p. 45, lines 32,33,34 – to the livestock sector specific problems, we should also add “antibiotic resistance”.
p. 57, line 35-36. “Agriculture has a potentially important role in contributing to the emerging problem of antimicrobial resistance”. This needs to be expressed stronger. For one, this problem is specific to the livestock sector; secondly it is not only “potentially important”, but proven to be so. So the sentence should read “The livestock sector has an important role in contributing to the problem of antimicrobial resistance.”
p. 60, lines 6-8. “There is a broad consensus that while the livestock sector generates many health, livelihood, economic and environmental benefits, it also contributes to many nutrition, health, social and environmental problems.”
What should be mentioned here is that both problems and benefits of the livestock sector depend on the system in which livestock is kept. Maybe a table relating the respective problems and benefits to the types of livestock systems they are associated with would be helpful.
p.62, lines 12-16. “Technically, the potential exists even with existing technologies to narrow the productivity or yield gap between the highest and lowest performers in a region and thus increase agricultural production, including livestock and animal feed production. A fundamental question is how to scale up the well understood technologies and approaches to improving yields that are massively underused by poor producers. “
This is a frequently made statement, but it does not clarify what the “existing” and “well understood” technologies are. It would be really important to provide some examples for the benefit of non-livestock experts.
p. 64, lines 27-28: “Without the large scale operations the very existence of the small and intermediate operators would be in question (as would the sustainability, livelihood and other benefits that are claimed to be associated with these systems)”. Clarification please, why this is so.
Ilse Köhler-Rollefson