Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a data descriptor of a literature dataset comparing pasture-fed and indoor-fed ruminants to further assess and compare differences in performance.

The data is original, and its source is well defined. The dataset was collected using FAIR principles and have been archived appropriately to be accessible and available for reuse.

The methodologies of data collection were described accordingly, but it could be improved. Specifics comments are below:

 L 88. What criteria did you consider when evaluating the similarity of the diets?

L233. Please specify what you consider to be contradictory data or inconsistencies, and explain the criteria or methodology used to evaluate them.

Author Response

Please find attached our responses (in blue) to the comments of the three reviewers, whom we thank for their insightful comments.

We welcome your feedback on our responses, as well as on the changes to the introduction mainly, in accordance with the suggestions of the Reviewers 2 and 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the PASTorIN dataset, a literature-derived database comparing pasture-fed and indoor-fed ruminants based on 93 publications and 248 treatments collected over more than 40 years. The topic is relevant and timely considering the increasing interest in sustainable livestock systems, grazing management, and agroecological transitions.

Introduction

The introduction should adopt a more objective scientific tone and present both advantages and limitations of pasture-based systems. The novelty of the dataset should be better articulated. The manuscript states that the dataset was previously used for a 2014 meta-analysis. However, it is unclear whether the present dataset is identical to the original one. How the current version differs from the previous database.

Ambiguity in Experimental Independence

The manuscript indicates that several publications may report the same experimental trial and that one treatment row may combine information from multiple papers. This introduces an important risk of pseudo-replication and non-independence in future meta-analyses. The authors should clearly explain:

• How repeated datasets were tracked.
• Whether a unique experiment identifier exists.
• How users can distinguish independent experiments from multiple reports of the same experiment.

Methodological Reproducibility Needs Improvement

The search strategy is not fully reproducible. The manuscript should specify:

• Exact search strings used in Web of Science and CABI.
• Date of literature search.
• Inclusion/exclusion workflow (preferably PRISMA-like diagram).
• Language restrictions.
• Whether grey literature was included.

Inconsistent Numerical Formatting

Decimals are inconsistently reported using commas and periods Examples:

• “496,0”
• “55,2”
• “329.2”

Discussion

The manuscript mainly highlights the strengths of grazing systems but insufficiently discusses possible biases in the literature itself

Several important variables are absent or poorly represented in the dataset, including:

• Methane emissions.
• Feed efficiency.
• Animal welfare indicators.
• Health parameters.
• Reproductive performance.
• Detailed pasture composition.
• Economic profitability.

The manuscript does not compare PASTorIN with other livestock or grazing-related databases.

The discussion should clarify:

• What distinguishes this dataset.
• Whether similar datasets already exist.
• Advantages and limitations relative to existing resources.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study attempts to explain the “Comparison of the performance of pasture-fed and indoor-fed ruminants: a literature dataset on weight gain and carcass characteristics”.

Abstract

Although the abstract is informative, it does not explain how the search was conducted or how the statistical analysis was performed. Which were the search points that the authors considered relevant for the manuscript?

 

Introduction

The Introduction needs to be edited; the benefits of the pasture-based systems can be reduced, and the focus should be on the comparison and possible issues between the systems. No negative impact from the intensive systems is described. Another consideration is that as the global population increases, grazing sites are decreasing.

 

• L47-48. Does this apply to all species?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form