Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures
, Richard Laven 1, Rebecca Hickson 2, Tim Parkinson 1 and Kevin Stafford 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A good first project for an important area.
129-131: there should be more justification for the author's opinion. explain why the author came to this conclusions.
159-199: as most of this was presented in the "Part 1" paper at the most a table highlighting the results previously put should be given.
Table 4: use the terms Score rather than red / orange. Explain what the term means in a footnote to the table.
Tables 4 and 5: explain why the levels of BCS used varies in these table.
I'm not sure there is justification for adjusting the thresholds during drought conditions.
The issues relating to ectoparasites is species (of the parasite and the host) specific. Is there any literature describing the endemic species?
A short comment on the practicalities of alternative ID practices e.g. freeze branding, microchipping could be added.
Appendix A: the photos should be individually labelled.
Author Response
Great review! Thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
My main concern is about objectivity of scoring. I guess you have to add some sentences to explain weakness of scoring in such an imminent field.
|
Line |
Comment |
|
115 |
Significance kevel? |
|
200 |
Each axis has to be explained and described by name in the figure, as figure 2 |
|
260 |
This part suggests an objectivity which doesn’t exists due to the subjective scoring by the person giving the scores. If you would have 3 persons scoring and would have taken the mean for each score it would be rather objective. But you have not done so. No problem. The problem is imminent. But you have to discuss this issue at this point. |
|
290 |
Compared to BCS, RFS is a short-term score. This has to be added to your discussion. |
|
327 |
Why don’t you compare New Zealand scoring with Namibia scoring in an additional table, where it can be fitted? It is not against Namibia, but it would show where are the highest differences and where are the targets for improvement. |
|
426 |
You can also write this study can help to improve animal welfare in other countries with different status of animal welfare with an individual threshold. |
|
509 |
8065-8073 |
|
523 |
check font |
|
544 |
check font of link and point at the end |
|
561 |
check points |
|
563 |
check pages |
|
569 |
check pages |
|
571 |
number? |
Author Response
Great review! Thanks so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank You for addressing all my comments minus one.
