Assessment of Welfare in Transhumance Yak Hybrids (Chauris) in the Lower Himalayan Region of Nepal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and innovative article that evaluates animal welfare in extensive animal production systems. It also deals with a species that is still little studied and of interest in some regions of the world.

The methodology and analysis of the data obtained seem well constructed to me. Even so, I think that the division of the various welfare measures to be assessed should not be done in the following way: measures based on animals, resources, and records. This division could have been made, for example, based on the various Welfare Domains. We are aware of the growing importance of the Behaviour Domain, which is not assessed here (e.g. the animals' mental state, management, etc.). On the other hand, as some articles on cattle from Europe were considered, the authors could have consulted the Welfare Quality ® Assessment Protocols for cattle that are defined here and which are referenced in some of these articles.

Despite all this, it seems to me to be a very interesting piece of work and one that deserves to be considered for its innovation and local importance, making a great contribution to achieving some of the important sustainable development goals. I'll leave some specific comments below.

Line 21 - Replace "for both of these results we..." with "for both results, we...".

Line 22 - Insert "The" before "Resource-based".

Line 25 - Replace "which need" with "that need".

Line 53 - Replace "do" with "does".

Line 114 - Insert "The" before "response".

Line 145 - How were feces collected? This should be clarified, as the more or less invasive technique could affect the viability of its subsequent use in this type of protocol.

Line 171 - Correct "After author's discussion...".

Table 5 - Which climate-related causes of death are considered? This should be clarified in the article. Please note that in the annex, the proportion of yaks that die in a herd per year associated with extreme weather events and accidents appears in the same question.

Lines 242-24 - Is it feasible to take blood (or possibly feces, if a more invasive method is used) whenever you want to assess welfare on a yak farm? Consider all the limitations presented in your discussion as well.

Lines 303-312 - It is normal for the application of a welfare protocol to be limited in time and for the data collected to refer only to the moment when the assessment is made. Even so, we can try to adapt it to collect more comprehensive data... Why not consider the following question in the assessment protocols: "Is there food supplementation for the animals during periods of greatest food scarcity?".

Lines 325-332 - Considering all the logistical and cost issues associated with collecting and analyzing feces samples, why not consider replacing this measure with a measure associated with existing records on the farm (for example, the existence of veterinary medical follow-up with regular deworming on the farm and, possibly, the active substances administered)?

Lines 342-344 - The authors seem to devalue welfare assessment measures that are not related to resources. I think they should rephrase what they have written. When assessing welfare, it is extremely important to consider the data we can obtain from the animals and through this assessment to "see and hear what the animals want to tell us". Therefore, all measures are extremely valuable. Resource-based measures are generally objective and easier to collect, but their interpretation may not be as straightforward.

Lines 355 - 356 - I don't agree that predator attacks shouldn't be considered a welfare measure. If they do exist, perhaps deaths and injuries associated with predator attacks should be considered in isolation. This seems to me to be a very interesting, innovative, and important indicator of the species under study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our paper. Please see the file (attached) for the reply to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 The paper would be somewhat interesting if it was well written and structured. In this form, it cannot be accepted for the following reasons:

 - It is just a mixture of pieces taken from other articles (e.g. Table 95)

- The manuscript sections are not respected (anything anywhere written, e.g. materials and methods in the introduction; purpose, materials and methods and results in discussions section, etc.). The paragraphs that belong to a section should not be present in another.

- Try to limit the personal references such as ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’ and rather write in an impersonal mode/passive voice

- English must be improved.

English must be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper. Please see the file (attached) for the reply to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the research can be considered pioneering both from the point of view of the animals it concerned and the conditions in which it had to be carried out (Himalayan region of Nepal). Therefore, some imperfections contained in the manuscript should be approached with some understanding, and the research methodology should not be directly treated as analogous to the methodology commonly known and often used for animals in lowland farming conditions. I treat the assessed research as preliminary, hoping for further clarification of the method for assessing animal welfare in this case. This is clearly necessary.

Here are my questions and comments:

I am asking you to demonstrate that those recognized as experts in animal welfare were indeed experts. Especially since the authors mention poor veterinary care for animals. Moreover, not every "animal scientist" is an expert in animal welfare.

If the survey wasn't anonymous, did the experts know about it? Moreover, I believe that the lack of anonymity (the experts were known to the author of the manuscript) could have limited the objectivity of the animal welfare assessment. There is a high probability that the author and the experts knew each other's views on animal welfare before the survey was conducted and we can talk about a kind of interaction of their views.

What does "cattle algorithm" mean?

Usually, in practice, unlike experimental research, animal blood parameters are not used as indicators of their well-being. This method is invasive, troublesome and reluctantly accepted by pet owners. Therefore, I would like to ask you to explain what the animal owners' opinion was on this matter?

What does beginning subsection "3.2.4 Haematology" mean: "Table 95. prediction limits (mean ± 2 standard deviations) of the results..."?

Regarding the data in Table 5: it would be very important to show how many of the deaths of animals were due to their old age. It would be good to distinguish in this case natural / voluntary from involuntary culling / death of animals.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper. Please see the file (attached) for the reply to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript by Sapkota et al. evaluates the welfare of yaks and their hybrids in the Himalayan regions of Nepal. Despite the limited global economic significance of this livestock species, it holds great importance for local herders. Given the scarcity of scientific literature on yaks, this manuscript makes a significant contribution by identifying welfare assessment measures and their applicability to yak herds. This manuscript is distinctive for its comprehensive inclusion of a wide array of welfare measures, covering various aspects such as animal-based, resource-based, and management-based measures. Although the sample size for animal-based measures was relatively small, it met the minimum requirements for observational studies of this nature. The manuscript was well-written and easy to follow. Below are a couple of minor suggestions for improvement.

The introduction provides a robust justification for the study and adeptly outlines its objectives.

Line 191: Correct the table reference.

At the conclusion of the Materials and Methods section, it would be beneficial to include a brief mention of the statistical methods utilized. For instance, specifying that the data was presented descriptively as count (in percentage) and means with standard deviations could further enhance the comprehensiveness of this section.

The results were clearly presented, and the discussion was well-supported by prior studies, effectively justifying the findings. The study acknowledged the limitations concerning sample size and resource constraints.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper. Please see the file (attached) for the reply to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered most of the questions raised. Even so, knowing that some points can be improved regarding the assessment of animal welfare and/or management, these issues should be introduced into the discussion. I'll leave some specific comments below.

Table 5 - The causes of death considered to be accidents or climate-related causes should be clarified. For example, if there is a landslide, is this a climate-related cause? Couldn't it also be an accident?

Line 242 - When I ask whether it is feasible to take blood every time welfare is assessed on a farm for these animals, I am referring to the fact that this is an invasive procedure and, as such, could contribute to "poor animal welfare" during this period. In order to carry out the collection, it will be necessary to restrain the animals and perform the puncture, which may cause some discomfort. I would therefore suggest that this issue be addressed in the discussion of the work and that alternatives to this assessment be suggested.

Lines 303-312 - It is normal for the application of a welfare protocol to be limited in time and for the data collected to refer only to the moment when the assessment is made. Even so, we can try to adapt it to collect more comprehensive data... Why not consider the following question in the assessment protocols: "Is there food supplementation for the animals during periods of greater food scarcity?". I think this subject could be developed in the Discussion of the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, my recommendations were not considered. 

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

---

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing this paper.