a veterinarian based on coprological results. The objective of the study was not to evaluate different antiparasitic treatments but to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the national program, e.g., significant decrease of number of parasite-positive herds in 7-years period.
C: Line 196: What kind of statistical analyses were used for the treated groups?
A: The statistical analyses were performed on data presented in Tables 1 and 2. These analyses are described in section "Statistical analysis" (lines 197-221). We were not able to analyse Individual groups (herds) because grazing and helminth control was performed and controlled exclusively by the farmers and bovine veterinary practitioners.
C: Lines 223, 295, and 296: again faecal
A: Corrected as suggested.
C: The results of the treated groups were not mentioned in the manuscript.
A: Results of the treatments were not collected nor analysed systematically. The objective of the study was not to evaluate different antiparasitic treatments but to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the national program, e.g., significant decrease of number of parasite-positive herds in 7-years period.
However, as stated in the Conclusions, the authors are aware that the Measure (National Programme) should be upgraded with quantitative methods, at least for the parasites whose presence is detected by flotation. In addition, a uniform protocol should be established for the use of active substances and for the verification of the effectiveness of the treatment in order to detect the emergence of resistance at an early stage.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
