Influence of Wet Ageing on Beef Quality Traits
, Silvia Parrini 1, Maria Chiara Fabbri 1,*, Chiara Aquilani 1, Aldo Dal Prà 2, Alessandro Crovetti 1, Giovanni Brajon 3 and Riccardo Bozzi 1(This article belongs to the Section Animal Products)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Wet aging influence of beef quality traits
Overall opinion: The research presented in the manuscript is actual and very interesting. It provides information about the effect of wet aging on the quality traits of beef obtained from different cattle breeds and categories. The influence of aging on beef quality, especially sensory attributes, and technological properties, has been widely investigated, and today it is considered that aging, among other factors, significantly improves the overall quality of beef. Although the topic is not new, the results of this research can contribute to a better understanding of this topic, especially the data on the effect of the length of aging on the investigated parameters.
The authors systematically planned and conducted the research, applying an adequate methodology. The paper is well-cited, and the results and discussion appear to be correct.
However, there are some minor shortcomings that need to be addressed, before the paper is published.
Need to check the grammar throughout the manuscript.
Specific comments are in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Authors thank reviewers for suggestions and comments. The whole manuscript has been checked and English improved. A point by point response has been done in the attached pdf.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is very interesting and well-done. Authors tested the influence of wet aging on beef quality and also tested other factors. The results are robust and enough for the conclusions. The manuscript contributes for a better understanding of the effects of wet aging that is useful for beef production chain.
My unique major suggestion is to provide a short discussion regarding the costs/benefit of this technique.
Minor remarks are described below.
Minor
Line 76, 80 and others - Longissimus thoracis using italic
Line 87 - content using a modified method of [16]. – complete this phrase
Line 92 - Final pH 24h - use the “h” to clarify for readers
Line 114 – chewiness – Chewiness
Line 185 – remove the comma after showing
Line 194/195 – This paragraph must be combined with the next one
Line 196 – I don’t agree with “extremely”, i.e., in my country it is not
Line 209 – numerous studies must contain more references
Line 220; 227 – “other authors”/ “previous studies” must contain more references
Line 228 - The L* parameter reached greater values at T14, which was what happened also in [30] study. – improve this construction
The same for with the study of [9], (line 230, 232, 235) . Use “study of Author [number]” in manuscript
Line 235 - [9]) – review
Author Response
Authors thank reviewers for suggestions and comments. The whole manuscript has been checked and English improved.
Line 76, 80 and others - Longissimus thoracis using italic
Done
Line 87 - content using a modified method of [16]. – complete this phrase
Done
Line 92 - Final pH 24h - use the “h” to clarify for readers
Done
Line 114 – chewiness – Chewiness
Done
Line 185 – remove the comma after showing
Done
Line 194/195 – This paragraph must be combined with the next one
Done
Line 196 – I don’t agree with “extremely”, i.e., in my country it is not
“Extremely” was removed
Line 209 – numerous studies must contain more references
“numerous” has been changed with “previous”
Line 220; 227 – “other authors”/ “previous studies” must contain more references
Done
Line 228 - The L* parameter reached greater values at T14, which was what happened also in [30] study. – improve this construction
Done
The same for with the study of [9], (line 230, 232, 235) . Use “study of Author [number]” in manuscript
Changed
Line 235 - [9]) – review
Done
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments:
the authors investigate the influence of wet aging on beef quality traits. The paper fits well with the scope of the journal.
Specific comments:
L16: please add a brief introduction and the aim of the research.
L48: the aging process is also a way to enhance the shelf life of the meat, please add this information and make focus on that, because there are several different techniques, cite: 10.3390/antiox11050827 to support this point.
L69: please report a table of the sample characteristics and distribution.
L69: a limitation of the study is the different number of samples you used, the design is unbalanced, please report as a limitation. however, I am sure that with an appropriate statistical design you can handle it.
L121: did you check for normality and homoscedasticity of your data? check as reported in 10.1080/1828051X.2020.1827990
L121: the random effect of the model, within the type and origin help to handle an unbalanced design like yours, please add.
Table 1: were interaction effects tested?
L193: the discussion needs to be increased with more comparisons and deeper analysis of the obtained results.
L261: limitations of the study need to be added.
Author Response
Authors thank reviewers for suggestions and comments. The whole manuscript has been checked and English improved.
General comments:
the authors investigate the influence of wet aging on beef quality traits. The paper fits well with the scope of the journal.
Specific comments:
L16: please add a brief introduction and the aim of the research.
Done
L48: the aging process is also a way to enhance the shelf life of the meat, please add this information and make focus on that, because there are several different techniques, cite: 10.3390/antiox11050827 to support this point.
We thank the reviewer. Surely an analysis of the shelf life will be a future test to be carried out but the current work has only examined the physical parameters of the meat, not going to evaluate the components related to the real shelf life, which is not the focus of this study
L69: please report a table of the sample characteristics and distribution.
Done. The authors think that could be boring and not necessary to include the distribution of 13 parameters.
L69: a limitation of the study is the different number of samples you used, the design is unbalanced, please report as a limitation. however, I am sure that with an appropriate statistical design you can handle it.
L121: did you check for normality and homoscedasticity of your data? check as reported in 10.1080/1828051X.2020.1827990
The normality and homoscedasticity have been checked. A sentence has been added.
L121: the random effect of the model, within the type and origin help to handle an unbalanced design like yours, please add.
Authors think that the animal random effect is necessary to correct the model because repeated measures are present for each sample, because we are analysing a sample and not the whole populations and because to not increase the breed effect. However, we think that is not necessary to explain why we included the animal as random effect because we think that it is clear.
Table 1: were interaction effects tested?
Interactions have been tested and no significance has been found
L193: the discussion needs to be increased with more comparisons and deeper analysis of the obtained results.
Some additions have been made.
L261: limitations of the study need to be added.
Added in conclusion.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
No other concerns are present with regard to the manuscript. The paper can be considered for publication on Animals in the present form.
