Climate Change, Land Use, and the Decline in Traditional Fulani Cattle Practices: Drivers of Antimicrobial Resistance in Kwara, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer is not an Africa specialist but familiar with traditional pastoral practices elsewhere in the world. Apologies in advance if the reviewer misread some of the contents in this submission. Overall, this submission is well written on the accounts of the stated purpose, contextualization, research methods, and outcomes. Language- and style-wise, it's in a publishable condition for the journal. 

 

The reviewer finds that the submission’s intended advocacy for the Fulani traditional/indigenous ethnoveterinary practices within the planetary health framework is not substantially delivered as promised in the abstract and the opening paragraphs. It offers less than a page from Discussion to Conclusion sections (pp.13-14). Given the textual space is primarily designated to the issues from the use of antibiotics on the industrial scale and the livestock’s development of antibiotic resistance, the traditional Fulani cattle management appears marginal in this submission. The last two sections would ideally be given an opportunity to elaborate on what “…more respect for Fulani herdsmen and their traditional ethnoveterinary practices” (p.1, emphasis added) means in the practical, conceptual, and policy senses. So, the two sections are recommended to offer a substantial/substantiated response to the question of how the Fulani traditional knowledge is valuable on the planetary scale since it is directly relevant to what the opening paragraphs and the abstract promise to deliver. Regarding the planetary health framework, among the referenced publications (6-12), most of them affirmatively regard indigenous knowledges as epistemic systems parallel to their Western counterpart (Redvers, Guzman and Potter, Iyer et al, Ratima et al…) rather than needed approval and authentication from the latter. Perhaps, this submission can offer more detailed field findings and understanding(s) of how the Fulani traditional knowledge worked/works. It’s necessary to be careful “not to fetishise traditional healers: their knowledge is not perfect…”; however, it would be fair for the reader if this submission can present a fuller picture and allow the reader to make his/her own assessment. Thanks for considering the suggestion!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful consideration of our paper and we thank you for the insightful comments that will greatly improve our manuscript. In response to specific comments:

Comment 1: "[The manuscript] offers less than a page from Discussion to Conclusion sections (pp.13-14) [...] The last two sections would ideally be given an opportunity to elaborate [...] etc

Response: The aim of the paper was to characterise the traditional practices of the Fulani and situate them within a growing interest in alternatives to antibiotics, of which non-pharmaceutical practices and traditional knowledge are of growing interest. In covering all the complexities at play, the paper is already very long but we acknowledge the shortness of the discussion and conclusions sections detracts from the arguments being made and are happy to expand on these. We have added much more detail into these sections and have linked them back more robustly to the descriptions. We hope this satisfies the reviewer's concerns and thank them for their suggestions on how to improve, which were very helpful.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting study of antimicrobial resistance in livestock and the value of indigenous veterinarians' knowledge in the context of various drivers of global change. The MS comes from a research grant specifically dedicated to the use of alternative antibiotics in ruminants and aquaculture.

Focusing on the Fulani minority in Kwara State (Nigeria), the authors conducted a rapid ethnographic assessment (REA) using focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews to elicit herders' knowledge about herd health. They also used this methodology to identify the main concerns and threats currently faced by the Fulani minority.

The MS is very interesting and has the profile for challenges, although it's mainly focused on herd antimicrobial resistance, it has a lot of information regarding the challenges of the Fulani.

In my opinion, the MS would be ready to be a paper to Challenges, but I'd like to suggest a few minor details to improve it.

General aspects:

The title: As it is written now, it seems a bit confusing. I'll try to shorten it, perhaps using global change or changes..... or simply "Drivers of herd antimicrobial resistance in Kwara State, Nigeria".

The last part of the last sentence of the introduction (lines 109-114) is not necessary in my opinion.

Detailed aspects:

The references of lines 185 and 187 are not well placed. Be careful with the position of the comma. 

In line 253, the reference does not follow the journal guidelines (numbers).

Well, that's all, I enjoyed reading your research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your considered comments on our manuscript and suggestions for improving them further. We have made the comments as indication below and have uploaded a new version with all changes showing in track changes:

Comment 1: 

The title: As it is written now, it seems a bit confusing. I'll try to shorten it, perhaps using global change or changes..... or simply "Drivers of herd antimicrobial resistance in Kwara State, Nigeria".

Response:

The title has been simplified in line with a wording suggested by the editor.

Comment 2: 

The last part of the last sentence of the introduction (lines 109-114) is not necessary in my opinion. 

Response:

We would ask for this sentence to be left in, as it reflects a significant debate in One and Planetary Health that represents a division between the two fields we hope this paper will help to bridge. We included it as we anticipated that the debate may be something reviewers would pick up on and request, and we were attempting to head that off. While the issue was not raised (perhaps, in the case of the other reviewer, because we included this section), we would prefer it to remain. However, if the editor agrees that it is largely superfluous, we do not mind if it is removed. An alternative suggestion would be move it to the discussion or conclusions, but we would prefer not to see it removed entirely. 

Comment 3: 

The references of lines 185 and 187 are not well placed. Be careful with the position of the comma.  

Response:

We think this referred to the comma in the caption for Fig 1 but were not sure? We have reworded the sentence to remove the comma.

Comment 4:

In line 253, the reference does not follow the journal guidelines (numbers). 

Response:

We have corrected this, so that the reference is now in number format.

Thank you for your comment that you enjoyed reading our work!