Stray Currents in Livestock Farming: Electrical Diagnosis in Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the title "Stray Currents in Livestock Farming: Electrical Diagnosis in Farms" addresses a highly intriguing subject matter. I believe that the used approach based on electrical diagnostics is very interesting and promising. However, in its current form, the manuscript has certain shortcomings that need to be eliminated before publication. For example, the measurement procedures are very poorly explained. Measurement schemes are also not explained. Furthermore, the authors in the manuscript provide some well-known things in electrical engineering (For example, the diagram in Figure 3 can be found in almost all textbooks dealing with electrical installations). At the end of the manuscript, the authors confuse the terms static and impulse phenomena. It would be desirable for these parts to be reviewed by an electrical expert before resubmission of the manuscript. It would be desirable if at the end of the introductory section the authors provide an overview of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The used English is at a satisfactory level

Author Response

I would like to thank you for taking the time to look at the manuscript and for your comments, which will enable us to improve it.
All changes made during this review will be indicated in the Word document by a tracker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has the merit of making and presenting measurements in 11 farms. These measurements included: earth resistance, equipment insulation resistance, continuity, leakage currents, contact and step voltages. The measurement methods and the obtained results are presented, including a statistical version.

The work may be of interest to a large number of people, concerned with electrical problems in farms.

The introduction should include a more detailed presentation of the previous studies, i.e. if measurements were made, which parameters were analyzed, which disruptive equipment was identified (stray current generators), which steps were taken (solutions).

The present work should be better connected to studies in the field. The bibliography should be completed with recent works.

Although described in the introductory part, the authors do not specify whether changes in behavior or a decline in livestock productivity were reported at the analyzed farms. Therefore, following the measurements, a correlation could not be established between the behavior and the existence of non-conformities.

To be corrected in line 92: "Un equipment".

Figures 10, 13 are missing (incorrectly numbered).

Author Response

I would like to thank you for taking the time to look at the manuscript and for your comments, which will enable us to improve it.
All changes made during this review will be indicated in the Word document by a tracker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors for the interesting and well structured article they submit to Agriculture journal. I think the presented studies are really valuable. 

My only remark concerns the descriptions of background studies in the introduction which could be more detailed and with some additional references. Some references could be cited in support to the affirmations in the paragraph between rows 40-47. 

Some omissions and typos: 

The English term for the French "tension" with reference to the electric networks is "voltage". So the HT/HT on the row 41 should become HV/HV, BT on row 85 should be LV, and "Un" in the beginning of row 92 should be "An". 

Fig. 12 on row 224 (p. 8) should be fig. 10. The two figures 12 and 13 are omitted in the presented version of the paper, and should be included. 

In the caption of fig. 21 (on row 357) "contact voltages" should become "step voltages", and on row 365 "Figure 14" should become "Figure 22". 

 

Author Response

I would like to thank you for taking the time to look at the manuscript and for your comments, which will enable us to improve it.
All changes made during this review will be indicated in the Word document by a tracker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper review report

By increasing the degree of automation of the animal husbandry process, electrical installations are greatly expanded, which is why the risk of animals being exposed to electrocution increases greatly. Also, the currents passing through the conductors of electrical installations increase in intensity, which generates magnetic fields whose induction reaches high values. As a result, farm animals are exposed to both electric shocks and magnetic field influences on the body. The electric field intensities are low because the electrical installations related to animal farms are supplied with low voltage (230V - phase voltage, respectively 400V - line voltage in the case of three-phase electrical installations.  

Considering these elements, I believe that the topic addressed in the paper is of great interest to animal breeders and to engineers in the electrical field.

The analysis of the influence of the magnetic field, respectively of the electric currents on the animal body is a very complex problem, which is why its solution is difficult.

In the paper, the authors analyzed the risks of electrocution to which farm animals are exposed due to the imperfection of electrical installations and the measures that can be taken to reduce these risks.

Observations

1. Considering the problems analyzed in the paper, I propose that the title of the paper become "Analysis of the possibilities of reducing the risk of electrocution of farm animals caused by electrical installations".

2. The first sentence of the introduction (lines 26-27) can be removed because sufficient data is presented further.

3. The effects of electrocution depend primarily on the value of the intensity of the current through the body, not on the voltage applied to the body. That is why I believe that the statement in lines 74-76 needs to be corrected.

4. The resistance of the animal and human body varies within very wide limits (from hundreds of Ω to hundreds of kΩ). As a result, the effects of electric shocks are very different from one case to another. The authors can justify why animal resistance is considered 2200Ω?

5. The calculations performed using relation (3) are elementary, which is why I think they can be eliminated by keeping only the result. Moreover, relation (3) is correct only in the case of filiform conductors, or in the presented case this requirement is not satisfied.

6. Since the resistance of the earth plugs is determined experimentally, it is necessary to know the precision class of the instrument used for measurements.

7. To make it easier to follow figure 6, it is necessary that the writing be horizontal. Also, the red line must connect the phase to the socket not the neutral. Figure 6 should be corrected.

8. As a rule, in works, the figures are placed before the comments related to them. I believe that it is necessary to proceed in the same way in this work.

9. Figures 10 and 13 on page 8 are missing. This error needs to be corrected.

10. Are the values of resistances or impedances shown in table 2? It is necessary to specify more clearly whether resistances or impedances are measured.

11. The work must be revised in such a way as to remove the unoccupied spaces (eg page 11).

 

12. I believe that the size of the work can be reduced by eliminating the elementary details presented in it.

Author Response

I would like to thank you for taking the time to look at the manuscript and for your comments, which will enable us to improve it.
All changes made during this review will be indicated in the Word document by a tracker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript. It is now suitable for the publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Used English is suitable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the work brings some new information and additional explanations. The completion of the list of bibliographic references was observed. Related to the measurement conditions, additional details have been added regarding the settings of the measurement system values. Also, some new explanations have been added to explain the graphically presented results. Regarding the conclusions in the new form, they emphasize much more clearly the purpose of the work, the significance of some obtained results and new research directions in the field.