Identifying Pig- and Pork-Associated Zoonotic and Foodborne Hazards in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Systematised Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article entitled “Identifying Pig- and Pork-associated Zoonotic and Foodborne Hazards in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Systematised Review” by Kayano et al., narrates the real picture of pig- and pork associated zoonotic and foodborne hazards in Eastern and Southern Africa through a systematized literature review. The article looks interesting. I agree with the authors that pork is a potential source of zoonotic and foodborne diseases, and therefore, knowledge on prevalence of these hazards is very crucial to formulate policies to mitigate these hazards. The authors reviewed 140 published articles and identified 42 hazards associated with pig husbandry and pork consumption. The authors pinpointed that Taenia spp. was the most often studied, followed by Salmonella spp , Escherichia 25 coli, and Staphylococcus spp. These are very serious issues throughout the world. As relevant data regarding this issue is limited in Eastern and Southern Africa, the current study is of immense importance. The authors came out with a map of the zoonotic and foodborne hazards relevant to pigs and pork by country in ESA. That is very interesting.
Introduction
The introduction section covers the importance of the study and emphasized the need of the study. It is brief, to the point and well written.
Materials and Methods
The authors used a standard review protocol and search strategy with relevant search terms. The authors included research article published between January 2000 and May 2020. I was wondering why 2021 was not included. The tools and methodologies used for data analysis look perfect.
Results
The authors narrated a detailed description of the hazards identified from published articles and prepared a map which depicts the locations of four major pathogens; Salmonella spp., Escherichia. coli, 189 Staphylococcus spp. and Taenia spp.
Discussion
Discussion is well written and straightforward. I would like to request the authors to include one para on the implication of the study and how the results of this study will help the scientific community as well as policy makers to design and implement some crucial steps to control or mitigate the major hazards associated with pigs or pork.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides important data on zoonotic and foodborne hazards related to pigs and pork.
Author Response
Introduction.
- Some additional information should be provided to better quantify the risks and hazards. I strongly suggest that some information regarding pig farming in ESA be provided (e.g., type of farming, number of farms, size of farms, age at slaughter, presence of veterinarians in slaughterhouses). It would be useful to provide data on consumption per capita (in kg) of pork in other ESA countries (not just Kenya) as well.
>>
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve the Introduction describing the background of pig farming in ESA. We have added an explanation of this in L54-59.
- L. 69. Do the authors mean prevalence of infected animals (as I think) or prevalence of infected herds? This needs to be made explicit. Further issue that needs to be clarified and discussed: in the systematized literature review was this aspect taken into account? To estimate the pooled prevalence (at the total population level) of infected animals, the possible bias represented by examining animals from high prevalence herds needs to be evaluated.
>>
Basic information about the focus of the present study is explained in Method, including the approach used to examine the prevalence of hazards. We have also addressed the challenges of interpreting the results in the Discussion L293-297.
Materials and Methods.
- L. 79-87. Please check the syntax. I believe some parentheses are missing.
>>
We thank you for your careful reading. We have added the parentheses in the manuscript.
Results and Discussion.
- L. 183 and Table 2. "Fungi"-Specify at least the genus.
>>
Unfortunately, the information on species/genus of fungi is not available in the reviewed paper. We have added a sentence explaining the availability of further information in Table 2.
- Specify and discuss whether the calculated pooled prevalence took into account the within-herd prevalence.
>>
We thank you for your suggestion. Related to the previous question, we have discussed this point in the Discussion as one of the limitations in L293-297.
- References (see Instructions for Authors). References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ]. Abbreviated Journal Name must be used.
>>
We have changed the reference style according to the instruction of MDPI.
- Genus and species of microorganisms should be in italics.
>>
We have revised all microorganism names in italics.
- The text contains numerous typo errors. For example:
- 5. Pulford 1,, Lian
- 13, 189, 208. Escherichia. coli
L.93. following reasons; Studies.
- 198. figure 3
I suggest a careful review of the text.
>>
Thank you for your comments. All authors read the manuscript carefully and made some corrections.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper by Taishi Kayano et al. describes the results of a systematised literature review to identify pig- and pork-associated zoonotic and foodborne hazards in Eastern and Southern Africa.
The results could fill a gap in knowledge of the epidemiology of this type of zoonosis/ foodborne hazards in ESA countries.
However, to be published, the manuscript requires significant modifications.
For these reasons, I suggest the authors to take into account the following comments.
Major concerns
Introduction.
- Some additional information should be provided to better quantify the risks and hazards. I strongly suggest that some information regarding pig farming in ESA be provided (e.g., type of farming, number of farms, size of farms, age at slaughter, presence of veterinarians in slaughterhouses). It would be useful to provide data on consumption per capita (in kg) of pork in other ESA countries (not just Kenya) as well.
- L. 69. Do the authors mean prevalence of infected animals (as I think) or prevalence of infected herds? This needs to be made explicit. Further issue that needs to be clarified and discussed: in the systematized literature review was this aspect taken into account? To estimate the pooled prevalence (at the total population level) of infected animals, the possible bias represented by examining animals from high prevalence herds needs to be evaluated.
Materials and Methods.
- L. 79-87. Please check the syntax. I believe some parentheses are missing.
Results and Discussion.
- L. 183 and Table 2. "Fungi"-Specify at least the genus.
- Specify and discuss whether the calculated pooled prevalence took into account the within-herd prevalence.
Minor concerns
- References (see Instructions for Authors). References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ]. Abbreviated Journal Name must be used.
- Genus and species of microorganisms should be in italics.
- The text contains numerous typo errors. For example:
L. 5. Pulford 1,, Lian
L. 13, 189, 208. Escherichia. coli
L.93. following reasons; Studies.
L. 198. figure 3
I suggest a careful review of the text.
Author Response
Introduction
The introduction section covers the importance of the study and emphasized the need of the study. It is brief, to the point and well written.
>>
Thank you for your comment.
Materials and Methods
The authors used a standard review protocol and search strategy with relevant search terms. The authors included research article published between January 2000 and May 2020. I was wondering why 2021 was not included. The tools and methodologies used for data analysis look perfect.
>>
We conducted the study in 2020 as part of an MSc project and the search time reflects this timing, unfortunately submission of the manuscript was slightly delayed due to other commitments.
Results
The authors narrated a detailed description of the hazards identified from published articles and prepared a map which depicts the locations of four major pathogens; Salmonella spp., Escherichia. coli, 189 Staphylococcus spp. and Taenia spp.
>>
Thank you for clarifying the important points of the result.
Discussion
Discussion is well written and straightforward. I would like to request the authors to include one para on the implication of the study and how the results of this study will help the scientific community as well as policy makers to design and implement some crucial steps to control or mitigate the major hazards associated with pigs or pork.
>>
We have added the sentences highlighting the importance of the present study from the perspective of the policy-making and research community in ESA in the fourth paragraph of the Discussion.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides important data on zoonotic and foodborne hazards related to pigs and pork.
>>
We thank you for your positive comments. We hope that we have addressed all of your comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have operated a fine paper revision which made it suitable for publication.
