Feed Components and Timing to Improve the Feed Conversion Ratio for Sustainable Aquaculture Using Starch

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article ‘Feed components and timing to improve feed conversion ratio for sustainable aquaculture using starch’ by Hideaki Shima is dealing with a very interesting topic, which improve the FCR of farmed fish to improve food security. To clarify factors causing variation in body size during aquaculture, they farmed leopard coral grouper (P. leopardus) in a single tank and analyzed the components of their diets and muscle components measured by NMR spectroscopy and 13 C stable isotope analysis over time. The results revealed that P. leopardu could utilize carbohydrates and metabolize them into glycine. They also identified amino acids that are considered essential for their effective use. At 52 days after hatching, body length of the Large group was approximately 60% larger than Small group and on approximately 350% heavier than the Small group. Based on these results, They conducted a simple simulation in which the Small group became average, and the average group was slightly larger. This simple simulation estimated an improvement of about 25% in body length and about 100% in FCR. However, some problems affect this MS's quality. I considered it should be accepted after revision.

Firstly, the manuscript needs to be edited by a native English speaker to improve the language of the MS and fix errors.

Secondly, in order to maximize the quality and reliability of this research, I suggest this research should comply with all 21 items of the ARRIVE guideline. Please follow the guidelines from the link below: https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines.

Additionally, I am confused about your experimental methods in Figure 2, Why not select some wild fish of the same ages (24thday-2nd year) to compare with feeder fish? Because different developmental periods of the fish can be distinguished from morphology. And please provide information about tests by which Gauss distribution has been evaluated.

Finally, in paragraph three of the ‘Discussion’ (line 263), there are no references cited in this section. Please cite some relevant references that can support your suspicions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment1

The article ‘Feed components and timing to improve feed conversion ratio for sustainable aquaculture using starch’ by Hideaki Shima is dealing with a very interesting topic, which improve the FCR of farmed fish to improve food security. To clarify factors causing variation in body size during aquaculture, they farmed leopard coral grouper (P. leopardus) in a single tank and analyzed the components of their diets and muscle components measured by NMR spectroscopy and 13 C stable isotope analysis over time. The results revealed that P. leopardu could utilize carbohydrates and metabolize them into glycine. They also identified amino acids that are considered essential for their effective use. At 52 days after hatching, body length of the Large group was approximately 60% larger than Small group and on approximately 350% heavier than the Small group. Based on these results, They conducted a simple simulation in which the Small group became average, and the average group was slightly larger. This simple simulation estimated an improvement of about 25% in body length and about 100% in FCR. However, some problems affect this MS's quality. I considered it should be accepted after revision.

[response]

Thank you for understanding our research concept. We will endeavor to improve our manuscript by considering the reviewers’ opinions.

Comment2

Firstly, the manuscript needs to be edited by a native English speaker to improve the language of the MS and fix errors.

[response]

Thank you for highlighting the quality of the English. We had the manuscript proofread by a professional English editing service as we are not native English speakers. However, the proofreading seems insufficient. We will have the manuscript rechecked after making all revisions based on the reviewers’ comments. Additionally, it would be helpful if you could highlight specific English problems in the revised manuscript.

Comment3

Secondly, in order to maximize the quality and reliability of this research, I suggest this research should comply with all 21 items of the ARRIVE guideline. Please follow the guidelines from the link below: https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines.

[response]

Thank you for providing the ARRIVE guidelines. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with these guidelines. (Line 318~ etc.)

Comment3

Additionally, I am confused about your experimental methods in Figure 2, Why not select some wild fish of the same ages (24thday-2nd year) to compare with feeder fish? Because different developmental periods of the fish can be distinguished from morphology.

[response]

Thank you for your suggested experiment. A comparison with wild juveniles will provide important information. However, obtaining juveniles is difficult owing to the timing, the need to identify the spawning area, and the fact that they are too small to be caught by fishing. Regarding this matter, we added information to line 133~

Comment4

And please provide information about tests by which Gauss distribution has been evaluated.

[response]

Following your comment, we have checked the Gaussian distribution of our samples using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The result showed that the sample population at 52 days did not follow a Gaussian distribution, as expected. As biological data rarely follows this distribution, and the focus of this manuscript is to look at the effects in high-growth individuals that deviate from the sample population, this result is reasonable. We added a description to line 154 ~ to make it easy for readers to understand this point.

Comment5

 

Finally, in paragraph three of the ‘Discussion’ (line 263), there are no references cited in this section. Please cite some relevant references that can support your suspicions.

 

[response]

Thank you for your accurate comments. We agree that some papers were missing. Additionally, we rewrote some of the descriptions to enhance the discussion (lines 282~,293~).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to focus on the carnivorous fish leopard coral grouper (P. leopardus) to identify the essential growth factors and clarify their intake timing from feeds.  The main aim and question of the proposed study was to analyze the function of feed components on growth during breeding, by specific and different methodological approaches and this is the strength of this manuscript, according to me.
This manuscript shows rich content, providing a deep insight for some works. The main topic is very original, and of great clinical impact. As regards the originality of this manuscript, this is a significant contribute to the ongoing research on this topic, as it extends the research field by discussing previous and present scientific evidence on the effects and contribute of feed components on growth, and focusing on the carnivorous fish leopard coral grouper, in order to provide new insights on the topic.
Regarding the conclusive section of the presented manuscript, it is perfectly in line with the main purpose of the paper: the authors have designed and conducted the study properly. Furthermore, the conclusions are well written and present an adequate balance between the description of previous findings and the results presented by the authors.
The main features of this manuscript are: rich contents, and deep insight on scientific evidence. Furthermore, this manuscript displays a  densely organized structure.
 I found the manuscript to be well-written, with an organic overview, and a densely organized structure. The text is very clear and easy to read, but need some improvements (list of the abbreviations).
Even if there are several sections well-organized, the manuscript needs some improvements, due to the lack of the list of the abbreviations (easy nad important for all the readers, which are not of the field), while the introductive section needs to provide a brief premise about the challenges associated to aquaculture and the environmental factors.
 Anyway, there are some sections of this manuscript that should be improved. For these reasons, the manuscript requires major changes.

Please find below an enumerated list of comments on my review of the manuscript:

MINOR POINTS:

The authors should provide a list of the abbreviations, mentioned in this manuscript.

MAJOR POINTS:

INTRODUCTION:

LINE 34: Although global aquacultural production has increased rapidly over the years, several challenges hinder its sustainability: among them, the identification of suitable feed sources for the growing number of farmed aquatic animals, and ensuring the safety and quality of aquatic products (see, for reference: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12869).

LINE 35: Furthermore, recent scientific studies also suggested an interesting association between aquaculture problems to variation in the water temperature that influence pathogen transfer and disease development (see, for reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738577). This is the major concern of this manuscript: according to recent scientific evidence, this manuscript may benefit from highlighting also the contribute of variation in the water temperature in the onset and progression of diseases as an other aquaculture challenge.

Besides, in this manuscript I found a specific and detailed explanation for the methods used in this study, since the manuscript relies on a multitude of methodological and statistical analysis, to derive its conclusions. Finally, the results are reliable and adequately discussed.

The conclusion of this manuscript is perfectly in line with the main purpose of the paper: the authors have designed and conducted the study properly. As regards the conclusions, they are well written and present an adequate balance between the description of previous findings and the results presented by the authors.

Major concerns of this manuscript are with the introductive section: for these reasons, I have major comments for this section, for improvement before acceptance for publication. I have some major points to make, that may help to improve the quality of the current manuscript and maximize its scientific impact.

 

Author Response

Comment1

This manuscript aims to focus on the carnivorous fish leopard coral grouper (P. leopardus) to identify the essential growth factors and clarify their intake timing from feeds.  The main aim and question of the proposed study was to analyze the function of feed components on growth during breeding, by specific and different methodological approaches and this is the strength of this manuscript, according to me.
This manuscript shows rich content, providing a deep insight for some works. The main topic is very original, and of great clinical impact. As regards the originality of this manuscript, this is a significant contribute to the ongoing research on this topic, as it extends the research field by discussing previous and present scientific evidence on the effects and contribute of feed components on growth, and focusing on the carnivorous fish leopard coral grouper, in order to provide new insights on the topic.
Regarding the conclusive section of the presented manuscript, it is perfectly in line with the main purpose of the paper: the authors have designed and conducted the study properly. Furthermore, the conclusions are well written and present an adequate balance between the description of previous findings and the results presented by the authors.
The main features of this manuscript are: rich contents, and deep insight on scientific evidence. Furthermore, this manuscript displays a  densely organized structure.
 I found the manuscript to be well-written, with an organic overview, and a densely organized structure. The text is very clear and easy to read, but need some improvements (list of the abbreviations).
Even if there are several sections well-organized, the manuscript needs some improvements, due to the lack of the list of the abbreviations (easy nad important for all the readers, which are not of the field), while the introductive section needs to provide a brief premise about the challenges associated to aquaculture and the environmental factors.
 Anyway, there are some sections of this manuscript that should be improved. For these reasons, the manuscript requires major changes.

[response]

We are grateful for your deep understanding of our manuscript. Based on the valuable comments we received, we have made the following revisions to improve our manuscript.

Comment2

MINOR POINTS:

The authors should provide a list of the abbreviations, mentioned in this manuscript.

[response]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding abbreviations. Although the location may change depending on the journal’s policy, we have added a section on abbreviations after the introduction.

Comment3

MAJOR POINTS:

INTRODUCTION:

LINE 34: Although global aquacultural production has increased rapidly over the years, several challenges hinder its sustainability: among them, the identification of suitable feed sources for the growing number of farmed aquatic animals, and ensuring the safety and quality of aquatic products (see, for reference: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12869).

LINE 35: Furthermore, recent scientific studies also suggested an interesting association between aquaculture problems to variation in the water temperature that influence pathogen transfer and disease development (see, for reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738577). This is the major concern of this manuscript: according to recent scientific evidence, this manuscript may benefit from highlighting also the contribute of variation in the water temperature in the onset and progression of diseases as an other aquaculture challenge.

[response]

Thank you for including references. After reading the suggested papers, we have slightly revised the introduction and incorporated the relationship between water temperature and aquaculture challenges. Additionally, we have included breeding conditions, such as water temperature, in the Methods section (Lines 35~, 318~).

Comment4

 

Besides, in this manuscript I found a specific and detailed explanation for the methods used in this study, since the manuscript relies on a multitude of methodological and statistical analysis, to derive its conclusions. Finally, the results are reliable and adequately discussed.

The conclusion of this manuscript is perfectly in line with the main purpose of the paper: the authors have designed and conducted the study properly. As regards the conclusions, they are well written and present an adequate balance between the description of previous findings and the results presented by the authors.

Major concerns of this manuscript are with the introductive section: for these reasons, I have major comments for this section, for improvement before acceptance for publication. I have some major points to make, that may help to improve the quality of the current manuscript and maximize its scientific impact.

[response]

Thank you for your positive feedback and detailed comments on our manuscript. If you have specific points or suggestions for the introduction, we would be grateful to receive them. Based on your comments, we will review and revise the Introduction to enhance its clarity and impact.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents some findings on improving feed conversion ratios in aquaculture through the use of carbohydrates like starch. The experimental design is robust, and the use of analytical techniques is appropriate. However, the manuscript would benefit from several areas.

The introduction is overly broad and lacks a clear focus on the specific research questions and objectives.

The results section presents an overwhelming amount of data without sufficient summarization. This makes it difficult to discern the key findings.

While the authors use machine learning algorithms, the discussion on these algorithms is limited. The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the various machine learning techniques used, their advantages, and limitations. Additionally, relevant literature should be cited to provide a broader context for the use of these methods (PMID: 33532820, 34849857, 33200776).

The manuscript does not clearly articulate what is novel about the findings compared to existing research, reducing the perceived impact and contribution to the field.

The discussion is too lengthy and unfocused. It reiterates many points without synthesizing the key findings effectively.

The figures, while informative, are not very clear. The legends and explanations are insufficient, and some figures are complex without clear interpretation, which could confuse readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment1

 

The manuscript presents some findings on improving feed conversion ratios in aquaculture through the use of carbohydrates like starch. The experimental design is robust, and the use of analytical techniques is appropriate. However, the manuscript would benefit from several areas.

The introduction is overly broad and lacks a clear focus on the specific research questions and objectives.

[response]

Thank you for your constructive feedback and positive evaluation of our experimental design and analytical techniques. We appreciate your insights on the Introduction section. Based on these, we have reduced the length of the Introduction.

Comment2

The results section presents an overwhelming amount of data without sufficient summarization. This makes it difficult to discern the key findings.

[response]

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your comments regarding the data presentation in the Results section. We have made substantial modifications to this section to address these concerns. The revisions are highlighted in the manuscript.

Comment3

While the authors use machine learning algorithms, the discussion on these algorithms is limited. The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the various machine learning techniques used, their advantages, and limitations. Additionally, relevant literature should be cited to provide a broader context for the use of these methods (PMID: 33532820, 34849857, 33200776).

[response]

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We agree that the machine learning algorithms used in this study need to be discussed. Therefore, we have reworded the Results to briefly highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the algorithms used.

Comment4

 

The manuscript does not clearly articulate what is novel about the findings compared to existing research, reducing the perceived impact and contribution to the field.

[response]

Thank you for your feedback. In response, we have emphasized the novelty of our findings in the Conclusion section, highlighting how our research provides new insights into the utilization of carbohydrates in aquaculture and its potential to improve FCR and achieve multiple SDGs (line 391~).

Comment5

The discussion is too lengthy and unfocused. It reiterates many points without synthesizing the key findings effectively.

[response]

Thanks to your comments, we crafted a purposeful Discussion and removed unnecessary text.

Comment6

The figures, while informative, are not very clear. The legends and explanations are insufficient, and some figures are complex without clear interpretation, which could confuse readers.

[response]

We apologize for the unclear explanation. We have rewritten the figure legend in detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revised the manuscript well.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors, which have improved the scientific impact and quality of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have addressed all of my concerns with the original manuscript. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.