Evaluation of the Level of Parasites Infection in Pigs as an Element of Sustainable Pig Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the manuscript:

1. In the “Introduction” chapter, the relationship between the diagnosis of endoparasitic infection in sows and piglets and the issue of sustainable animal production should be explained in detail. If not, the current “Title” should be reworded without using "sustainable agricultural production"

2. Instead of "sustainable agricultural production" or "sustainable animal production" use "sustainable pig production" because the manuscript is about a species of domestic pig

3. „Materials and Methods” explain: Landrace x Large boar? what breeds are they?

4. “Conclusions”: you should limit yourself to the conclusions of your own research, without an extensive summary

Author Response

Comments to the manuscript:

1. In the “Introduction” chapter, the relationship between the diagnosis of endoparasitic infection in sows and piglets and the issue of sustainable animal production should be explained in detail. If not, the current “Title” should be reworded without using "sustainable agricultural production"
2. Instead of "sustainable agricultural production" or "sustainable animal production" use "sustainable pig production" because the manuscript is about a species of domestic pig

Corrections are included in the manuscript

3. „Materials and Methods” explain: Landrace x Large boar? what breeds are they?

Corrections are included in the manuscript

4. “Conclusions”: you should limit yourself to the conclusions of your own research, without an extensive summary

Corrections are included in the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript investigated “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of  sustainable agricultural production”. The content is fall into the scope of the present journal. The topic is interest, but there are critical errors in the experimental design.

Abstract does not correspond to the correct method for writing research abstracts

The introduction is not sufficient to cover the aspects of the study well

Materials and methods are inadequate and the experimental design is not well explained

In lines 77-79. I can’t understand the distribution of samples over experimental times

There are problems in the statistical analysis, which makes the results of the study inaccurate... How is chi-square used with less than 5 repetitions... I think the most correct is to use Fisher's test

The study has different times for collecting samples, why did the statistical analysis not include a study of the effect of time?

What is the scientific basis on which the sample size was determined?

The conclusion of the study needs more abbreviation

 

Author Response

This manuscript investigated “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable agricultural production”. The content is fall into the scope of the present journal. The topic is interest, but there are critical errors in the experimental design.

Abstract does not correspond to the correct method for writing research abstracts

Improvement and corrections are included in the manuscript

There are problems in the statistical analysis, which makes the results

The introduction is not sufficient to cover the aspects of the study well

Materials and methods are inadequate and the experimental design is not well explained

The experiment was conducted on the same animals that were diagnosed in terms of endoparasitological study from the 108th day of gestation to the 24th day of lactation and their piglets. The total number of coproscopic samples was 840 coming from three production groups, mainly sows in late gestation, sows in lactation and suckling piglets

In lines 77-79. I can’t understand the distribution of samples over experimental times

Improvement and corrections are included in the manuscript

There are problems in the statistical analysis, which makes the results of the study inaccurate... How is chi-square used with less than 5 repetitions... I think the most correct is to use Fisher's test

The study has different times for collecting samples, why did the statistical analysis not include a study of the effect of time?

As part of the explanation, the most important element is that the experiment was conducted on the same animals from the moment of high gestation, through farrowing and rearing of piglets, which were also analyzed.

In order to determine the level of prevalence of the parasites occurrence and taking them into account for individual days of infection in pregnant and lactating sows, the χ2 compatibility test was used. The value of the χ2 test statistic was represented by the number of degrees of freedom. The analysis also showed the p value of the test statistic, informing about the statistical significance of the result. The χ2 test of agreement informs about the existence or non-existence of a relationship between the analyzed parameters.

Friedman's test was used to compare the level of infection intensity on individual measurement days. If there are more than 3 measurements in the analysis, the correction for multiple comparisons is applied. At this point, the p value changes. In the conducted analysis, determining the nature of the existing differences, a post hoc analysis was performed using Dunn's test with the correction of the Bonferroni significance level. Dunn's test is used for simple comparisons, i.e. the frequency in individual measurements is the same.

Then, in order to determine the relationship between the variables, Spearman's correlation analysis and ordinal regression analysis were used. The Spearman correlation belongs to the non-parametric correlation. Positive correlation means that as one variable increases, the value of the other variable also increases, while negative correlation means that as one variable increases, the value of the other variable decreases. For ordinal regression, it is used when the dependent variable is ordinal.

 

What is the scientific basis on which the sample size was determined?

In order to perform parasitological diagnostics (detection and isolation of eggs/oocysts from faeces) the quantitative method was used. The first stage was the preliminary cleaning of the fecal lump. Then 3 g of feces is flooded with 45 ml of NaCl. The resulting solution was then mixed and pipetted into two McMaster chambers and left for about 10 minutes. The prepared preparation was examined under the optical microscope Nikon Eclipse S 100, counting the eggs/ocysts in both chambers [Gundłach and Sadzikowski, 2004].

The conclusion of the study needs more abbreviation

Corrections are included in the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

The article entitled "Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable agricultural production" has reviewed. However, the purpose of this study was to diagnosis of endoparasitic infection in sows and piglets as an element of sustainable animal production. The results of this study should serve as a reminder to all researchers interested in this field.

1- The administration of a deworming program was ineffective in eliminating endoparasites in the herd. 2- The topic is relevant to the field of the journal and covers an important aspect of sustainable agricultural production. 3- It adds new value to available knowledge in a particular area by designing and proving hypotheses. 4- The specific improvements the authors should consider making regarding the methodology include using infected animals with specific types of parasites. As negative controls, I propose that the controls be considered healthy or unhealthy animals.  5- The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and they address the main question posed. 6- Yes, references were appropriate to the topic of this article's research. 7- There are no additional remarks.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The article entitled "Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable agricultural production" has reviewed. However, the purpose of this study was to diagnosis of endoparasitic infection in sows and piglets as an element of sustainable animal production. The results of this study should serve as a reminder to all researchers interested in this field.

1- The administration of a deworming program was ineffective in eliminating endoparasites in the herd. 2- The topic is relevant to the field of the journal and covers an important aspect of sustainable agricultural production.

3- It adds new value to available knowledge in a particular area by designing and proving hypotheses. 4- The specific improvements the authors should consider making regarding the methodology include using infected animals with specific types of parasites. As negative controls, I propose that the controls be considered healthy or unhealthy animals.

The experiment was conducted on the same animals that were diagnosed in terms of endoparasitological study from the 108th day of gestation to the 24th day of lactation and their piglets. The total number of coproscopic samples was 840 coming from three production groups, mainly sows in late gestation, sows in lactation and suckling piglets

5- The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and they address the main question posed.

6- Yes, references were appropriate to the topic of this article's research. 7- There are no additional remarks.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS: In the study sustainability-2110952 entitled “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable agricultural production”. Since currently in farms the animals are administered antiparasitic agents without preventive diagnosis, which do not contribute to the improvement of both production and the natural environment. Therefore, the authors investigate the diagnosis of endoparasitic infection in sows and piglets as an element of sustainable livestock production. The manuscript presents interesting data and the topic of the manuscript is of significant interest and appropriate for the Journal. The manuscript is written in an acceptable English language. The presentation and the length of the manuscript are adequate as the description of the experimental plan. In particular, the title accurately reflects the major findings of the work; the keywords represent the article adequately and the abstract section well summarizes the background, methodology, results, and significance of the study; the introduction section is well written, however must be improved, the topic of the study is not well stated and supported by adequate bibliographic information; material and methods section is well written and adequately describes the methods applied in the study; results section is clear, however the obtained findings were not well explained. The discussion and the conclusion sections are not clear. Many paragraphs are too long, please rewrote these sections. In view of this, I believe that the manuscript is suitable for publication after MAJOR REVISION.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS: The introduction section is well written, and it falls within the topic of the study, however, the current study does not give any information about anthelmintic resistance in animal. The significance of a program for the periodic assessment of the infection of pigs in intensive herds will be beneficial to check the animal condition and to improve animal production and hasn't been well documented. The results section should be rewrote. The discussion and the conclusion sections are not clear. Many paragraphs are too long and unclear, please rewrote these sections. Figures are generally good and they well represent results obtained. Data in Tables were not duplicated in the text. The reference list should be improved. Correct and uniform references to the journal style.

Author Response

GENERAL COMMENTS: In the study sustainability-2110952 entitled “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable agricultural production”. Since currently in farms the animals are administered antiparasitic agents without preventive diagnosis, which do not contribute to the improvement of both production and the natural environment. Therefore, the authors investigate the diagnosis of endoparasitic infection in sows and piglets as an element of sustainable livestock production. The manuscript presents interesting data and the topic of the manuscript is of significant interest and appropriate for the Journal. The manuscript is written in an acceptable English language. The presentation and the length of the manuscript are adequate as the description of the experimental plan. In particular, the title accurately reflects the major findings of the work; the keywords represent the article adequately and the abstract section well summarizes the background, methodology, results, and significance of the study; the introduction section is well written, however must be improved, the topic of the study is not well stated and supported by adequate bibliographic information; material and methods section is well written and adequately describes the methods applied in the study; results section is clear, however the obtained findings were not well explained. The discussion and the conclusion sections are not clear. Many paragraphs are too long, please rewrote these sections. In view of this, I believe that the manuscript is suitable for publication after MAJOR REVISION.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS: The introduction section is well written, and it falls within the topic of the study, however, the current study does not give any information about anthelmintic resistance in animal. The significance of a program for the periodic assessment of the infection of pigs in intensive herds will be beneficial to check the animal condition and to improve animal production and hasn't been well documented. The results section should be rewrote. The discussion and the conclusion sections are not clear. Many paragraphs are too long and unclear, please rewrote these sections. Figures are generally good and they well represent results obtained. Data in Tables were not duplicated in the text. The reference list should be improved. Correct and uniform references to the journal style.

 

Taking into consideration key revision aspects like topic of the study, obtained findings were corrected. The discussion and the conclusion sections were rewritten. This study did not take into account anthelmintic resistance in animals in particular in the case of Oesophagostomum spp., but it was included in the discussion. Herd health programs including antiparasitic prophylaxis were included in the discussion. The reference list was improved. Correction and uniformification of references to the journal style was performed.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript investigated “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable pig production”. The content is fall into the scope of the present journal. The topic is interest but the manuscript also raised many concerns. The follow are some specific comments.

Please add subtitle in M&M part including animal management and feeding, sample collection, and statistical analysis and model procedure.

In lines 132 and 133 you reported no differences in prevalence by parasite type p = 0.072. also in line 140, the p-value=0.115 I can’t understand where p-values=0.072 and 0.115 in Table 1

In lines 137-138 you said that for Oesophagostomum spp. parasites, the percentage of infected and uninfected sows was similar, How that???? The results in table 1 showed that the percentage of infected and uninfected sows for Oesophagostomum spp were 64.3 and 35.7, respectively.

Previously, I told you that the chi-square was not the appropriate test as there were frequencies less than 5 and you did not change anything in the manuscript. Please revise…

In line 180, the correlation coefficient 0.57 and p-value=0.035 is moderate not strong please modify that.

Please add the standard bar on Figures 3 and 4

Lines 151, 152,153, and 152.. Please explain that in M&M part and delete them from the results and detect the statistical test that you used to examine the significant differences between means.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigated “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable pig production”. The content is fall into the scope of the present journal. The topic is interest but the manuscript also raised many concerns. The follow are some specific comments.

Please add subtitle in M&M part including animal management and feeding, sample collection, and statistical analysis and model procedure.

Corrections are included in the manuscript, in lines 81-90; 100-102; 121-126; 129-140

In lines 132 and 133 you reported no differences in prevalence by parasite type p = 0.072. also in line 140, the p-value=0.115 I can’t understand where p-values=0.072 and 0.115 in Table 1

In lines 137-138 you said that for Oesophagostomum spp. parasites, the percentage of infected and uninfected sows was similar, How that???? The results in table 1 showed that the percentage of infected and uninfected sows for Oesophagostomum spp were 64.3 and 35.7, respectively.

Thank you for your suggestions, indeed, there is no such data in the table and such a record may mislead the recipient. It has been included in the text and explanation, in lines 166-179

Previously, I told you that the chi-square was not the appropriate test as there were frequencies less than 5 and you did not change anything in the manuscript. Please revise…

In order to test the significance of the relationship between nominal variables - prevalence and lactation period, as well as between prevalence and gestation period, Pearson's chi-square (χ2) test of independence of two variables was performed. Taking into account the size of the tables, the calculated chi-square test took into account the continuity correction (χ2 test with Yates correction). For contingency tables in which the number of cases was less than 30 or in any cell the expected number was less than 5, Fisher's exact test was used.

The verse has also been included in the chapter M&M, in lines 128-134

In line 180, the correlation coefficient 0.57 and p-value=0.035 is moderate not strong please modify that.

Corrections are included in the manuscript, in lines 223

Please add the standard bar on Figures 3 and 4

Corrections are included in the manuscript, on Figures 3 and 4.

Lines 151, 152,153, and 152.. Please explain that in M&M part and delete them from the results and detect the statistical test that you used to examine the significant differences between means.

It was removed from the chapter and added and explained in M&M, in lines 121-127

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The study sustainability-2110952, entitled “Evaluation of the level of parasites infection in pigs as an element of sustainable agricultural production”, is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

Manuscript was improved according to your suggestions. Thank you for your revision and we appreciate it.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Please add subtitle in M&M part including animal management and feeding, sample collection, and statistical analysis and model procedure.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, all suggestions have been incorporated in M&M