Genetic Improvement of Local Cattle Breeds in West Africa: A Review of Breeding Programs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript provides a review of the breeding programs of local cattle breeds in West Africa. The importance of local breeds is very high, especially in the developing countries and therefore this is a very interesting paper.

Overall the manuscipt is very well writen. It describes a variety of breeding programs realized in West Africa and provides a discussion over them, revealing their major restraints and advantages.

The provided information are clear and sufficient. The structure of the manuscipt is correct. Below there are some minor changes to be applied in order to clarify some elements:

Line 45: change "world" to "world's"

Line 100: add a comma after [31].

Line 101: add a comma after "keepers" and delete "have been".

Table 1: please edit the header categories (HMA, HFA ...) to match the table legend (HWM, HWF ...). Also add units to the numbers (kg, cm etc).

Line 171: delete "aiming"

Line 220: add "and" after "at 12 months".

Line 359: add "after" at the begining of the line otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Lines 361-363: This sentence needs rephrasing, I do not understand the meaning.

Lines 405-408: Same here. please rephrase.

Line 482: change to "is a challenge in the development".

Line 484: add "of" at the beginning of the line.

Line 502: If I understand it correctly "any" must be changed to "no".

Line 515: change "incomes" to "income" and move "enough" to the end of the sentence.

Congratulations for a nice work and an interesting paper.

--------------

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please correct errors and the reference chapter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript entitled “Genetic improvement of local cattle breeds in West Africa: a review of breeding programs” assembled several breeding cases detailing practices in West African countries. Essentially, the paper compiled the published literature on cattle breeding strategies in Mali, Senegal, The Gambia, and Burkina Faso.

The manuscript should focus on an element of the journal’s scope. Presumably the authors are targeting the “Development and realization of national policies and international treaties for sustainable development” and “Implementation and monitoring of policies for sustainable development” subject areas of the Sustainability Journal’s aims although the manuscript does not properly develop that concept.  It is difficult to really appreciate the focus of the manuscript.  That may be due to the authors’ writing style that was inconsistent and disjointed with overly complex and unnecessary wordiness. In many cases the extraneous phrases fail to add to content and actually interfere with interpretation. The authors should be encouraged to rewrite for simplicity, appropriate grammar, and proper word usage.

Two of the described cases (1 and 2) were direct translations of published material; that does not align with most journal practices even for a review article.  

The intent of the review needs to be clearly discernible.

Table 1 abbreviations do not match the footnote definitions of the abbreviations.

The word strategy is more appropriate than experiences.

Why is Table 2 divided up with stakeholders and breeders associations on a separate page?

The title of the manuscript is “Genetic improvement…” so the authors should include a section on the results or outcomes of the selection strategy for each case as that would directly align with the manuscript title and presumably the authors’ intent of the review.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

GENERAL COMMENT

In their work, Ouédraogo et al. have provided a summary of the breeding programs aimed at genetic improvement of West African over the last decades. Their effort represents a useful contribution to redirect future efforts in this area of the world  which needs effective development strategies warranting  sustainability in the medium and long-term. That said, their MS would greatly benefit from a thorough revision of the English language. Not only the syntax of many passages is overcomplicated if not even wrong, but also the punctuation is not used consistently. Moreover, wordiness and repetitions represent a big concern. I have made a big effort in amending a number of passages in the pdf of the MS suggesting a number of improvements, including deletions and rewording, while recommending the authors to edit some obscure passages by themselves. The Authors will find my corrections and suggestions (which I warmly recommend accepting) in the form of comments in the pdf; however, I also invite the Authors to get a native speaker revising carefully the entire MS.

Also, when describing the study cases, the authors should organize the information content in a less telegraphic and more discursive style, paying attention to provide some important definitions at the beginning – not at the end – of their list. For instance, the definition of closed versus open nucleus schemes is crucial to the interpretation of the study cases presented, and should be given at the first mention of such terms. Alternatively, the Authors might be willing to present study cases 1 to 6 in the form of a table rather than text.

Some bibliographic references are incomplete (see my comment to Ref 73), and the Tables needs editing (see pertinent comments). Finally, the choice of providing already existing report documents in French as Supplementary Material is questionable. The documents provided when submitting an article should be original (i.e., new; not published elsewhere) and in English (or other languages accepted by that specific journal). The Authors should then provide original documents in English (possibly a long summary of these reports): I strongly advise them to refrain from using unmodified documents already published elsewhere. Adding some pictures of the cattle breed mentioned as figures could enrich and embellish the paper other than providing a useful reference to the readership.

 

MINOR COMMENTS

Please, have a look at my comments in the pdf of the MS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

COMMENTS TO AUTHORS

 

GENERAL COMMENT

I have appreciated the effort made by the Authors to address most of the points I had raised in the previous revision. However, it is pretty clear that they ignored my advice to get  a native speaker going through the entire MS before resubmission. As a result, the article, even if substantially improved, is still full of repetitions (a serious problem), syntactic inconsistencies, typos, mistakes with punctuation and grammar, missing words and, most often, wordiness and redundancy. Once again, I have made a big effort in amending a number of passages suggesting a number of improvements, including deletions and rewording. I warmly invite the Authors to incorporate the changes proposed. I renovate, however, my invitation to get a native speaker going through it.

 

MINOR COMMENTS

ABSTRACT

L 23 Cattle is the plural for cow. Consequently, you should write “Cattle are…”. Please check and amend incorrect usages of this word throughout the entire MS.

L 26 “across” not “accross”.

L 37 delete comma after “cattle breeds”.

 

INTRODUCTION

L 52 “(i.e. 150)” → “(ca. 150)”.

L 58 “remove white extra space after “milk”.

LL 58-59 “in the different countries,” → “across different countries”.

L 62 add “promoting” before “centralized”.

LL 64-65 “Previous studies investigated cattle breeding programs implemented in the area, of which trypanotolerant N´Dama cattle breeding programs in Senegal, Mali, and The Gambia [12–20] are well known cases .” You have used “cattle breeding programs,” a few words before and you use it again twice in this period. Reading your work will be boring and distracting if you do not care about this aspects: repetitions MUST be avoided. In this case you can fix the problem easily by just replacing the period as follows: “Previous studies investigated those implemented in the area, with the ones addressing trypanotolerance in N´Dama cattle from Senegal, Mali, and The Gambia [12–20] are well known cases ”.

LL 66-67 “Nevertheless, strategies exist with other breeds and different breeding schemes [21, 22], meriting comparative review.” → “Nevertheless, different strategies and breeding schemes exist for other breeds [21, 22], and are worth comparison”.

L 68 “Our current review consists of three parts”. However, later you mention only two. Which is the third one? Be explicit like in the case of the first and the second part.  

L 69 delete “The core of the review in”.

L 71 “analysed” → “analyzed”. Since so far you have used American English.

LL 75-76 “for each of the cases” → “for each of the case studies presented”.

LL 81-86 “The origin, characteristics, and distribution of African cattle are well documented and widely reported in the literature [1, 4, 5, 23, 24]. Morphologically, African cattle breeds may be subdivided into two main types which are the humped Bos indicus and the humpless Bos taurus and three combinations, which are Sanga (stable cross of Bos indicus × Bos taurus) and Zenga (stable cross of Sanga × B. indicus) and composite lines, which are recent derivatives between breeds, including crosses with exotic temperate breeds [8].” The syntax of this two period is really messy. I had warmly suggested to get the paper reviewed by a native speaker, and it is quite clear that this was not done. It is not possible in English to use endless sequences of “and”. Also repetitions are a proble, as well as, apparently, numbers, You talk about “two main tpes” but then you list more than two elements. Let’s try to fix it: “The origin, characteristics, and distribution of African cattle are well documented and widely reported in the literature [1, 4, 5, 23, 24]. Morphologically, local breeds can be subdivided into two main types relating to the humped Bos indicus and the humpless B. taurus and three combinations: the Sanga (stable cross of B. indicus × B. taurus), Zenga (stable cross of Sanga × B. indicus) and composite lines, which are recent derivatives between breeds, including crosses with exotic temperate ones [8].”

L 93 “Longhorn N´Dama and Kuri breeds and Shorthorn breeds” → “Longhorn N´Dama, Kuri breeds and Shorthorn breeds”.

Table 1 Make sure that "HWM” in the header fits in on row.

 

L 3, P. 6 “in this continental region”. Which continental region? Be explicit.

 

L 4, P. 6 “have ability to walk” →  “have the ability to walk”; “and capacity” → “, the capacity”; remove “have” before “good”. As a rule of thumb, bear in mind that in English when you have a list of three elements a-b-c you should write “a, b and c” not “a and b and c”.

 

LL 11-16 In this lines “cattle” is often used as a singular name. Please correct this: it should always be used as a plural name. Conjugate the verbs accordingly.

 

L 72 “regionof” → ““region of”.

 

L 120 P. 11 “(respectively)” → “, respectively,”.

L 126 “cattle is” → “cattle are”.

LL 166-169 “Bulls were put into 4 groups according to the index. The top bulls from group 1 were distributed to the farmers in the breeding unit, group 2 animals to farmers for multiplication, group 3bulls were sold to farmers who were not part of the breeding program and animals of group 4 were fattened and sold to market.” → “Bulls were partitioned into 4 groups as follows: group 1 included the top animals distributed to the farmers involved into the breeding program;  group 2 included those used for multiplication; group 3 those sold to farmers who were not part of the breeding program; group 4 those fattened and sold to market.”

L 212 “organised” → “organized”.

L 214 “specialised” → “specialized”.

L 217 “Acknowledging” → “By acknowledging”.

L 223 “towards” → “toward”.

L 238 “as a factor of trypanotolerance” → “as a proxy of trypanotolerance”; remove “’” after “bulls”.

L 239 add comma before “while”; delete “and” after “Senegal”.

LL 239-240 “while in Senegal and Baoulé and Zebu × Baoulé crossbred programs in Burkina Faso,”. Rephrase, this is totally incomprehensible. What applies to Senegal? What to Burkina Faso? Be precise and correct.

L 241 remove comma after “account”.

 

LL 242-244 “In the Fulani Zebu program in Burkina Faso, control of inbreeding was targeted while a study on the inbreeding level of the population was not done. A recent study found that inbreeding levels of local cattle populations in parts of Burkina Faso were lower than expected [49]”. This two sentences are amazing. You denied your previous statement twice. First you said that inbreeding control was targeted, then that it was not, and then that it was instead. Rephrase in a clear way. As far as I see a study was performed, [49]. Consequently, state that at least one study on this topic is available.

L 247 embed “instead” between parentheses.

LL 245-253 “breeding projects” and “breeding objectives” are repeated too many times. Please rephrase these passages avoiding all these repetitions. Use synonyms and pronouns. The readership will not find the text easy to consult and fruitful otherwise.

LL 272-274 “In developing countries where performance recording at farm level is not practiced, nucleus programs have the advantages of allowing accurate recording” → “In developing countries, where performance recording at farm level is not practiced, nucleus programs have the advantages of filling this gap with accurate reports”.

L 279 add comma after “Burkina Faso”.

LL 284-286 “Furthermore, improvement programs of local breeds in research stations and did not often allow the transfer of the genetic gains realized to farmers´ herds and flocks.” Where is the first verb in this sentence? Please rephrase, something is missing. Also change the second part to “and often envisaged no transfer of the genetic gains obtained in farmer’s herds and flocks”.

L 294 “in all steps” → “in every step”.

L 297 remove bold font from [65].

L 306 remove “in” before “include”.

L 307 “government” → “governments”.

L 310 “as well as technological development; Governments, NGOs, funding institution,” → “as well as technological development, while governments, NGOs, funding institutions,”. Pay attention to inappropriate capitalizations and to using plurals consistently.

L 313 add comma after “review”; “according to the cases” → “depending on the study case”.

L 314 “In the cases of N´Dama cattle” → “As far as N´Dama cattle are concerned”.

L 318 “project” → “projects”.

L 321 “genetic evaluation was done” → “genetic evaluation was performed”.

L 327 “is important”. This word is too on the nose here, change to “pivotal” also to avoid the repetition a few lines below.

LL 335-337 “Breeders/producers organizations play an important role for the involvement of farmers in breeding program. Lack of organization of breeders/producers is a challenge in the development of breeding programs” → “Breeders/producers organizations play an important role for the involvement of farmers in breeding programs, which may fail in their absence”.

LL 337-338 “Breeders’ organizations/associations” → “These institutions”; remove “could”.

L 351 “lack of of breeders to market” → “their absence”.

LL 354-355 “with the market” → “with it”.

L 358 “i.g. Mali and Senegal” → “e.g. in Mali and Senegal”.

L 373 “on six cases” → “on six case studies”.

 

REFERENCES

Line spacing is not consistent. Moreover, the doi is reported only for some references but not for others. Nonetheless, I ignore if this is due to  oversights or the lack of this element for those journals.

Author Response

Comments to the reviewer.

We highly appreciate the efforts and comments made by the reviewer. The manuscript was checked by a professional English proofreading company to ensure that the correct use.