Evaluating the Effect of Using Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls as a Source of Fiber in a Complete Feed on Naemi Ewes’ Milk Yield, Composition, and Fatty Acid Profile at 6, 45, and 90 Days Postpartum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This manuscript meets the requirements of Sustainability.

Author Response

It has been a pleasure working with you and I appreciate your patience and understanding

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Title : Need modification and it is little confusing 

Abstract: It is lacking the result based information and therefore recommended for revision

Introduction: Seems to be ok but it has English and grammar issues

Materials and Methods: Seems to be ok but English language required to be addressed.

Results and Discussions: Seems to be ok but still English and grammar related issue are there.

References: It is required to cite recent literature by replacing the old ones

English language and grammar should be addressed

Author Response

Reviewer #2

 

Dear reviewer

I thank you for all the notes you made on the manuscript, as it improved its quality, which had a great impact. Here are these modifications according to your recommendations below with the manuscript

Best regards.

 

Manuscript No.: sustainability-2554345

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title : Need modification and it is little confusing, Thank you, i think there was a title for the article before that, which is Impact of introducing sunflower hulls as a by-product into the diet of a Naemi ewes on their blood triglyceride levels and milk quality. I hope it is appropriate, or any modification you see fit.  

Abstract: It is lacking the result based information and therefore recommended for revision, It has been modified and revision

 

Introduction: Seems to be ok but it has English and grammar issues. Thank you, It has been modified

 

Materials and Methods: Seems to be ok but English language required to be addressed. Thank you, It has been modified.

 

Results and Discussions: Seems to be ok but still English and grammar related issue are there. Thank you, It has been modified and revision.

 

References: It is required to cite recent literature by replacing the old ones. , It has been modified and add 4 recent references   

Comments on the Quality of English Language. English language and grammar should be addressed.  I will be contacted of language services in MDPI If it is requested again

 THANK YOU.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I have received the paper sustainability-2554345 expecting improvements compared to the manuscript sustainability-2448810. However, the current manuscript has the same weaknesses and has only been intervened in reference to the writing in English.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

New modifications have been made to the last manuscript, I hope you notice

again and I will be contacted of  language services in MDPI If it is requested again.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Ok.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Impact of introducing sunflower hulls as a by-product into the diet of a Naemi ewes on their blood triglyceride levels and milk quality" was reviewed.  The topic of this study is interesting and fits well with the special issue. In this study, the authors have substituted a part of regular diet with different concentration of a by-product (sunflower hulls) in the diet of Naemi ewes, and evaluated the milk quality and quantity, as well as blood triglyceride as affected by such treatment. The results and findings are useful. However, the manuscript seems to have been written in haste: as some sentences have been repeated, and there are some incomplete sentences. Therefore at first its writing should be improved. Moreover, some queries and modifications are recommended for authors that should be considered before acceptance.

TITLE

L-3: "a Naemi ewes": Please remove "a"

ABSTRACT

L-22: "compared with" should be replaced with "compared to"

L- 23: Dietary supplementation with 20% and 28% sunflower significantly increased unsaturated (USFA) in milk fat" can be removed, because it has been stated at line 21 in another way.

L-24: Was n-6 lower in S28? This contradicts your statement at L-21.

INTRODUCTION

L-31-32: Improve English grammar.

L-45: Compression? Do you mean comparison?

L-59: Ruminant animals

 MATERIALS and METHODS

2.1: Please describe the grouping clearer.  

L-92-93: Please check the writing.

L-100: Please check the writing.

L-111-113: Why did you repeat your sentences?

Lipid extraction and FAME preparation: L-116: 200 L???

L-115-120: Should be re-written.

L-117: 'It had been cooked' should be replaced with "it had been heated"

Lipid extraction and FAME preparation: What is the reference for GC programing? Why did you use mass spectrometry for determining the fatty acid profile? What was the limitation of FLAME IONISATION DETECTOR?

Statistical analysis: can be shortened.

RESULTS                                                         

Figure 1: It is recommended that Figure 1 is presented as histogram.

Table 5: Please re-check the statistical analysis for SFA/USFA and n-6/n-3 ratio.

CONCLUSION: L-367-368: Please improve the English grammar.

  

The manuscript seems to have been written in haste: as some sentences have been repeated, and there are some incomplete sentences. Moreover, some word usage should be improved. Some suggestions have been recommended for authors.

  

Author Response

Reviewer #1

Dear reviewer

I thank you for all the notes you made on the manuscript, as it improved its quality, which had a great impact. Here are these modifications according to your recommendations below with the manuscript

Best regards.

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Impact of introducing sunflower hulls as a by-product into the diet of a Naemi ewes on their blood triglyceride levels and milk quality" was reviewed.  The topic of this study is interesting and fits well with the special issue. In this study, the authors have substituted a part of regular diet with different concentration of a by-product (sunflower hulls) in the diet of Naemi ewes, and evaluated the milk quality and quantity, as well as blood triglyceride as affected by such treatment. The results and findings are useful. However, the manuscript seems to have been written in haste: as some sentences have been repeated, and there are some incomplete sentences. Therefore at first its writing should be improved. Moreover, some queries and modifications are recommended for authors that should be considered before acceptance.

 

TITLE

L-3: "a Naemi ewes": Please remove "a" it has been modified.

ABSTRACT

L-22: "compared with" should be replaced with "compared to" it has been modified.

L- 23: Dietary supplementation with 20% and 28% sunflower significantly increased unsaturated (USFA) in milk fat" can be removed, because it has been stated at line 21 in another way.  it has been modified.

L-24: Was n-6 lower in S28? This contradicts your statement at L-21. They both measure differently.

INTRODUCTION

L-31-32: Improve English grammar. it has been modified.

L-45: Compression? Do you mean comparison? Yes, it has been modified.

L-59: Ruminant animals. it has been modified.

 MATERIALS and METHODS

2.1: Please describe the grouping clearer.  it has been modified

L-92-93: Please check the writing. it has been modified

L-100: Please check the writing. it has been modified

L-111-113: Why did you repeat your sentences? it has been deleted

Lipid extraction and FAME preparation: L-116: 200 L??? it has been modified

L-115-120: Should be rewritten. it has been modified

L-117: 'It had been cooked' should be replaced with "it had been heated" It has been modified

Lipid extraction and FAME preparation: What is the reference for GC programing? Why did you use mass spectrometry for determining the fatty acid profile? What was the limitation of FLAME IONISATION DETECTOR? it has been added references

Statistical analysis: can be shortened. it has been shortened

RESULTS                                                         

Figure 1: It is recommended that Figure 1 is presented as a histogram. it has been modified

Table 5: Please re-check the statistical analysis for SFA/USFA and n-6/n-3 ratio. it has been modified and as well as re-analysis of this part.

CONCLUSION: L-367-368: Please improve the English grammar. it has been modified and I will be contacted by language services in MDPI.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. What is the basis for the amount of sunflower meal and wheat straw added in the four rations? Why the highest sunflower meal content in the S28 group, at the highest SFH.
2. Improve Figure 1, add standard deviation, delete milk yield
3. Line 236, SCFA content in the S12 group was not significantly different from the SC20 and SC28 groups. line 237 and Line 239, the significantly analysis was repeated for the S20 and S28 groups.
4. Line 228, USFA content in the S28  group was not significantly different from the SC20 group.
5, Line 248, TI should be thrombogenicity index.
6. In the conclusions section, line 375, milk yield in both S20 and S28 groups continued to increase until 90 days.
7. The authors need to reorganize the abstract, line 19, Both S28 and S20 groups had significant effects on milk yield and persistence over 90 days compared to the control and S12 groups. The results in Tables 2, 3 and 4 are not reflected in the abstract.
8. The content of valuable FA (SCFA and CLA) was significantly decreased in both the S20 and S28 treatments compared to the S0 treatment group, and the authors should strengthen the discussion of this result.
9. In the preface, the study of SFH application in other feeds needs to be added.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Dear reviewer

I thank you for all the notes you made on the manuscript, as it improved its quality, which had a great impact. Here are these modifications according to your recommendations below with the manuscript

Best regards.

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the basis for the amount of sunflower meal and wheat straw added in the four rations? Why the highest sunflower meal content in the S28 group, at the highest SFH. 1. Since the diet is TMR added as sources of fiber NDF and ADF are crucial to avoid rumen fermentation disorders. 2. The levels of SFH are according to the literature and the levels calculated to cover the NDF and ADF levels of the ewes
   Improve Figure 1, add standard deviation, and delete milk yield, it has been modified.
   3. Line 236, SCFA content in the S12 group was not significantly different from the SC20 and SC28groups. it has been modified.

 line 237 and Line 239, the significant analysis was repeated for the S20 and S28 groups. it has been modified.
4. Line 228, USFA content in the S28  group was not significantly different from the SC20 group. it has been modified.
5, Line 248, TI should be thrombogenicity index. it has been modified.
6. In the conclusions section, line 375, milk yield in both S20 and S28 groups continued to increase until 90 days. it has been modified.
7. The authors need to reorganize the abstract, line 19, Both S28 and S20 groups had significant effects on milk yield and persistence over 90 days compared to the control and S12 groups. The results in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are not reflected in the abstract. it has been modified

8. The content of valuable FA (SCFA and CLA) was significantly decreased in both the S20 and S28 treatments compared to the S0 treatment group, and the authors should strengthen the discussion of this result. We can see as well as adding the missing parts line 329 (Ref. 33:34 and 35)
   
   9. In the preface, the study of SFH application in other feeds needs to be added. I think this sentence will be a recommendation for the future.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript No.: sustainability-2448810-peer-review-v1

Title: Impact of introducing sunflower hulls as a by-product into the diet of a Naemi ewes on their blood triglyceride levels and milk quality

Sustainibility

Reviewer’s Decision: Accept after major revision

The authors of this research work is significant and should be published in the Sustainibility. However, before it can be published, the manuscript needs to be significantly improved. As a result, I recommend accepting the manuscript after significant and satisfactory revisions. The following are the detailed comments:

 

Critical comments:

v  Why the author choose the milk model of Naemi ewes as it does not provide sufficient milk production.

v  What about choosing camel or cow as model of the study with more milk production.

v  Is it possible to share the data with cow or camel model?

 

1.     Title: Seems to be ok.

2.     Abstract: The abstract is a comprehensive summary of the whole research article. The abstract contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. It is suggested to improve the grammar and English language problems. The abstract section is more introductive and contains methodology information. The should should reduce the informative and methodology section and add more results outputs with specific biomedical applications. The incomplete information in the abstract may confuse the readers.

3.     Introduction: The introduction sections also contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. It is suggested to improve the grammar and English language problems..

4.     References: The manuscript lacks the literature citation of some highly interesting most recent relevant works, and thus the reference citations are not up to date. Too many references have been given for a research article that may question the novelty of research work that may give an impression that so many people have reported the research already

5.     Materials and methods: This section is missing and please add it otherwise it may confuse the readers.

·       The author has used the same “degree” sign for temperature and angle. It is recommended to use the “degree” symbol accordingly throughout the manuscript.

6.     Results and Discussions: The following issue must be taken into consideration.

This section is discussed well but it contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. It is suggested to improve the grammar and English language problems.

7.     Conclusions: Seems to be ok.

8.     As per the comments given for the results and description.

In summary, the reported work has significant value, however, a major and thorough improvement/correction of language, grammar, syntax, etc. is necessary to improve the quality of the paper and to make it publishable in the Sustainibility.

·       All the abbreviations should be defined before their 1^st-time use.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English improvement is recommended!  

Author Response

Reviewer #3

 

Dear reviewer

I thank you for all the notes you made on the manuscript, as it improved its quality, which had a great impact. Here are these modifications according to your recommendations below with the manuscript

Best regards.

 

Manuscript No.: sustainability-2448810-peer-review-v1

Title: Impact of introducing sunflower hulls as a by-product into the diet of a Naemi ewes on their blood triglyceride levels and milk quality

Sustainibility

Reviewer’s Decision: Accept after major revision

The authors of this research work is significant and should be published in the Sustainibility. However, before it can be published, the manuscript needs to be significantly improved. As a result, I recommend accepting the manuscript after significant and satisfactory revisions. The following are the detailed comments:

 

Critical comments:

v  Why the author choose the milk model of Naemi ewes as it does not provide sufficient milk production. Sheep were chosen for this study, as they are the most common and their milk product is desirable to farmers

v  What about choosing camel or cow as a model of the study with more milk production?

Regarding cows in the region, most of their systems are intensive within farms. Unfortunately, the cows model was not used, and when it is used, it will be a good addition

v  Is it possible to share the data with the cow or camel model? Why not we will recommend it as a future study

 

1. Title:Seems to be ok.
2. Abstract: The abstract is a comprehensive summary of the whole research article. The abstract contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. It is suggested to improve the grammar and English language problems. The abstract section is more introductive and contains methodology information. The should reduce the informative and methodology section and add more results output with specific biomedical applications. The incomplete information in the abstract may confuse the readers. It has been modified.
3. Introduction:The introduction sections also contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. It is suggested to improve the grammar and English language problems. It has been modified.
4. References:The manuscript lacks the literature citation of some highly interesting most recent relevant works, and thus the reference citations are not up to date. Too many references have been given for a research article that may question the novelty of research work that may give an impression that so many people have reported the research already. The article focused on one of the cheap by-products and its effect on milk as a product of sheep used by humans as well as healthy fats. There are many references, but on other animals and other fodder, but the lack of relevant and modern literary works makes us say that the only article that focused on this field
5. Materials and methods: This section is missing and please add it otherwise it may confuse the readers.

• The author has used the same “degree” sign for temperature and angle. It is recommended to use the “degree” symbol accordingly throughout the manuscript. Only temperature no founded angle

6. Results and Discussions:The following issue must be taken into consideration. It has been modified

This section is discussed well but it contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. It is suggested to improve the grammar and English language problems. It has been modified

7. Conclusions:Seems to be ok.
8. As per the comments given for the results and description. it has been modified and I will be contacted by language services in MDPI.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 

The work sustainability-2448810 evaluated the effect of using different levels of sunflower hulls as a source of fiber in a complete feed on Naemi ewes' milk yield, composition, and fatty acid profile at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum.

Works like this one, which try to valorize an agro-industrial waste of great abundance in the world, are always welcome. However, the quality of this paper is quite poor. This is due to writing problems, poor use of punctuation, unnecessary repetition of information, poor representation of Figures and poor clarity of paragraphs.

Below, I leave some comments to the authors:

Abstract: The use of abbreviations should be avoided. Even more so if they are not specified earlier.

L21: The statistical significance was set at 5%, so I do not see the need to highlight other significances. Correct this throughout the text.

Keywords: avoid repeating words contained in the title.

- In general, I recommend the non-use of abbreviations in manuscripts. For the particular case of this paper, care should be taken to specify each abbreviation in advance. This was a big mistake in this manuscript, which does not specify many of the abbreviations on many occasions.

L61: correct "to evaluate Using"

L63: "2"

L66-68: This information already appears in the authors' affiliation.

L68-85: I consider that the major flaw of the work has been the low number of replicates. With the number of individuals, the results cannot be considered conclusive. How was it possible to apply ANOVA without experimental replicates?

L76: Figure and Table are proper nouns.

L76: "1.. 54"

- Many units in the text are being used incorrectly, i.e., min, mL (Figure 1), dL, h, s, etc

L110-113: It could be indicated that the methodology was used for blood and milk. There is no need to repeat the information.

L11: "d. . M"

L115: "frac-tion"

- A reagent section should be added, giving the specifications of each reagent.

L146-149: Avoid repeating information. This information has already been described above.

L151-152: This information does not appear in Figure 1.

L160-164: The information contained in the legend is not reflected in the Figure. In addition, I recommend avoiding the use of the internal legend in the Figure.

L173-176: What do the superscripts mean?

L178: "3. p"

Table 2: avoid capitalization where it does not apply. What are the units of the data?

L195-216 and L225-248: Avoid repeating information already contained in Tables. Otherwise, do not include in Tables.

L216: "or. ."

Discussions: I do not agree with separating the results of discussions by scenarios such as this. I recommend then either merging them to the results, so that the latter do not become a repetition of information contained in Tables and Figures and lighten this section of discussions, which are presented in an extremely dense way.

Conclusions: I invite the authors to improve the conclusions and not include only a list of results.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear reviewer

I thank you for all the notes you made on the manuscript, as it improved its quality, which had a great impact. Here are these modifications according to your recommendations below with the manuscript

Best regards.

 

The work sustainability-2448810 evaluated the effect of using different levels of sunflower hulls as a source of fiber in a complete feed on Naemi ewes' milk yield, composition, and fatty acid profile at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum. The title of the article has been changed according to your recommendations

 

Below, I leave some comments to the authors:

Abstract: The use of abbreviations should be avoided. Even more so if they are not specified earlier. It has been modified

L21: The statistical significance was set at 5%, so I do not see the need to highlight other significances. Correct this throughout the text. It has been modified you can see that

Keywords: avoid repeating words contained in the title. It has been modified

- In general, I recommend the non-use of abbreviations in manuscripts. For the particular case of this paper, care should be taken to specify each abbreviation in advance. This was a big mistake in this manuscript, which does not specify many of the abbreviations on many occasions. It has been modified

L61: correct "to evaluate Using" It has been modified

L63: "2" It has been modified

L66-68: This information already appears in the authors' affiliation. It has been modified

L68-85: I consider that the major flaw of the work has been the low number of replicates. With the number of individuals, the results cannot be considered conclusive. How was it possible to apply ANOVA without experimental replicates? It is possible to refer to line 78 and the new line 90, and you notice that each transaction has 12 ewes divided into the number of iterations 3 and each repetition contains 4 ewes

L76: Figure and Table are proper nouns. " It has been modified

L76: "1.. 54" " It has been modified

- Many units in the text are being used incorrectly, i.e., min, mL (Figure 1), dL, h, s, etc " It has been modified

L110-113: It could be indicated that the methodology was used for blood and milk. There is no need to repeat the information. I prefer when writing the work method to give details to the reader who may not have time to refer to the reference

L11: "d. . M" It has been modified

L115: "frac-tion" It has been modified

- A reagent section should be added, giving the specifications of each reagent. It has been modified

L146-149: Avoid repeating information. This information has already been described above. It has been modified

L151-152: This information does not appear in Figure 1. It has been modified

L160-164: The information contained in the legend is not reflected in the Figure. In addition, I recommend avoiding the use of the internal legend in the Figure. It has been modified

L173-176: What do the superscripts mean? It has been modified

L178: "3. p" It has been modified

Table 2: avoid capitalization where it does not apply. What are the units of the data? It has been modified

L195-216 and L225-248: Avoid repeating information already contained in Tables. Otherwise, do not include in Tables. It has been modified

L216: "or. ." It has been modified

Discussions: I do not agree with separating the results of discussions by scenarios such as this. I recommend then either merging them to the results, so that the latter do not become a repetition of information contained in Tables and Figures and lighten this section of discussions, which are presented in an extremely dense way. It has been modified

Conclusions: I invite the authors to improve the conclusions and not include only a list of results. It has been modified

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript, which has a great impact on improving its quality.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed all the comment successfully and some minor correction can be addressed during proofreading.

The authors have addressed all the comment successfully and some minor correction can be addressed during proofreading.

Author Response

I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript, which has a great impact on improving its quality and some language problems will be solved.

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have provided their responses, but these do not specify the changes made on the new manuscript. I have reviewed it manually and note that all my recommendations were ignored, contrary to what the authors say. In addition, the writing and quality of the submission is still too poor for me to recommend it for publication.

I give details below:

Abstract: Abbreviations not previously specified continue to be used, much to my insistence.

L20: Reports of significance different from that chosen by the authors are still used.

Keywords: Words contained in the title continue to be repeated.

-L37: Abbreviations that are not specified before continue to be used, which continues to make the text very confusing.

 

L67: Unnecessary information continues to be repeated.

 

- The problem of replicas continues to be left unresolved.

 

- There are still many typographical problems.

 

- There is still very bad use of units.

 

- Information continues to be repeated unnecessarily.

 

- Information on reagents and their specifications is not added, which jeopardizes the reproducibility of the results.

 

- Information that does not appear in Figure 1 continues to be described. I believe this is a major issue, as it does not give a good description of the results.

 

- There is a serious problem with the Figures and Tables, which are presented and described very poorly.

 

Discussions: Remained the same.

 

Conclusions: Remained the same.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript, which has a great impact on improving its quality, knowing that all the notes were made in the past, especially the change of the title and the rest of the other notes. Here are these modification to the manuscript in the second round.

Best regards.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Abstract: Abbreviations not previously specified continue to be used, much to my insistence. All abbreviations have been defined previously, such as SFH and TMR, and you can review them again, please, in the new manuscript, line 17, 21, 29, and 32

L20: Reports of significance different from that chosen by the authors are still used. It has been modified you can see that line 27

Keywords: Words contained in the title continue to be repeated. It has been changed according to your recommendations

-L37: Abbreviations that are not specified before continue to be used, which continues to make the text very confusing. All abbreviations have been defined previously, such as SFH and TMR, and you can review them again, please, in the new manuscript, line 17, 21, 29, 32, 44 and 45.

L67: Unnecessary information continues to be repeated. It was modified in the previous manuscript and the duplicates were deleted from it. Please look again at Line No. 78

- The problem of replicas continues to be left unresolved. It has been modified you can see that line 82-85

- There are still many typographical problems. OK, It will be resolved

- There is still very bad use of units. It has been modified you can see that line 113 as well as there are units that do not need to be honored such as °C, mL and EDTA

- Information continues to be repeated unnecessarily. It has been modified you can see that line 107 and 116

 

- Information on reagents and their specifications is not added, which jeopardizes the reproducibility of the results. In this regard, we work in our laboratories in a scientific and safe manner, approved according to international standards.

- Information that does not appear in Figure 1 continues to be described. I believe this is a major issue, as it does not give a good description of the results. I was very hesitant in this regard, should I continue to make tables or a figure, and I found that this part did not have the same shape, with the addition of some statistical clarifications. You can view it in line 178-179

 

- There is a serious problem with the Figures and Tables, which are presented and described very poorly. Okay will be resolved upon final output of the manuscript

 

Discussions: Remained the same. It has been modified (delete and corrected) you can see that line 285, 293, and 327.

Conclusions: Remained the same. It has been modified (delete and corrected) you can see that line 397-400

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

I again received the work sustainability-2448810, hoping that the authors have addressed the comments that were not responded to last time. This time, with a new author, who reports contributing "money supporte and diting", with all due respect to the authors, I find that the manuscript has not been improved in any way. 

 Among other aspects that make the work poor:

 ü  Very poor use of units persists.

 ü  There are still typographical errors.

 ü  The methodological section has not been corrected according to the initial comments.

 ü  The Figures and Tables are still poorly reported and described, especially Figure 1, which is now called Histogram 1.

 ü  The problem with abbreviations continues.

Author Response

I thank you for your valuable comments to improve the quality of our manuscript. Below are
our response to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf