Dear Dr. Menant,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mehdi Borhani Zarandi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[This study was funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in Ireland (Grant number 2021R600).].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your manuscript:

[This study was funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in Ireland (Grant number 2021R600).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[This study was funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in Ireland (Grant number 2021R600).]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study is appropriate for internal and epidemiological journals. This study is appropriate for internal and epidemiological journals, as it offers valuable insights into the patterns and determinants of disease spread within specific populations. By leveraging both quantitative and qualitative data, it provides a comprehensive overview of health trends that can inform preventive strategies and intervention policies.

Reviewer #2: This paper provides a comprehensive review of outdoor pig farming systems in Ireland, a previously understudied area. Using an online questionnaire and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, the authors were able to comprehensively identify farmers’ motivations, challenges, and needs in the sector. This study fills a gap in the literature on small-scale, decentralized pig farming systems and provides valuable insights for policymakers and industry practitioners.

I have some minor questions:

What factors have been identified as the main drivers for pig farming in open systems in Ireland and how do these relate to financial and infrastructural challenges?

Are there significant differences in pig health and welfare management between small and large farms in open systems in Ireland?

What is the role of traditional and rare pig breeds in the success of open systems in Ireland and how are these breeds adapting to climate conditions and market demands?

What solutions have been proposed to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of pig farming systems in Ireland?

Reviewer #3: "Pigs and Pasture: Drivers and characteristics of outdoor systems on the island of Ireland"

The study addresses a significant gap in the literature by characterizing outdoor pig production systems on the island of Ireland, a topic previously under-researched compared to intensive indoor systems. The focus on small-scale, outdoor systems provides novel insights into farmer motivations, management practices, and challenges, contributing to broader discussions on sustainable agriculture, animal welfare, and alternative farming models. The inclusion of both commercial and non-commercial producers adds depth to the analysis.

However, concerns and issues requiring revision should be addressed:

Sample Representativeness and Bias: The study relies on self-selected respondents (n=90), which may overrepresent farmers engaged in welfare-focused or organic production, skewing results. No response rate is calculable due to the unknown total population of outdoor pig farms, limiting generalizability.

Health data reliability: Self-reported health metrics (e.g., only 31% reporting health issues) conflict with field studies cited (e.g., 80% parasite prevalence in a subset of farms). This suggests underreporting or lack of farmer expertise in disease recognition. No objective health assessments (e.g., veterinary records, lab tests) were used, risking bias.

Methodological gaps: Open-ended question coding lacks inter-rater reliability metrics, raising questions about consistency in qualitative analysis. Co-occurrence analysis, while useful, does not account for confounding variables (e.g., farm size influencing challenges like feed costs).

Geographic and comparative limitations. Findings are specific to Ireland’s small-scale systems; comparisons to larger EU outdoor systems (e.g., UK, Spain) are minimal, reducing broader applicability. Climate/soil differences (e.g., Ireland’s high rainfall vs. Mediterranean systems) are noted but not deeply analyzed for their impact on challenges like paddock management.

Ambiguity in definitions: Organic/GM-free standard" is self-reported without verification of certification, potentially misclassifying farms. "Extreme weather" is not quantitatively defined (e.g., temperature thresholds, rainfall levels), making it subjective.

Policy and financial analysis superficiality: Calls for "financial support" and "consumer education" lack specificity (e.g., proposed subsidy structures, educational campaigns). No cost-benefit analysis of suggested interventions (e.g., mobile abattoirs) is provided.

Data availability timing

Data will be available post-publication, hindering immediate reproducibility. A preprint or supplemental upload at submission would strengthen transparency.

Recommended Revisions: Thus, address health data discrepancies by cross-referencing self-reports with veterinary records or farm visits. Clarify qualitative coding methodology (e.g., inter-rater agreement). Expand comparative discussion to EU outdoor systems. Define key terms (e.g., "extreme weather") operationally. Propose concrete policy measures (e.g., grant schemes, training programs).

These revisions would enhance rigor and applicability without altering the study’s core contributions.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Pigs and pasture: Drivers and characteristics of outdoor systems on the island of Ireland

PONE-D-25-23811R1

Dear Dr. Menant,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Full professor, PhD, ScD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Authours

This manuscript covers a timely and relevant topic by characterizing outdoor pig farming systems in Ireland, a sector that has been under-researched compared to conventional indoor production. The study’s strengths include a clear research gap, an appropriate survey design, and the combination of both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings provide useful insights regarding farmers’ motivations, challenges, and barriers in extensive pig production. Importantly, the focus on animal welfare and sustainable practices is a major strength.

However, several limitations deserve attention. First, the self-selected sampling and lack of response rate calculation reduce the generalizability of findings. Second, reliance on self-reported health and production data raises concerns regarding accuracy, particularly as field studies suggest higher disease prevalence than respondents reported. The absence of objective measures such as veterinary records or health checks further weakens the conclusions regarding animal health. Additionally, some key survey terms (like “inclement weather” and “organic standard”) would benefit from operational definitions. Finally, while the discussion recognizes the need for policy and financial support, recommendations remain broad; more concrete suggestions would increase the manuscript’s impact for stakeholders.

Overall, this work addresses an important knowledge gap and offers a valuable platform for future research and policy development, but would benefit from enhanced methodological detail, critical discussion of sample bias, and greater specificity in recommendations.

Best regard

Reviewer #3: I have reviewed the authors’ revised manuscript and their responses to the second-round comments. The authors have adequately addressed the key concerns raised, particularly regarding sample representativeness, self-reported health data, methodological transparency, and the scope of comparative discussion.Concerns regarding the reliability of self-reported animal health data have been addressed by clarifying that findings are based solely on survey responses, explicitly discussing potential underreporting, and referencing follow-up fieldwork conducted by the authors.

Limitations inherent to survey-based research are now clearly acknowledged, and the revisions improve clarity and transparency without overstating the findings.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********