Added Value of Local Sheep Breeds in Alpine Agroecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and well documented. Some suggestions and comments are included in the text. A question not included (but marked in the text), concerns the references (in the vast majority only numbers are mentioned), but from results and below, the reference includes both names, and numbers. Need to check and revise according to the journal rules.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. We have detailed the corrections made following your suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the revisions are highlighted in blue.

Line 52

Reviewer: To manage marginal areas better

Author: Thank you for your advice. We have replaced “better marginal areas” with “to manage marginal areas better”.

Lines 56-57

Reviewer: Pasture-based livestock systems are considered as low input systems, presenting a high feed self-sufficiency with low production costs.

Author: Thank you for your advice. We have replaced the sentence: “Pasture-based livestock systems present a self-sufficiency with low input and production costs” with “Pasture-based livestock systems are considered as low input systems, presenting a high feed self-sufficiency with low production costs”.

Line 105

Reviewer: To increase the flock size.

Author: Thank you for your advice. We have replaced “to increase the number of flocks’ animals” with “to increase both the population size and the number of farmers involved…”

Line 139

Author: We have replaced “n” of “number” with the capital letter.

Line 171

Author: We have replaced “o” of “on” with the capital letter.

Line 176

Author: We have replaced “breeder’s” with “breeders’”.

Line 205

Author: We have replaced “d” of “description” with the capital letter.

Line 210

Reviewer: How many rams per breed?

Author: In lines 218-219, we specify the number for each breeds (41 for Alpagota and 40 for Lamon)

Line 267

Reviewer: The genetic analysis refers only to rams? Only samples from rams were taken?

Author: Yes, we took samples only for rams since half of their genetic makeup is present in the offspring. In lines 211-215, we added the sentence: “We collected data only from rams since the males represented the factor limiting genetic variability. In this way, we optimized the ratio between costs (few samples) and benefits (many offspring): in small ruminants, the collection of data from the whole female population is not convenient due to the reduced economic incomes.” to explain the reason we took the samples only from rams.

Lines 275-276

Reviewer: Lamon had a highest proportion of closed related animals in comparison with the results observed in the Alpagota breed.

Author: We have replaced “Lamon had a highest of animals more related to each other instead that observed in the Alpagota (Figure 5)” with “Lamon had a highest proportion of closed related animals in comparison with the results observed in the Alpagota breed (Figure 5).”

Lines 279-281

Reviewer: It is not clear, see also previous comment, whether the genetic analysis is based only on the rams data. Some more information on the data collected (numbers per breed etc) would be helpful

Author: Following your suggestion, we added in lines 218-219 the number of rams per breed and in lines 211-215 a brief sentence to explain the reason we took the samples only from rams.

Line 279

Reviewer: Inbreeding rate

Author: We have “replaced inbreeding” values with “inbreeding rate”.

Line 306

Reviewer: Total LU/farm

Author: We have replaced “total LU” with “total LU/farm”.

Line 309

Reviewer: A high level of self-sufficiency

Author: We have replaced “a great self-sufficiency” with “a high level of self-sufficiency”.

Line 337

Author: We have replaced “g” of “geographical” with the capital letter.

Line 357

Reviewer: Only deaths or culling with their causes?

Author: Also culling with their causes. We have rephrased the sentence to make this clear.

Line 359

Reviewer: Inbreeding risk or inbreeding rate when using

Author: We have replaced “inbreeding risk” with “offspring’s inbreeding risk”.

Line 389

Author: We have replaced “c” of “chart” with the capital letter.

Lines 407-408

Reviewer: This is not very clear, I understand the point of correct mating plans, but what does it meant by the sustainable use of GR?

Author: We deleted the second part of the sentence. It was referred to the use of all the rams available with a periodical replacement and exchanges between farmers, but it can be explained as “correct mating plans”.

Line 408

Author: We have replaced “Plan of Action” with “Global Plan of Action”.

Line 413

Author: We have replaced “conservation in-situ” with “in-situ conservation project”.

Lines 416-417

Author: We have replaced “to contrast the inbreeding” with “to monitor inbreeding”

Lines 417-418

Reviewer: To increase the number of flocks? or to increase the flock size?

Author: The aims is to improve both, see previous answers (line 105). However, we added a brief sentence to specify that the aim of the project: “…..is to increase the population size of sheep breeds as well as the number of farmers involved”.

Lines 419-420

Reviewer: The changes in the numbers of animals (births, deaths, animals sold or culled for various reasons etc.). Is this correct?

Author: Following your suggestion, we added a new part in the sentence “….the changes in the numbers of animals (births, deaths, animals sold or culled for various reasons etc.)”.

Lines 420-421

Reviewer: In addition to the genealogical data, all the genetic characteristics.

Author: Following the suggestions, we adjusted the sentence: “Moreover, in the ram function, in addition to the genealogical data, they can add all the genetic characteristics…..”

Lines 427-428

Author: Following the suggestion, we checked and revised the reference according the journal rules.

Lines 432-433

Author: Following the suggestion, we checked and revised the reference according the journal rules.

Line 437

Author: We deleted the sentences according to the revisions of reviewer 2 so we can’t revise the reference as you suggest.

Line 439

Author: Following the suggestion, we checked and revised the reference according the journal rules.

Lines 450-451

Reviewer: A SWOT analysis was conducted to assess the possibilities towards the conversion to organic farming of the Alpagota breed.

Author: We have replaced the sentence: “the SWOT analysis was conducted in order to figure out the strengths, the opportunities, the weaknesses and the threats regarding the conversion to organic farming of Alpagota breed” with: “A SWOT analysis was conducted to assess the possibilities towards the conversion to organic farming of the Alpagota breed”

Lines 452-453

Reviewer: This sentence is not clear. SWOT analysis is a useful tool? or organic farming? Please rephrase.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion, we have rephrased the sentence: “This type of analysis is a valuable tool for understanding what could be the potential marketing strategies to give added value to the whole supply chain”.

Line 459

Author: Following the suggestion, we checked and revised the reference according the journal rules.

Line 465

Author: Following the suggestion, we checked and revised the reference according the journal rules.

Line 483

Reviewer: Provide

Author: We left provides as it refers to “this type” which is third person singular.

Line 487

Reviewer: A good potential for application and acceptance? 

Author: We have replaced “a good potential of application for farmers” with “a good potential for application and acceptance”.

Line 488

Reviewer: And promote their products....

Author: We have replaced “which can promote” with “and promote their products”.

Lines 498-499

Reviewer: While also the lack of infrastructures and the marginality of sheep sectors were considered as threats

Author: We have replaced “as well as the lack of infrastructures and the marginality of sheep sectors represented threats for farmers” with “while also the lack of infrastructures and the marginality of sheep sectors were considered as threats”.

Line 505

Reviewer: this

Author: We have replaced “these” with “this”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Hi 

The manuscript titled "Added value of local sheep breeds in alpine agroecosystems'' has been reviewed.

When I was going through the copy, I felt there is a need revise some sentences in the abstract.

The methodology section also needs to be shortened. and address some omissions in certain sub sections as well.  

There are some of the results that were not interpreted in the results section and I have indicated that in pdf copy.

The discussion need to be improved and it can be checked in the reviewed copy 

Regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thanks for your comments. We have detailed the corrections made following your suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

Lines 23-24

Reviewer: The results seems to have be used already. or they are still going to be implemented in future?

Author: to be more clear, we have reformulated this sentence as follow: “Moving from the results of this study, a set of strategies aiming at improving the competitiveness of these systems have been proposed.”

Line 35

Reviewer: Why capital letters. Is this a company or just normal words?

Author: We used capital letters since it is an acronym, as done in other papers.

Lines 44-47

Reviewer: You need to be specific to certain as it is not always the case for every country or region; mentioning certain area in Italy can be better

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rephrased the sentence following your advice: “In Alpine regions, most local breeds are raised in grassland-based livestock farming systems which deliver multiple ES, especially cultural ES [9]. In the Italian Alps, specifically in the Veneto and Trentino Alto-Adige regions, several areas are characterized by the presence of local breeds [9].

Lines 50-52

Reviewer: Check the comment above

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rephrased the sentence following your advice: “In European Mediterranean regions traditional grassland-based livestock systems are mostly located in mountainous and other unfavourable areas [13,14]”

Lines 90-92

Reviewer: Expand the abbreviation if possible

Author: Following your suggestion, we have expanded the abbreviation of EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development), RDP (Rural Development Program), and Sheep Al.L. Chain (Sheep Alpagota Lamon Chain).

Line 112

Reviewer: Four pages? maybe it can be summarising to three pages

Author: We tried to reformulate the material and methods section to reduce the length. However, it is very difficult to identify info that can be deleted. We propose to maintain the structure of material and methods section. An alternative can be to move the description of Alpagota and Lamon breeds to supplementary materials, but we are afraid that in this way it is more difficult for the readers to understand the presented results. The description of Alpagota and Lamon breeds and of the organization working with them is necessary to explain why we used this methodological approach. Moreover, it can be used to understand how this kind of approach can be extended to other similar situations. The other paragraphs of material and methods are detailed; the methodological approach is based on different steps, and we need to describe each one of them and their interactions to present the rationale of our research. For these reasons, even if we agree that four pages can be long to read, we think that all the info presented are needed.

Lines 128-133

Reviewer: Few species diversity can be listed here in Brackets and I guess it should also be indicated whether the areas is dominant with sour or sweet; annual or perennial species.

Author: We have modified the text and added in brackets a very short description of forest, grassland and crops. For reasons of brevity, and given the aims of the study, we cannot be more specific on species diversity.

Line 143

Reviewer: Start with 'Alpagota'. The Alpagota and Lamon breeds

Author: We have replaced the order of Alpagota and Lamon as suggested

Line 187

Reviewer: F capital letter

Author: We have replaced the “f” of “figure” with the capital letter

Line 198

Reviewer: Who were the stakeholders

Author: We have specified who were the stakeholders (tourism operators, restaurateurs, representatives of local association, local policy makers)

Lines 200-203

Reviewer: What about Lamon farmers?

Author: We did not conduct the SWOT analysis for Lamon farmers. See revised manuscript, lines 199-202: “This task was developed only for Alpagota breed since the population size justified the interest towards organic farming and the relative costs with respect to Lamon breed. This one is characterized by a smaller population size and it couldn’t address the certification and traceability fees.”

Lines 241-242

Reviewer: Where are the results for these?

Author: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Since the data collected were not complete and not essential for the study, we decided to remove this part in order to also reduce the length of the chapter of materials and methods as you suggested. 

Line 269

Reviewer: Breeds

Author: We have replaced “breed” with “breeds”

Lines 316-317, Table 2

Reviewer: Which instrument was used to analyse these?

Author: see lines 300-301 of revised manuscript. For one trait (Number of sheep, total) the test has not been done, the asterisk has been removed. 

Line 330

Reviewer: F capital letter

Author: We have replaced the “f” of “figure” with the capital letter.

Line 389

Reviewer: The resolution for the figure can be improved

Author: We have improved the image. We made a new one in order to get a higher quality.

Line 406

Reviewer: Is this necessary? Because nowhere in the above discussion sentences the authors talked about the milk. 

Author: Thank you for your advice. We followed your suggestion and deleted this part.

Line 433

Reviewer: Is this necessary? I mean those countries don’t rear the same species breed of animal.

Author: Thank you for your advice. We followed your suggestion and deleted this part.

Line 437

Reviewer: The authors should avoid unnecessary comparisons. They should stick to the implications of their findings, what their findings mean to the expected output. We can’t compare biomass of Argentine and Greece while knowing very that certain plant species might have contributed to biomass accumulation in certain country.

Author: Thank you for your advice. We followed your suggestion and we deleted this part.

Line 437

Reviewer: How will these have an effect in the livestock production?

Author: Thank you for your advice. We followed your suggestion and we deleted this part.

Line 448

Reviewer: Give

Author: We have replaced “gives” with “give”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reflected to all comments highlighted in the manuscript.