Next Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Infection in Eurasian Badger (Meles meles) and Cattle in Asturias, Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Liveweight and Sex Effects on Instrumental Meat Quality of Rubia de El Molar Autochthonous Ovine Breed
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Replacing in-Feed Antibiotic Growth Promoters with a Combination of Egg Immunoglobulins and Phytomolecules on the Performance, Serum Immunity, and Intestinal Health of Weaned Pigs Challenged with Escherichia coli K88
Previous Article in Special Issue
Indigenous Slaughter Techniques: Effects on Meat Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Nguni Goats
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Live Weight and Sex Effects on Sensory Quality of Rubia de El Molar Autochthonous Ovine Breed Meat

Animals 2021, 11(5), 1293; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051293
by Eugenio Miguel *, Belén Blázquez and Felipe Ruiz de Huidobro
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Animals 2021, 11(5), 1293; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051293
Submission received: 4 March 2021 / Revised: 19 April 2021 / Accepted: 28 April 2021 / Published: 30 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Carcass Composition and Meat Quality of Small Ruminants)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments appears on the file annex

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the work of reviewing the manuscript. Your comments have been of great help to improve it. We have tried to answer your questions and improve the background and form defects of the manuscript.

We answer your arguments in an attached word file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I reviewed your manuscript. I consider that the rescue of indigenous breeds is important for many reasons: cultural, ecological, management, etc. However, it causes me conflict that 56 lambs from a breed of sheep in danger of extinction were slaughtered. How is this fact justified?

In the other hand, other aspects related to the manuscript are the following:

  • Place the figures and tables immediately after they are mentioned in the text.
  • Delete paragraphs of one, two or three lines; it would be better to make one only with the related ideas.
  • Lines 44-45: The last sentence is out of place.
  • Lines 58-64: Citations are missing.
  • Line 77: I think that 56 is the correct number of lambs.
  • Lines 77-92: Some phrases are repeated (lines 81-82 y 89-90, and 83 y 89).
  • Lines 86-87: concentrate’s ingredients are missing.
  • Table 1: what are crude cellulose and crude ash?
  • Line 96: The first sentence was mentioned in lines 90-92
  • Line 120: Cite the authors.
  • Table 2: Superscripts are missing in pleasantness and flavor.
  • Line 250: Table 5 is missing.
  • Table 6 is not mentioned in the manuscript.
  • Methodology and laboratory analysis are not mentioned for intramuscular fat content.
  • References: numbers are repeated and DOI is missing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the work of reviewing the manuscript. Your comments have been of great help to improve it. We have tried to answer your questions and improve the background and form defects of the manuscript.

We answer your arguments in an attached word file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I appreciate your reply.

Regards.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. I am attaching a file with the answers to your questions.

     

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop