Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract is unclear and vague. Rewrite is necessary.

Why these levels (15, 30 and 45) have been chosen? 

The introduction is too lengthy. Summarize the introduction. There is no mention of the hypothesis in the introduction. 

Lines 39-47: Add relevant references.

For Table 2, it is necessary to mention the number of samples and report the standard deviation for each item.

Add the profile of cotton gin trash fatty acids in the article.

In Table 2, report the amount of acid-insoluble ash.

It is necessary to write the profile of dietary fatty acids in the tables. In this article, the amount of fatty acids in meat is measured. One of the effective factors in the fatty acid profile of meat is the amount of fatty acid in the diet.

No reference has been made to the statistical model. Write more explanations for section 2.5. This part is unclear.

What method did you use to compare the means?

In the tables, you did not specify what statistical parameter you added after the mean (mean ± SD or SE). Therefore, since you have reported the SEM, it is not necessary to report the SD or SE after the mean. 

The parameters listed in the tables are not the same as the results section. Use abbreviations both in the table and in the text.

In the discussion section, the mechanisms are not clearly mentioned, nor are similar works mentioned. Rewrite this section.

Lines 412-416: Provide more explanation as this is ambiguous and unclear.

In this experiment, rumen fermentation status was not reported. If you have measured parameters related to rumen fermentation, include it in the revision version.

Does this substance (Cotton gin trash) have antinutrients? What are the impacts on rumen?

What program/software did you use to balance the diet? 

 

.

Author Response

Dear Sir

The authors would like to thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and the many useful comments made, particularly regarding the structure of the article. We believe the additions made in response to your comments strengthen the manuscript. We would like to specifically address each of the reviewer’s comments below

Kind Regarrds

a.k.thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The search for food alternatives has become a global concern to reduce the cost of production and to produce high-quality functional food. The use of unconventional feed resources (NCFR) in livestock nutrition plans is increasing every day as a result of the limited availability of animal feeds, which is crucial in bridging the supply-demand gap.

Line 1 : Add reference

172 : Just Meat quality

Line 187 : Longissimus dorsi instead Longissimus dorsi

Table 6 : the chemical name of the fatty acids the c is in capitals (C14:0 not c14:0)

Line 304 : Growth performance characteristics

Well

Author Response

Dear Sir

The authors would like to thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and the many useful comments made, particularly regarding the structure of the article. We believe the additions made in response to your comments strengthen the manuscript. We would like to specifically address each of the reviewer’s comments below

Kind Regarrds

a.k.thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-designed article, however, the authors should make some changes, among them the following

To Authors:

I have the following suggestions and comments:

Title: It would be better not to use as and an together.

Abstract:

L18-19: why have you used these levels?

Introduction:

L42-45: Add reference.

L50: unconventional feed resources (NCFR)-it would be better if you write it as non-conventional feed resources or abbreviate it as UCFR.

L56: Add reference.

Discussion:

L391: It's better to write per cent in combined form as percent and throughout the manuscript.

Conclusion:

 

L242-246: Rewrite this sentence.

Author Response

Dear Sir

The authors would like to thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and the many useful comments made, particularly regarding the structure of the article. We believe the additions made in response to your comments strengthen the manuscript. We would like to specifically address each of the reviewer’s comments below

Kind Regards

a.k.thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: 2431652 R1,

entitled "Effect of cotton gin trash supplementation as an unconventional feedstuff on feed intake and production characteristics of Mecheri sheep of India."

General comments.

The manuscript provides the main purpose of using cotton gin trash (CGT) in India. Whereas the scarcity of livestock feeds and fodder due to population growth, reduced arable land, and natural disasters like floods and droughts have created a burden on resources. With the largest livestock population, but limited land area, water, and food availability, there is a significant shortfall in green fodder, dry fodder, and concentration. To bridge this supply-demand gap, the use of unconventional feed resources (NCFRs) is increasing. These feeds, not commonly used in commercial livestock rations, mainly come from forestry and agriculture by-products. Cotton gin trash (CGT) is one such by-product that shows potential as an alternative protein, fat, and fiber source in livestock feed. The study focuses on assessing the impact of CGT supplementation on Mecheri ram lambs' feed intake, weight gain, carcass characteristics, and meat quality.

This work still needs moderate revision. It could be considered for publication after a major revision. Moreover, the manuscript needs moderate English proofreading.

Abstract

1.      L14 rephrase it to The aim of the study was to determine the alternative to feeding cotton gin waste (CGT).

2.      L16 mention average body weight ±SD.

3.      L18 per cent change it to %, and in the whole manuscript.

4.      L27 Meat: Bone ratio change it to meat: bone ratio.

5.      L28, 29 rephrase it to The T3 and T4 groups had significantly (P0.05) higher weights of the liver, spleen, head, stomach, and empty intestines than the other groups.

6.      L32 Across treatment groups. change it to among groups.

Introduction

7.      Need to improve and update the citations.

Material and methods

8.      L 113 “uniform body weight” change it to the average body weight ±SD.

9.      delete L145, 146.

10.  L155, 156 Soaked CGT (as moist feed) may affect the experiment's result. Why did not soak the sorghum to avoid the effect of physical enhancement of soaking of CGT.

11.  Longissimus dorsi mention it as L. dorsi in the previous mention.

12.  L 190 Mention the procedure of fatty acids determination.

13.  Mention the statistical analysis procedure.

Results

14.  Replace T1, T2, T3, and T4 groups with 25, 50, and 75% CGT groups and the control group or 0% CGT group in the whole of manuscript.

15.  L208 mention g/day after 766.86.

16.  L209-211 rephrase it to the mean dry matter intake (g/day) of lambs did not significantly affect among different groups.

17.  L211- 214 rephrase it to However, the lambs fed 50 and 75% CGT (T3 and T4) had a significantly (P<0.05) higher body weight (30.48 and 31.63 kg, respectively) than that of T1 group (27.18 kg). Meanwhile, the body weight of lambs fed 25% CGT (T2) was not significantly different (P>0.05) (27.66 kg) than T1 group.

18.  L229-231 delete the redundant sentence.

19.  L276 Mention the results of the rest of the fatty acid profile.

Discussion

20.  L295-297 rephrase it to the GGT treatments did not significantly affect the average dry matter intake (g/day) of lambs.

21.  L299-303 this is not an explanation for unaffected feed intake.  Rephrase it and clear the explanation about unaffected feed intake.

22.  L305- 306 delete the redundant sentence.

23.  L308 mention similarly to the current results.

24.  Mention total and average daily gain together not separately in the discussion.

25.  L 315- 316 delete the redundant sentence. this belongs to the results section.

26.  L324 Mention the before T4 group.

27.  L325 Mention the before roughage.

28.  L326 Mention a before good.

29.  L363 remove edible organs such as.

30.  L372 -374 rephrase it to The pH values of the Longissimus dorsi muscle ranged from 6.42 to 6.57 in the lambs fed CGT at varied levels, and the CGT inclusion had no appreciable effect on these values.

31.  L 384 level had no impact” rephrase it to level had no negative effects on.

32.  L386- 387 delete the redundant sentence.

33.  L389 -390 rephrase it to there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the proximate composition of Longissimus dorsi muscle samples among groups.

34.  L411- 421 Why did the biohydrogenation process in the rumen cause significantly higher saturated fatty acids (SFA) in lambs fed with CGT (T3, T4 and T2 groups) than in the control group? I need more of a scientific explanation due to the biohydrogenation process in the rumen also occurs in those lambs in the control group.

References

35.  Need to format it according to the journal formatting.

 

 

the manuscript needs moderate English proofreading.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir

The authors would like to thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and the many useful comments made, particularly regarding the structure of the article. We believe the additions made in response to your comments strengthen the manuscript. We would like to specifically address each of the reviewer’s comments below

Kind Regards

a.k.thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

 

Dear Editor and Authors,

This study aims to evaluate the effects of using cotton gin trash as an alternative feed on Mecheri ram lamb growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality. Below is a list of recommendations I believe will be of assistance to you, along with suggestions for enhancing your work. I have also listed some shortcomings that I have identified.

Best regards,

Major comments:

In Table 3-6, it is not necessary to provide both SD and SEM data. Instead, SEM data should be presented. Furthermore, It is ensured that n and number of observations are written in a unified manner in Table 3-6.

L299-303: The ration you use is primarily roughage, and I believe that such a result is not possible. This would be true if the concentration in your ration exceeded 60%. This expression should be changed or removed.

L200-203: Please rewrite the sentence using the abbreviations you already provided. This also holds true for the remaining content. L319-321, for example, uses both the abbreviated and the non-abbreviated forms in the same sentence. This hinders the flow of the text.

L340-346: When writing a discussion about lamb, it is not appropriate to use the lamb-steers-lamb approach. If possible, similar studies with the same species should be considered.

L419-421: It would have been helpful if there were a sentence following this one that would provide insight into the work's headlight. However, it does not appear to be there.

L423-428: The conclusion of the study appears to be the weakest part of the study. I believe the authors may be able to develop a more compelling and engaging conclusion.

Minor comments:

L41-45: The statistical information provided in L-41-45 must be supported by a source. Please include the source.

L128: Please remove "moisture" due to non supplemented data. In the section titled Proximate composition, moisture should be defined

L178, L259, 261, 273: Please check the spelling and italicize “Longissimus dorsi”.

L143: Please use “Gross energy” instead of “Gorss energy, MJ/kg” in Table 2.

L207, 217, 227: Please include one digit following the decimal point if g is used as the unit of measurement in Table 3 and the text.

L143: Please use “carcass” instead of “Carcass”.

L232: Please use “gain” instead of “growth”.

L243, 260, 353, 380, 381, 382: Please use “cm²” instead of “cm2”.

L254: There is no need to capitalize EDIBLE OFFALS, IN-EDIBLE OFFALS, and WHOLE SALE CUTS in Table 4.

L257, 265: Please use “physicochemical” instead of “Physicochemical”.

L364: “… 1.5 percent concentrate supplementation.”. It should be indicated that it is the body weight value.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir

The authors would like to thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and the many useful comments made, particularly regarding the structure of the article. We believe the additions made in response to your comments strengthen the manuscript. We would like to specifically address each of the reviewer’s comments below

Kind Regards

a.k.thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Edit the abstract again. Correct the abbreviations. Check the numbers in parentheses.

Line 21: delete  (14.54 kg) and  (15.05 kg).

Line 24: Write the abbreviation in full; DMI.

Line 24: Remove the parentheses.

The introduction is also overwritten. Write more briefly.

Specify in the table 2 whether you reported SE or SD.

Check the abbreviations again.

Check the article for English grammar.

 

.

Author Response

Dear Sir

The article has been modified as per the suggestions

KR

A.K.Thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: 2431652 R2,

entitled "Effect of cotton gin trash supplementation as an unconventional feedstuff on feed intake and production characteristics of Mecheri sheep of India."

It could be accepted for publication after a minor revision.

 

1.       L16-19 rephrase it to Thirty-two weaned Mecheri ram lambs with an average body weight of 12.64 ± 0.74 kg were assigned into four groups (n= eight animals in each group). The diet's roughage part was replaced by CGT at percentages of 0% (T1), 25% (T2), 50% (T3), and 75% (T4). The growth trial lasted six months (180 days) from weaning lambs at 3-4 months until nine months for marketing.

 

2.      L24 T1-4 make it conjointly T1-4 in the whole manuscript.

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir

The article has been modified as per the suggestions and thank you for sparing your valuable time

kr

a.k.thiruvenkadan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

To the best of my knowledge, this amended article incorporates all of the arguments mentioned in the original edition of your paper with the id number "sustainability-2431652". This research paper will make a substantial contribution to the existing literature on the effects of using cotton gin trash as an alternative diet for lambs, specifically focusing on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality. I offer my sincere congratulations and best wishes to all the authors who have made significant contributions to this outstanding work.

I am unable to keep track of how many typos there are.

Author Response

Dear Sir

Thank you for your encouraging remarks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx