It’s Premature to Encourage Working Cats for Rodent Control on Australian Dairy Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed paper clearly shows a commendable effort to provide empirical evidence in support of the conclusions of Crawford et al. [1,2], based on the opinions of a small sample of AUS dairy farmers.

According to Crawford et al., farmers place a high value on cats due to their efficiency in pest control and associated monetary savings. Most of them claim ownership of the cats but they do not have any problem to abide by state and local government laws that regulate their protection, namely: (1) the  Animal Care and Protection Act 2001  in force in QLD, establishing that a person in charge of an animal owes a duty of care and should take reasonable steps to provide it with food and water, accommodation and living conditions (2) the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA) currently in force in NSW, establishing that good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition and humane handling and (3) the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code that requires dairy farms to implement pest management plans.

In essence, it looks like the AUS cats’ welfare conditions are often overlooked if not deliberately neglected by farmers. The argument raised by the farmers of not having the resources to comply with legislation or enforcement orders could be claimed by every producer of the agrifood sector, but it is unacceptable as a valid justification in front of the law. The paradox of this study is that some (and hopefully very few) Australian farmers, who openly distrust public authorities and deliberately disregard the legislation aiming at protecting their “semi-owned” or owned cats, are not willing at all to reinvest the monetary savings produced by these animals to improve their welfare. It’s hard to believe that their opinions might be taken into account by the same “distrusted authorities” as valid arguments to develop new legislative measures for the detaxation of these cats as “working animals”.

Another key aspect of this study is the apparently very low capacity (or will) of the AUS Competent Authorities to enforce the existing legislative measures.

The first program, named “BARN CAT PROJECT", took place in QLD, Australia, whereby cat caregivers and owners were provided with free cat sterilization, microchipping, vaccination, endo and ectoparasite control, and veterinary care. Cats participating in this program were permitted to be sterilized, microchipped, and ear-tipped, and returned to their original location without being legally registered to an owner, which is illegal in QLD. How many farms were enrolled in the ‘BARN CAT PROJECT”, out of the total number of dairy farms established in QLD?  What were the criteria for enrollment in the  ‘BARN CAT PROJECT’? How many farms enrolled in the ‘BARN CAT PROJECT’  participated in the Crawfords’ study? What were the criteria for enrolment in the Crawfords’ study?

The second program, ‘The Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’, took place in Bega Valley, NSW. In this program, dairy farmers were provided with free cat sterilization and were assisted in rehoming unwanted kittens. Any ill or injured cats or kittens were humanely euthanized, as were cats in excess of the farmers’ needs. How many farms were enrolled in the ‘Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’, out of the total number of dairy farms established in the BEGA Valley?  What were the criteria for enrolment in the  ‘Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’? How many farms enrolled in the ‘Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’  participated in the Crawfords’ study? What were the criteria for enrolment in Crawford’s study? Who decided how many cats were in excess of the farmer’s needs? How it was this number calculated? What were the criteria for the selection of the cats to be euthanized among the group of healthy ones? Does the term “re-homed” stand for “adopted”?

How many of them were enrolled in the BARN CAT PROGRAM? How many of them were enrolled in the “Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’?

Nine farms participated in the study with a total of 392 working cats managed in the program (Appendix A). How many farmers were potentially beneficiaries of the two programs? Why didn't they participate?

In this context, it’s hard to believe that a tax deduction policy would finally guarantee an improvement in dairy farms’ cats' welfare. On the contrary, it might even lead to a further lowering of the Official control levels, with negative consequences on cats’ welfare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

General Comment: Note that all line numbers in the reviewers’ comments refer to the original version of the paper. 

Response: While all line numbers in the reviewer’s comments refer to the original version of the paper, those in the response column refer to the clean version of the revised paper.

Overall response: We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful overview of the issues and the suggestions of omissions in the Crawford et al. papers.

Comment 1: How many farms were enrolled in the ‘Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’, out of the total number of dairy farms established in the BEGA Valley?  What were the criteria for enrolment in the  ‘Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’? How many farms enrolled in the ‘Far South Coast Dairy Cat Project’  participated in the Crawfords’ study? What were the criteria for enrolment in Crawford’s study? Who decided how many cats were in excess of the farmer’s needs? How it was this number calculated? What were the criteria for the selection of the cats to be euthanized among the group of healthy ones? Does the term “re-homed” stand for “adopted”? How many farmers were potentially beneficiaries of the two programs? Why didn't they participate?

Response 1: There are many good points here regarding the unsuitability of the data presented for positivist conclusions. We’ve strengthened our coverage of these points by adding a sentence: ‘Such a survey would consider sample size, representativeness, conflicts of interest (e.g., if there were rewards or incentives for participation), reasons for inclusion or exclusion from surveys, decision matrix for cat euthanasia, and careful definition of terms (e.g., is ‘rehomed’ equivalent to ‘adopted?’).’ Lines 391-394.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The commentary article “It’s premature to encourage working cats for rodent control on Australian dairy farms: response to Crawford et al. 2025 [1,2] brings valuable insights by showing that several conclusions presented in the papers by Crawford et al. are incorrect and, in most cases, overly optimistic regarding the role of cats in rodent control.

The manuscript successfully clarifies that the evidence used to support such claims is largely anecdotal and not empirically substantiated, revealing how weak the factual basis of those conclusions actually is. All arguments presented by the authors are properly supported and referenced throughout the text, demonstrating a careful and critical synthesis of the available literature.

It is clear that many of the discussions and conclusions in the commented papers (Crawford et al. 2025 [1,2]) lack scientific grounding. Although those studies may hold some relevance for giving voice to farmers’ perceptions and experiences, they indeed extrapolate their findings beyond what the data can support. For instance, Crawford et al. asserted that desexed and well-nourished cats would prey on fewer wildlife species and remain near barns, thereby serving as effective and safe rodent controllers; however, they did not provide supporting data for these claims. In addition, the authors proposed recognizing cats as working animals and suggested tax incentives for their upkeep, yet offered no quantitative or economic analyses to compare the efficacy and costs of cats with other pest control alternatives.

Moreover, it should be highlighted that the methods in Crawford et al.’s studies also present significant limitations, both in their description and execution, which undermines the internal validity of their findings and the robustness of the conclusions drawn.

Therefore, I find the criticisms presented in this commentary to be pertinent, relevant, and scientifically well-founded.

In terms of improvement, I suggest only that the authors acknowledge that it would be complex and perhaps unfeasible for a single research group to conduct all the empirical, behavioral, ecological, and economic studies they list as necessary to substantiate the claims made by Crawford et al. However, it remains important to outline all these methodological gaps to make even clearer how overstated the conclusions of the commented papers were.

I also suggest that the text include a brief discussion on the quality of the peer review process in general, emphasizing how inadequate or superficial evaluations can allow the publication of studies with weak methodological support and overinterpreted findings. Including this broader reflection could help expand the discussion and contribute to improving the current peer review landscape by encouraging more rigorous and evidence-based evaluations.

Finally, I recommend that the authors strengthen the presentation of quantitative information supporting their arguments. The results from studies cited as evidence are often summarized narratively, without mentioning the strength of associations, statistical significance, or clear quantitative data such as sample sizes, number of animals, or specific interventions. Providing these details would greatly enhance clarity and allow readers to better understand the magnitude of the reported effects and the reasons behind inconsistencies across studies.

Author Response

General Comment: Note that all line numbers in the reviewers’ comments refer to the original version of the paper. 

Response: While all line numbers in the reviewer’s comments refer to the original version of the paper, those in the response column refer to the clean version of the revised paper.

Overall response: We thank the reviewer for the obvious care taken to read our commentary in detail and for the perceptive comments below. 

Comment 1: In terms of improvement, I suggest only that the authors acknowledge that it would be complex and perhaps unfeasible for a single research group to conduct all the empirical, behavioral, ecological, and economic studies they list as necessary to substantiate the claims made by Crawford et al. However, it remains important to outline all these methodological gaps to make even clearer how overstated the conclusions of the commented papers were.

Response 1: Good point. The critique as written could be interpreted as asking for a large-scale research program involving multiple groups, whereas smaller studies are useful if accompanied by a clearer recognition of limitations and how they should fit into a larger picture. We have added this sentence to the first paragraph of the conclusions: ‘While the diverse concerns raised are more than one research group could reasonably complete, reporting of any part should acknowledge the limitations of a smaller study and indicate awareness of the larger picture and the other data needed for a convincing, comprehensive assessment of the impacts of cats on rodents.’ Lines 539-543.

Comment 2: I also suggest that the text include a brief discussion on the quality of the peer review process in general, emphasizing how inadequate or superficial evaluations can allow the publication of studies with weak methodological support and overinterpreted findings. Including this broader reflection could help expand the discussion and contribute to improving the current peer review landscape by encouraging more rigorous and evidence-based evaluations.

Response 2: While we agree with the sentiments here, we are cautious about how provocative a strong attack on the original reviews or the editorial process can be. There would also be a tone of ‘We’re right and you’re wrong’ may be unhelpful in ongoing dialogue. To do justice to the topic of superficial reviewing or inappropriate evaluations  would require a full paper in its own right, with a diverse range of examples. Other authors have offered commentary. Therefore, we’ve limited ourselves to adding these sentences and references to the conclusions: ‘More detailed attention to those comments at the review stage, especially with editorial guidance and allocation of adequate time to address them, would have strengthened the paper. Neglect of these points may have negative reputational consequences [108-111].’ Lines 546-549.

Comment 3: Finally, I recommend that the authors strengthen the presentation of quantitative information supporting their arguments. The results from studies cited as evidence are often summarized narratively, without mentioning the strength of associations, statistical significance, or clear quantitative data such as sample sizes, number of animals, or specific interventions. Providing these details would greatly enhance clarity and allow readers to better understand the magnitude of the reported effects and the reasons behind inconsistencies across studies.

Response 3: The approach recommended here is that of a systematic review, which we agree would be valuable for several sections of the paper including cats and rodent control, behavioural responses of cats to desexing, and rates of euthanasia in TNR programs for cats. We feel, though, that to do this approach justice would require one or more separate full papers. The current commentary is already long (7,200+ words), so we felt there was a risk of choking it by adding extensive extra detail. The target audience for this paper follows that of the original, aimed at farmers and politicians (wider readers of ‘Animals’), so we prefer to keep the language concise. If the Editor felt that specific components of our manuscript require this level of detail to further strengthen the points being made, then we would be happy to add them in.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a well referenced and well-structured review communicating concerns of overinterpretation of results by Crawford et al. in both their articles focusing on farm cats.

My main concern while reviewing this comment was to assess the paper for neutrality, objectivity, completeness of the evidence, and to detect bias or confrontational tone.

Neutrality: the authors present arguments in favor of pursuing the goals underlying the papers by Crawford et al., (developing and applying IPM), and highlight merits in the papers' approach, signaling a neutral and constructive tone. They share their concern with overinterpretation of the results regarding representativeness of purposive sampling, generalization of a small-scale qualitative study, and the representation of perceptions as evidence. Objectivity: Calver et al. focus their discussion on evidence based on a very complete set of references, and, where appropriate, present evidence both for and against the claims by Crawford et al. (completeness of the evidence). This ensures a balanced approach and providing a constructive review that builds on the two previous papers. Potential conflicts of interest are clearly stated and acknowledged.

This comment provides a constructive and critical review from peers on the papers by Crawford et al. that serves two purposes: a) the self-corrective process of science, by augmenting and complementing the peer-review process, and b) the clarification of a public discussion with interest to policy.

All of the issues raised are well founded and well supported both methodologically and by evidence. The paper is suitable for publication in its current form and very relevant.

I could not find typing errors beyond two instances of double spacing, or any suggestions of improvement, and therefore find this article fit for publication in its current form, with minor editorial work.



 

Author Response

Overall response: We appreciate the reviewer’s focus on neutrality, objectivity, completeness of evidence, bias and absence of a confrontational tone. It is reassuring to note that this has been achieved.

Comment 1: I could not find typing errors beyond two instances of double spacing, or any suggestions of improvement, and therefore find this article fit for publication in its current form, with minor editorial work.

Response 1: Thank you for reading so closely! We have done a Find and Replace search on the paper and removed all cases of two successive spaces.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the two papers by Crawford et al. (Animals 2025, 15,766 and Animals 2025, 800) before reading the Response paper by Calver et al., and had many of the same concerns about the lack of monitoring of rodent numbers, cat activities and diet, as well as the numbers of cats euthanized as part of the program. Like Calver et al., I found that the two papers by Crawford et al. contributed useful qualitative information to the field, but that additional quantitative data are needed to further support their proposed programs of classifying barn cats at dairy farms as working animals (for tax deductions), sterilizing them, and cooperating with shelters via a Barn Cat Program. This is especially true given that many previous studies in this area present conflicting data (e.g., on the effectiveness of cats in controlling rodent numbers and whether feeding cats reduces their likelihood of hunting wildlife).

The Response paper is comprehensive, well-organized, and well-written, and includes both recent and historical literature. One thing not mentioned in the Response paper that I noticed in the two Crawford et al. papers was the lack of a table or appendix listing the actual questions asked during the interviews (e.g., other papers that I have reviewed using similar qualitative methods have provided an “Interview Guide,” listing the exact questions). The topics covered in the interviews were described (in Subsection 2.3 Procedures, Materials and Methods) but it is unclear whether these were the exact questions asked during interviews. Without the exact questions, it would be challenging to replicate the study. Also, other papers using qualitative methods and structured interviews often include a “Reflexivity statement” in the Materials and Methods section; such statements analyze how a person’s background can influence their research, with the goal of mitigating bias in research.

The one section of the Response paper that I thought went a bit too far was Section 7. Applying One Welfare, in particular lines 456-467 concerning inadequate scoping in the first paper by Crawford et al. Based on this text, it would seem almost impossible for a study to meet such scoping requirements. Finally, while the Response paper provides constructive criticism of the two Crawford et al. papers, it also points out positive aspects of their research and maintains a professional, neutral tone throughout.

Author Response

General Comment: Note that all line numbers in the reviewers’ comments refer to the original version of the paper. 

Response: While all line numbers in the reviewer’s comments refer to the original version of the paper, those in the response column refer to the clean version of the revised paper.

Overall response: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoroughness in reading the two Crawford et al. papers before reviewing our commentary. We thank the reviewer for that high level of dedication. 

Comment 1: One thing not mentioned in the Response paper that I noticed in the two Crawford et al. papers was the lack of a table or appendix listing the actual questions asked during the interviews (e.g., other papers that I have reviewed using similar qualitative methods have provided an “Interview Guide,” listing the exact questions). The topics covered in the interviews were described (in Subsection 2.3 Procedures, Materials and Methods) but it is unclear whether these were the exact questions asked during interviews. Without the exact questions, it would be challenging to replicate the study. Also, other papers using qualitative methods and structured interviews often include a “Reflexivity statement” in the Materials and Methods section; such statements analyze how a person’s background can influence their research, with the goal of mitigating bias in research.

Response 1: Thank you for drawing attention to these oversights in the Crawford et al. papers. We’ve responded by including this text in Section 5 Extrapolating from a small-scale study: ‘One example is the absence of an appendix with an Interview Guide including specific questions to complement the topics presented in the Methods. A second example is the absence of a reflexivity statement by the authors reflecting on the background and assumptions they brought to the study that may have shaped the research. Such an appendix or statement would also perhaps have clarified how the goals of the charities funding the work aligned with the intent and development of survey questions for dairy farmers..’ Lines 355-361.

Comment 2: The one section of the Response paper that I thought went a bit too far was Section 7. Applying One Welfare, in particular lines 456-467 concerning inadequate scoping in the first paper by Crawford et al. Based on this text, it would seem almost impossible for a study to meet such scoping requirements.

Response 2: Fair point. We have responded by including the sentence: ‘We recognise that including all these interest groups in a single study taking a One Welfare approach is impractical. We do, though, argue that any case based on One Welfare should acknowledge the range of interests involved before giving a rationale for the groups retained in the final analysis.’ Lines 476-480.