Fish Farming Techniques: Current Situation and Trends
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review manuscript is not comprehensive and based on the topic and abstract section, readers are expected to find many challenging information, although this has not be happened. The manuscript did not organized well and there are some sections that need to be explain in detail. All in all, there are some drawbacks listed below that need to be justified.
L13: What about environmental impacts? What about producing carbon dioxide? Don't we encourage water pollution and eutrophication by intensive and super-intensive aquaculture especially in the fresh water by traditional methods?
L19: live feed
L22: The conclusion is missed.
L23: Please replace the keyword “ Productive performance” with more specific one.
L29, 38, and 49: The new statistic report is released and the authors should update it.
L29-57: It is repetition of FAO reports. Readers are eager to see controversial issues in the introduction section of a review paper.
- The authors should specifically and clearly demonstrate why they write this review, since there are a lot of similar comprehensive review paper in this topic. What is the innovation of this paper?
- The authors did not use any graph and/or table to represent the findings and all the text make the review manuscript disinterested to read.
- The design of the sub-sections is not appropriate, because there only limited species notice and the other ones are missed. It is suggested to customize the title only to one aquatic environment and only one category to have a concentrate review. For instance, only marine water and only fish and/or shellfish. At the present status, the topic is so general and there are a lot of issues (i.e. fish, shellfish, live feed, freshwater, estuarine and saltwater) that should be provided to cover it.
- There is no categorized sections by the environment, countries, continents, etc.
- There is no challenge to show the disadvantages in terms of cultural systems.
- I think, the sustainability in fish farming is the most innovative part of the manuscript, however, this section is not mentioned well and comprehensively.
- The section “Biosecurity in fish farming” is poor. The section “Feed and nutrition in fish farming” is poor. For example, what was the status in the past? what is the status at the present time? What is it supposed to be in future? what was the advantages and disadvantages for each? Finally, what do you recommend to do in future by concluding the relevance literature review?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: The review manuscript is not comprehensive and based on the topic and abstract section, readers are expected to find many challenging information, although this has not been happened. The manuscript did not organized well and there are some sections that need to be explain in detail. All in all, there are some drawbacks listed below that need to be justified.
Answer 1: We thank the kind word from the reviewer, and acknowledge the revision work done by him/her. All the work as revised and added more information and created more subsections.
Comment 2: L13: What about environmental impacts? What about producing carbon dioxide? Don't we encourage water pollution and eutrophication by intensive and super-intensive aquaculture especially in the fresh water by traditional methods?
Answer 2: Thank you for your advice, we clarify that question in the abstract.
Comment 3: L19: live feed
Answer 3: Thank you, we corrected the sentence.
Comment 4: L22: The conclusion is missed.
Answer 4: We added a conclusion.
Comment 5: L23: Please replace the keyword “Productive performance” with more specific one.
Answer 5: We modified the keyword.
Comment 6: L29, 38, and 49: The new statistic report is released and the authors should update it.
Answer 6: We updated the data.
Comment7: L29-57: It is repetition of FAO reports. Readers are eager to see controversial issues in the introduction section of a review paper.
- The authors should specifically and clearly demonstrate why they write this review, since there are a lot of similar comprehensive review paper in this topic. What is the innovation of this paper?
Answer 7: We added more information in the section and updated the data. The innovative part is in the section 6 and 7, furthermore the section 5 has been updated to be clearer.
Comment 8: The authors did not use any graph and/or table to represent the findings and all the text make the review manuscript disinterested to read.
Answer 8: We added tables to the manuscript
Comment 9: The design of the sub-sections is not appropriate, because there only limited species notice and the other ones are missed. It is suggested to customize the title only to one aquatic environment and only one category to have a concentrate review. For instance, only marine water and only fish and/or shellfish. At the present status, the topic is so general and there are a lot of issues (i.e., fish, shellfish, live feed, freshwater, estuarine and saltwater) that should be provided to cover it.
Answer 9: We updated the manuscript with more subsections, thus the species in the manuscript are the most important economically.
Comment 10: There is no categorized sections by the environment, countries, continents, etc.
Answer 10: We revised the section by species and typologies in the farming.
Comment 11: There is no challenge to show the disadvantages in terms of cultural systems.
Answer 11: In the aquaculture nowadays, in this species there are as demonstrated certain types of cultivation which are conventionally recommend by FAO, for example. Thus, what we are experiencing is the development of feed, animal concentration, and new technologies to make this adopted method more efficient and more ecosustainable. Thus, the section 6 and 7 are the keystone in this new part which are being developed nowadays, as demonstrated also in section 5.
Comment 12: I think, the sustainability in fish farming is the most innovative part of the manuscript, however, this section is not mentioned well and comprehensively.
Answer 12: We updated the section 6 and 7, which are based also in the sustainability of fish farming.
Comment 13: - The section “Biosecurity in fish farming” is poor. The section “Feed and nutrition in fish farming” is poor. For example, what was the status in the past? what is the status at the present time? What is it supposed to be in future? what was the advantages and disadvantages for each? Finally, what do you recommend to do in future by concluding the relevance literature review?
Answer 13: We revised that section and added more information.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall is good and interesting but there are some issues as follow:
1. Need to elaborate main aquaculture fish culture system in Asia such tilapia farming, catfish farming.
2. need to highlight carp farming system in china
3. How about salmon farming in Norway?
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: Overall is good and interesting but there are some issues as follow:
Answer 1: We thank the kind word from the reviewer, and acknowledge the revision work done by him/her.
Comment 2: Need to elaborate main aquaculture fish culture system in Asia such tilapia farming, catfish farming.
Answer 2: We addressed the question in the manuscript.
Comment 3: need to highlight carp farming system in china
Answer 3: We addressed the question in the manuscript.
Comment 4: How about salmon farming in Norway?
Answer 4: We addressed the question in the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The review article is interesting. It can be accepted as it is now.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment 1: The review article is interesting. It can be accepted as it is now.
Answer 1: We thank the kind words from the reviewer.
Reviewer 4
Comment 1: This review article overviewed species, systems, challenges, and prospects for fish aquaculture worldwide. Because the content crosses a relatively broad range of disciplines, this reviewer could not possibly cover it all but has reviewed it to the best of my understanding. Trivial comments are provided below. For my area of expertise "6.5 fish genetics on farming", I felt somewhat of a disconnect between what was described and the actual trends, and I have commented on that below as well. Overall, I believe that the authors' aim of providing an overview of the panorama of fish farming is well done and that the manuscript should be accepted after revised.
Answer 1: We thank the kind word from the reviewer and acknowledge the revision work done by him/her. All the work as revised and added more information.
Comment 2: Please unify the titles of subheadings throughout the manuscript, as they are written in italics in some cases and not in others.
Answer 2: This is due to the MDPI instructions which are described in the template of the journal.
Comment 3: Please unify the units for production volume as MT, tons, and kg, as they are mixed.
Answer 3: Thank you, we revised all the manuscript.
Comment 4: L420-424: There is no information on production value or economy, only production volume.
Answer 4: Thank you, we added the information which was available.
Comment 5: L420: The name of “barramundi” is also used later, so please describe it.
Answer 5: Thank you, we revised the information.
Comment 6: L485: “The eggs have 0.74 to 0.80 mm,”-> “The eggs have 0.74 to 0.80 mm in diameter,”
Answer 6: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 7: L488: “the incubation of eggs occurs 12 to 17 h after fertilization” -> “the hatching occurs 12 to 17 h after fertilization”?
Answer 7: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 8: L704: “In Chile, in 2020, salmonid production reached 1,468 million tons [88].”-> “1.468 million tons”?
Answer 8: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 9: L1264: “quantitative trait locus (QTLs)” -> “quantitative trait loci (QTLs)”
Answer 9: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 10: L1234-1269: There are no obvious errors in what is written, but the information is older than the actual trend and does not seem to match reality. The current trend is for selective breeding programs using genomic selection, and the method of finding QTLs and MAS is not mainstream. Please refer to the review article below and rewrite this section.
Houston, R.D., Bean, T.P., Macqueen, D.J. et al. Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nat Rev Genet 21, 389–409 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0227-y
Answer 10: We added more information in the section and updated the data
Reviewer 4 Report
General comments:
This review article overviewed species, systems, challenges, and prospects for fish aquaculture worldwide. Because the content crosses a relatively broad range of disciplines, this reviewer could not possibly cover it all but has reviewed it to the best of my understanding. Trivial comments are provided below. For my area of expertise "6.5 fish genetics on farming", I felt somewhat of a disconnect between what was described and the actual trends, and I have commented on that below as well. Overall, I believe that the authors' aim of providing an overview of the panorama of fish farming is well done and that the manuscript should be accepted after revised.
Specific comments:
Please unify the titles of subheadings throughout the manuscript, as they are written in italics in some cases and not in others.
Please unify the units for production volume as MT, tons, and kg, as they are mixed.
L420-424: There is no information on production value or economy, only production volume.
L420: The name of “barramundi” is also used later, so please describe it.
L485: “The eggs have 0.74 to 0.80 mm,”-> “The eggs have 0.74 to 0.80 mm in diameter,”
L488: “the incubation of eggs occurs 12 to 17 h after fertilization” -> “the hatching occurs 12 to 17 h after fertilization”?
L704: “In Chile, in 2020, salmonid production reached 1,468 million tons [88].”-> “1.468 million tons”?
L1264: “quantitative trait locus (QTLs)” -> “quantitative trait loci (QTLs)”
L1234-1269: There are no obvious errors in what is written, but the information is older than the actual trend and does not seem to match reality. The current trend is for selective breeding programs using genomic selection, and the method of finding QTLs and MAS is not mainstream. Please refer to the review article below and rewrite this section.
Houston, R.D., Bean, T.P., Macqueen, D.J. et al. Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nat Rev Genet 21, 389–409 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0227-y
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Comment 1: This review article overviewed species, systems, challenges, and prospects for fish aquaculture worldwide. Because the content crosses a relatively broad range of disciplines, this reviewer could not possibly cover it all but has reviewed it to the best of my understanding. Trivial comments are provided below. For my area of expertise "6.5 fish genetics on farming", I felt somewhat of a disconnect between what was described and the actual trends, and I have commented on that below as well. Overall, I believe that the authors' aim of providing an overview of the panorama of fish farming is well done and that the manuscript should be accepted after revised.
Answer 1: We thank the kind word from the reviewer and acknowledge the revision work done by him/her. All the work as revised and added more information.
Comment 2: Please unify the titles of subheadings throughout the manuscript, as they are written in italics in some cases and not in others.
Answer 2: This is due to the MDPI instructions which are described in the template of the journal.
Comment 3: Please unify the units for production volume as MT, tons, and kg, as they are mixed.
Answer 3: Thank you, we revised all the manuscript.
Comment 4: L420-424: There is no information on production value or economy, only production volume.
Answer 4: Thank you, we added the information which was available.
Comment 5: L420: The name of “barramundi” is also used later, so please describe it.
Answer 5: Thank you, we revised the information.
Comment 6: L485: “The eggs have 0.74 to 0.80 mm,”-> “The eggs have 0.74 to 0.80 mm in diameter,”
Answer 6: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 7: L488: “the incubation of eggs occurs 12 to 17 h after fertilization” -> “the hatching occurs 12 to 17 h after fertilization”?
Answer 7: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 8: L704: “In Chile, in 2020, salmonid production reached 1,468 million tons [88].”-> “1.468 million tons”?
Answer 8: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 9: L1264: “quantitative trait locus (QTLs)” -> “quantitative trait loci (QTLs)”
Answer 9: Thank you, we corrected.
Comment 10: L1234-1269: There are no obvious errors in what is written, but the information is older than the actual trend and does not seem to match reality. The current trend is for selective breeding programs using genomic selection, and the method of finding QTLs and MAS is not mainstream. Please refer to the review article below and rewrite this section.
Houston, R.D., Bean, T.P., Macqueen, D.J. et al. Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nat Rev Genet 21, 389–409 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0227-y
Answer 10: We added more information in the section and updated the data
Reviewer 5 Report
The review paper is well structured and contains relevant and up-to-date information on the subject addressed. The review is written in a way that makes it easy to understand and read, even for a non-expert reader. Although a contextualisation of the chosen species is missing, a table showing the world production of these species and their economic impact compared to other non-targeted species (Dicentrarchus labrax, Sparus aurata, scophthalmus maximus...) could be helpful. It is also missing to introduce the production of feed based on new ingredients (vegetable meal or insect based) and their impact on the aquaculture industry.
In general the review is of a good standard, so including the above suggestions I would have no problem in considering it for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer 5
Comment 1: The review paper is well structured and contains relevant and up-to-date information on the subject addressed. The review is written in a way that makes it easy to understand and read, even for a non-expert reader.
Although a contextualisation of the chosen species is missing, a table showing the world production of these species and their economic impact compared to other non-targeted species (Dicentrarchus labrax, Sparus aurata, Scophthalmus maximus...) could be helpful.
It is also missing to introduce the production of feed based on new ingredients (vegetable meal or insect based) and their impact on the aquaculture industry.
In general, the review is of a good standard, so including the above suggestions I would have no problem in considering it for publication.
Answer 1: We thank the kind word from the reviewer and acknowledge the revision work done by him/her. All the work as revised and added more information and created more subsections.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors put so many efforts to revise the review manuscript, however, I am not satisfied with the revision version as a comprehensive review.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: The authors put so many efforts to revise the review manuscript, however, I am not satisfied with the revision version as a comprehensive review.
Answer 1: We thank the kind word from the reviewer, and acknowledge the revision work done by him/her. All the work as revised and added more information and created subsection 6.5 based on genetics.
