Next Article in Journal
Phenotypic Analysis, Molecular Characterization, and Antibiogram of Caries-Causing Bacteria Isolated from Dental Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Sialyllactose Enhances the Short-Chain Fatty Acid Production and Barrier Function of Gut Epithelial Cells via Nonbifidogenic Modification of the Fecal Microbiome in Human Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Sepsis on the Middle-Term Outcomes for Urinary Tract Infections in Elderly People
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prebiotic and Anti-Adipogenic Effects of Radish Green Polysaccharide
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Immobilized Form of a Blend of Essential Oils Improves the Density of Beneficial Bacteria, in Addition to Suppressing Pathogens in the Gut and Also Improves the Performance of Chicken Breeding

Microorganisms 2023, 11(8), 1960; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11081960
by Shyam Sundar Paul 1,*, Savaram Venkata Rama Rao 1, Rudra Nath Chatterjee 1, Mantena Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju 1, Ajay Kumar Mahato 2, Bhukya Prakash 1, Satya Pal Yadav 1, Alagarsamy Kannan 1, Godumagadda Narender Reddy 1, Vikas Kumar 1 and Prakki Santosh Phani Kumar 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Microorganisms 2023, 11(8), 1960; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11081960
Submission received: 27 June 2023 / Revised: 17 July 2023 / Accepted: 18 July 2023 / Published: 31 July 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Detail response to comments made by reviewers

Reviewer#1

Reviewer’s comment:Line 59-61 provide reference

Authors’ response: reference has been added in the revised MS (L62)as suggested

Reviewer’s comment:Line 62-65 provide reference

Authors’ response:reference added in the revised MS(L69)

Reviewer’s comment:Authors should provide a reference to their previous study

Authors’ response: reference has been added in the revised MS( L84)as suggested

Reviewer’s comment: The authors mentioned mucosal immunity. Authors should add an expression study for the mucin genes or change mucosal immunity to the epithelial barrier

Authors’ response: changed mucosal immunity to the epithelial barrier (L500) in compliance with the comment

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author:

Keywords .- please use only broiler chicken , remove chickens .

Please inform how the feed is keep in order to avoid loss of effectivity of EO . The feed is ofered daily . Please how the present data can be estrapoled to at regular farm.  Please make a coment on the final conclusion . The inmobilized form keep the 80 % of bioactivite , that percentage of effectivity can be find en a regular farming system 

References are good and you manage recent data but in my opinion it would be interesting when you discuss the AGP action why you not mrntion the hypothesis of Niewold ,T. 2007 . Poult.Sci.  86:605-609

Author Response

Detail response to comments made by reviewers

 

Reviewer#2

Reviewer’s comment: Keywords .- please use only broiler chicken , remove chickens

Authors’ response:necessary changes made in the revised MS (L44) as suggested

Reviewer’s comment: Please inform how the feed is keep in order to avoid loss of effectivity of EO . The feed is ofered daily . Please how the present data can be estrapoled to at regular farm.  Please make a coment on the final conclusion . The inmobilized form keep the 80 % of bioactivite , that percentage of effectivity can be find en a regular farming system 

 

Authors’ response:Feed was prepared for each phase (15d) and stored in a bin with lid. The experiment was carried out in regular farm so results are applicable in regular farm. Encapsulation itself reduce speed of loss of EO. If we add EO directly in feed most of the EO that are consumed are rapidly aborbed in foregut and thus donot reach site of action ie hindgut but in case of immobilization most of the EO is delivered in hindgut. We have already mentioned this in text. In view of the comments and in compliance with suggestion we have further modified the text of the revised MS (L106-107, 133-134 and 650-652 and added additional references (l69) to clarify these aspects, and added one comment at end of the conclusion.

Reviewer’s comment: References are good and you manage recent data but in my opinion it would be interesting when you discuss the AGP action why you not mrntion the hypothesis of Niewold ,T. 2007 . Poult.Sci.  86:605-609

 

Authors’ response: We have added the reference and the hypothesis in introduction as suggested (L55-56 and L60).

Reviewer 3 Report

I put some comments in the text.

The paper is very well written, with well-explained results and methods that are up-to-date.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language is understandable to me and I have no objections to the English language, but a native speaker should look at the text.

Author Response

Reviewer#3

Reviewer’s comment: Corrections suggested on the body of Manuscript

Authors’ response: All the corrections have been incorporated in the revised MS as suggested (kindly see the MS in track change mode)

 

Note: we have included a revised MS in track change mode for easy identification of corrections.

Back to TopTop