Turopolje Pig: Between Conservation and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript arouses interest because it is limited to an autochthonous race. However, the study should be expanded with genomic research in order to broaden the information related to the breed in question.

The writing of the manuscript needs minor revisions. Often there are repetitions of the same word: for example, line 72 the word competition is repeated, as well as line 84 the term condition. In addition, it is always suggested to report the full names first and then the acronyms, as in the case of line 124 where the CFC software is reported, not previously mentioned in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current study appears to be overly simplified in its approach. To enhance its comprehensiveness, it would be highly beneficial to include an evaluation of genetic parameters specific to this particular breed. This can be achieved by considering additional fixed factors such as sex, parity, litter size, and other relevant variables as well as random factors (Sire and dams). By incorporating these factors into the analysis, we can obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the breed's genetic characteristics and their influence on the outcomes being studied. Therefore, I suggest reformulating the study to incorporate these essential elements for a more thorough investigation.

Please mention to the harmful effects of Inbreeding on reproductive traits and productivity. By thoroughly examining the negative impacts of indoor breeding on reproductive traits and productivity, we can gain a deeper understanding of the specific challenges and limitations it presents. This knowledge serves as a driving force behind the implementation of more stringent controls and guidelines for mating plans. The aim is to mitigate the adverse effects and promote healthier reproductive outcomes and enhanced productivity in the breeding process.

The general characteristics of the breed must be clarified in the M&M section

Discussion need to be supported by several literatures in this topic

Author Response

Please see the attchment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study authored by Skorput et al., investigated the conservation and sustainability of the turopolje pig. All over the manuscript written well and clear. Since the manuscript requires minor clarifications and corrections in this article.

Major comments
1.Methodology: The authors may try to explain the pedgree info as graphic representation than tables. It will be easy to understand by the audience.
2. Dicussion:  Providing evolutionary lineage analysis or tree information for conservation between local breeds or a clear explanation of the evolutionary genetic diversity is necessary. How it shows lower level of genetic diversity of turopolje pigs than the other pigs.
3. Why did the authors not consider breeding through artificial insemination? Or regarding mating optimization through natural breeding using pheromone therapy?
4. What is the impact of intensive farming necessary for Turopolje pigs? Does this have any positive impact on the welfare of endangered species?

Minor comments
1. Abstract Line 26-30: Long sentence. The authors need to rewite the sentence with clarity.
2. Introduction Line 72: Rewrite the sentence, which is not clear. "reduce the competition between direct competition between pigs and humans"
3. Figure 1. Mention in which geographical location (the region) of the pigs?
4. Line 169: Expansion CCCP?

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Turopolje pig: between conservation and sustainability by D. Skorput et al.

This article deals with a comprehensive pedigree analysis of an autochthonous Turopolje pig breed. The article is well written, and the analyses are appropriate, with well presented results. I think the major contribution of this paper is raising awareness about the importance of local livestock breeds.

The authors assess the genetic diversity within the Turopolje pig population using pedigree analysis. They conclude that the genetic diversity in the Turopolje breed is impaired due to small effective population size, and inability to reduce the relationship between breeding individuals under 0.07. Working with small populations is challenging, and I would like to suggest that the authors come up with some ideas on how to deal with this problem currently, assuming that data collection, phenotyping, and genotyping may not improve in the immediate future.

My specific comments are below:

Abstract – line 17-18 and 20: it is not clear what the number of parentheses mean before reading the paper. Please add information.

Line 49 and Figure 1: What I can see from Figure 1 is that the number of sows steadily increases from 2016 onwards. Isn’t it a good sign, a sign that conservation efforts work?

Line 72: ‘computational demands’ is repeated.

Line 85: … extremely cold and extremely hot weather ?

Line 122-123: The 1,155 individuals were born between 1996 and 2023?

Line 177-178: How were the 5 males and 120 females chosen? Would a different set of mating candidates produce different results?

Line 277: … will result in simultaneous …

Finally, including a picture of a Turopolje pig (if possible) would contribute to increased interests to potential readers.

English language is fairly good, may require minor editing. Please proofread to check for typos and duplications in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your efforts