Water Footprint Analysis of Sheep and Goat from Various Production Systems in Northern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article describes a method for calculating the water footprint for sheep (and goats) in China. I think it is worth publishing, but the language and punctuation is hard to follow at times and the reader can get lost in the flow. I made some suggested changes in the attached paper, but it requires a thorough review. The methods seem sound, although I wonder if more can be done to validate the model. Also, what is the justification for choosing the climatic data that was used (i.e. does it represent average, wet year, dry conditions etc??)

Given the variability in the water footprint estimates compared with other research, I think that a sensitivity analysis of the different input factors would be useful, exploring the impact of changing the main inputs that might explain these large differences (e.g climate). But this wouldn’t necessarily have to be part of this work, and could be a future study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language and punctuation can be hard to follow at times, making it hard for the reader to follow. A careful review should easily improve this.

Author Response

According to the associate editor and reviewers' comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Fan et al. presents an estimation of the water footprint of different sheep production systems in China. This study is of significant importance in the context of sustainable water use in animal agriculture. What sets this study apart is its unique incorporation of locally measured meteorological data to accurately estimate water usage in sheep production. By considering these local factors, the study provides valuable insights into the specific water footprint associated with different production systems, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental impact of sheep farming in China. However, there are several areas that need attention to improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript. Additionally, I recommend a thorough language check for the manuscript, specifically addressing inconsistencies in verb and tense usage. To strengthen the manuscript, specific feedback and suggestions are outlined as follows:

Title

The title may be revised as “Water Footprint Analysis of different sheep production systems in Northern China”.

Abstract

The abstract would benefit from some improvements. Firstly, there is no need to divide the abstract into different points; instead, it should be written as a cohesive paragraph to provide a concise overview of the study. Secondly, the concluding sentence should be revised to accurately reflect the main finding, without comparing the results.

Introduction

I noticed that several statements in the introduction lack appropriate references. It is important for the authors to provide citations to support the claims and statements made in this section. To strengthen the justification of the study, I suggest that the authors include information about the variation in water footprint based on different production systems and geographical areas. They can reference previous studies that have explored this topic and highlight how the use of global water footprint assessments may have led to overestimation due to inadequate consideration of local meteorological conditions. Some of the statements presented in the discussion section could also be incorporated here to enhance the justification of the study.

Materials and Methods

Line 83-87: Good description of the study site.

Line 95: Please provide a more detailed description of the classes of animals (a) and types of production systems (s) that were included in the study. It is crucial to clearly outline this information as it forms a major component of the study. Additionally, please provide specific details on the proportion of sheep production that originates from each production system. This will help readers understand the distribution and contribution of different production systems to the overall study.

Line 123-125: Please provide a reference indicating that the water footprint of byproducts is considered as 0.

Line 161-169: In order to accurately estimate water footprints in Shaxi, China, the data used should be specific to the same area. The estimated feed type and composition should be based on representative data from the area under study, rather than relying on data from other areas. This potential limitation should be addressed.

Line 172-187: Please provide references for the main statements regarding the grass production and quality.

Line 201: Please verify the correct acronyms used in this line.

The authors should provide specific references or study data to support the claim that alfalfa hay is the major feed crop in the area. What about the grasses in the free-range grazing? Exploring the contribution of different grass species or varieties to the animals' diet and their potential impact on the water footprint would add depth to the study and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the grazing systems involved.

Line 292: The inclusion of screenshots of the data sources is unnecessary. Instead, providing the appropriate references is sufficient.

Line 364: Please include the units of measurement in the table for clarity and consistency.

Please ensure that the past tense is consistently used in the Materials and Methods section where appropriate.

Results

Results needs to be clearly and concisely described. Combine the table 3, 4 and 6 as follows:

Items	yield	Irrigation water	Evapotranspiration
First crop
Second crop
Third crop

 By consolidating the data into one table, the results will be presented in a more organized and easily understandable format. Add appropriate title to the table.

 

Line 376: Please specify whether the value provided is based on a dry matter basis.

Discussion

It is appreciated that the authors have provided a table for comparison in the discussion section. However, it appears that the information presented in both tables (e.g., Table 10) and figures in the same section is redundant. To avoid unnecessary repetition and enhance the clarity of the discussion, I recommend retaining the relevant table and removing the redundant figures.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the authors include a dedicated conclusion section in the manuscript. The conclusion will provide a concise summary of the study's main findings and their implications, allowing readers to grasp the key takeaways without having to review the entire manuscript.

 

• Address inconsistencies in verb and tense usage throughout the manuscript.
• Pay attention to the use of past tense in the Materials and Methods section where it is applicable to accurately describe the completed actions and processes.
• Conduct a thorough language check to identify and correct any language errors, including grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure, that may affect the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

According to the associate editor and reviewers' comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made considerable changes to the paper, which have improved it and made it easier to follow. I have only a few minor comments/ corrections in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and providing insightful comments. Your suggestions and recommendations have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. we have carefully considered all your comments and have made thorough revisions to address each point raised. The details of these revisions can be found in the attached document.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable input. Your expertise and guidance have been invaluable to us, and we are grateful for your continued support.

Best regards,
The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done an excellent job in addressing the concerns raised, and I appreciate their efforts to improve the manuscript. One minor suggestion I have is to update the title of the manuscript to reflect the inclusion of both sheep and goats in the study, such as "Sheep and Goat Production Systems" or "Small Ruminant Production Systems" .This would accurately represent the scope of the research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and providing insightful feedback. Your suggestion has greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered your opinion and decided to change the title to 'Water Footprint Analysis of sheep and goat from various production systems in Northern China'

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable input. Your professional knowledge and guidance are valuable to us, and we appreciate your continued support.

Best regards,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf