Essential Oils Combined with Vitamin D3 or with Probiotic as an Alternative to the Ionophore Monensin Supplemented in High-Energy Diets for Lambs Long-Term Finished under Subtropical Climate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the manuscript 2438306 “Natural Additives Combination as an Alternative to the Ionophore Monensin Supplemented in High-Energy Diets for Lambs Long-term Finished Under Subtropical Climate”, sent it to Animals. This study compared the effect of combination of essencial oils with vitamin D or combination of essencial oils with a bacteria (Bascilus subtilis) or monensin (Ionopher) on growth performance, dietary energy utilization, carcass traits, whole cuts, and visceral in feedlot lambs finished under subtropical climatic conditions (I assume that it was carry out during the summer season, authors didn´t mention it)

 

I have few comments and observations.

 

 

Line 114. Pens have 6 m2, change for Pens have 6 m²

Line 118. grasss, has an extra “s”

Line 184.  m. longissimus thoracis …. What you mean?, what m means??

Table 2 is replicated as: Table 2. Ambient temperature (Ta)……… and  Table 2. Effect of treatments on…..

Table 2. Ambient temperature (Ta), mean relative humidity (RH)………  has a trouble with the footnote.

Line 261….. heat. Loads, delete the dot

Line 280. The words “and abomasum.” are repeated, delete one.

 

In Table 3. Effect of treatments on…. The variables: Days on test and pen replicates, must be deleted due that them do not represent a mean and They were mentioned before in M&M.

 

 

Author Response

Response to REVIEWER 1

AU: We are grateful to reviewers for the time and effort in helping improve the quality of the manuscript. The observations were wise and timely which permit the improvement substantially the manuscript. We have addressed the concerns in our revised manuscript accordingly.

All changes and correction made are highlighted in yellow in the corrected version of the manuscript.

Responses

RW: Comments to the manuscript 2438306 “Natural Additives Combination as an Alternative to the Ionophore Monensin Supplemented in High-Energy Diets for Lambs Long-term Finished Under Subtropical Climate”, sent it to Animals. This study compared the effect of combination of essential oils with vitamin D or combination of essential oils with live bacteria (Bascilus subtilis) or monensin (Ionophore) on growth performance, dietary energy utilization, carcass traits, whole cuts, and visceral in feedlot lambs finished under subtropical climatic conditions (I assume that it was carry out during the summer season, authors didn´t mention it).

AU: The experiment was carried out during summer season (may to September) this information was incorporated in the correction version of the manuscript

I have few comments and observations.

RW: Line 114. Pens have 6 m2, change for Pens have 6 m²

AU: correction was done

RW: Line 118. grasss, has an extra “s”

AU: correction was done.

 

RW: Line 184.  m. longissimus thoracis …. What you mean?, what m means??

AU: m. longissimus thoracis is the anatomy description of loin muscle. “m’ means “musculus”

RW: Table 2 is replicated as: Table 2. Ambient temperature (Ta)……… and  Table 2. Effect of treatments on…..

AU: Thanks! Numbering of Tables were corrected.

 

RW: Table 2. Ambient temperature (Ta), mean relative humidity (RH)………  has a trouble with the footnote.

AU: Thanks! Footnote position is now corrected.

RW: Line 261….. heat. Loads, delete the dot

AU: Correction was made.

RW: Line 280. The words “and abomasum.” are repeated, delete one.

AU: Correction was made

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The conducted a research on the Ionophore Monensin Supplemented in High-Energy Diets for Lambs Long-term Finished Under Subtropical Climate. it looks good but it need improvement before any decision 

simple summary is not good please revise 

in abstract please add a line about the background of the study.

 

how many lambs were selected ? and how many lambs were selected in each group/

please ad the age of the lambs /

revise line L27-31

Revise L 31-33L 33-34 how?

results must be revised in abstract section 

 please revise keywords 

Introduction is poor written and can not be acceptable in this condition 

Give some title to first paragraph of the MM section 

in section 2.1 add the figure of the temperature and humidity variation during the research trial please 

please divided in to different sections 

animal experiment design 

sample analysis 

can you a the figures of the cross breed >?

change L102-103 please rewrite

animal research design 103-136 must be revised confusing please rewrite and simplify it for proper understanding.

how you have prepared the Diet ? add the proper reference please 

please check the diet composition carefully it looks not good revise it accordingly please 

please carefully check the short forms which you have used in the manuscript  

2.3 calculation please revise it 

L179 harvested change it please 

please proper reference of the slaughtering of the lambs 

which GI organs were collected? L180

2.1.4 Visceral mass data.

197 Components of the digestive tract (GIT)????

gastro intestinal tract ..........

statistical analysis which software package and test were used please add 

L219 Temperature and relative humidity during the experiment are presented in Table 2. 219 Average minimum and maximum estimated THI were 74.99 and 87.90, respectively [14]. why reference here?

L219-223 revise please 

results are totally poor written please revise the results and add the sub sections of the results 

discussion section is also poor written it can not be acceptable in this form.

the quality as well as the size of the manuscript is not suitable for research article must be change it from research article to short communication please.

conclusion section must be revised please 

check the English please  

 

 

 

 

 

please check the English language throughout the manuscript 

Author Response

Response to REVIEWER 2

AU: We are grateful to reviewers for the time and effort in helping improve the quality of the manuscript. The observations were wise and timely which permit the improvement substantially the manuscript. We have addressed the concerns in our revised manuscript accordingly.

All changes and correction made are highlighted in yellow in the corrected version of the manuscript.

Responses

The conducted a research on the Ionophore Monensin Supplemented in High-Energy Diets for Lambs Long-term Finished Under Subtropical Climate. it looks good but it need improvement before any decision 

RW: simple summary is not good please revise. 

AU: simple summary was improved as suggested

RW: in abstract please add a line about the background of the study.

AU: a sentence with background information of the study was inserted as is suggested.

RW: how many lambs were selected? and how many lambs were selected in each group/

AU: We selected 48 (from 55), with 12 lambs in each group. This is specified in the corrected version of the manuscript.

RW: please ad the age of the lambs /

AU: Age information was inserted as is suggested.

RW: Revise line L27-31.

AU: paragraph was corrected.

RW: Revise L 31-33L 33-34 how?

AU: Information requested was inserted

 

RW: Results must be revised in abstract section

AU: Results was revised and improved when required.

 

RW: Please revise keywords

AU: keywords was corrected 

RW: Introduction is poor written and cannot be acceptable in this condition

AU: introduction was improved as is suggested 

 

RW: Give some title to first paragraph of the MM section

AU: Done 

RW: please divided in to different sections 

AU: Done

RW: animal experiment design 

AU: Subheading title was changed as is suggested

RW: sample analysis 

AU: Done

RW: change L102-103 please rewrite

AU: Done

RW: animal research design 103-136 must be revised confusing please rewrite and simplify it for proper understanding.

AU: The paragraph contained in L103-136 was rewritten in order to be more understandable its description

 

RW: how you have prepared the Diet? add the proper reference please

AU: Detailed description how the basal diet was prepared was inserted

 

RW: please check the diet composition carefully it looks not good revise it accordingly please. 

AU: Thanks. Diet composition was corrected

RW: please carefully check the short forms which you have used in the manuscript  

AU: Abbreviations and short forms were carefully checked and corrected when required.

RW: 2.3 calculation please revise it

AU: Calculation was revised and corrected when required 

RW: L179 harvested change it please 

AU: Done

RW: please proper reference of the slaughtering of the lambs

AU: A reference for slaughtering was inserted as is suggested

 

RW: which GI organs were collected? L180.

AU: Specification of the organs collected was exposed in “visceral mass data” subheading

RW: 2.1.4 Visceral mass data.

AU: Dot at final was removed.

RW:197 Components of the digestive tract (GIT)????

AU: The description was changed as: components of gastrointestinal tract.

RW: Statistical analysis which software package and test were used please add 

AU: Statistical software information was inserted as is suggested.

 

RW: L219 Temperature and relative humidity during the experiment are presented in Table 2. 219 Average minimum and maximum estimated THI were 74.99 and 87.90, respectively [14]. why reference here?

AU: It was a mistake, reference was removed.

RW: L219-223 revise please 

AU: The paragraph was revised and corrected

RW: results are totally poor written please revise the results and add the sub sections of the results 

AU: Subsection was added and results was improved as is suggested

RW: Discussion section is also poor written it cannot be acceptable in this form.

AU: Honorable reviewer, I am not clear about the observation of "unacceptable form". The manuscript is written following the editorial and style standards of the journal. In the other way, the discussion addresses the central points and is duly supported by scientific arguments. Even so, in order to satisfactorily cover your observation, discussion was expanded in some variables.

AU: the quality as well as the size of the manuscript is not suitable for research article must be change it from research article to short communication please.

RW: I think this observation be directed to the Editor

RW: conclusion section must be revised please

AU: Conclusion was revised and improved 

RW: check the English please  

AU: English writing was revised by a native speaker and co-author of the manuscript (Dr. Richard A. Zinn, UC Davis)

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 27 and subsequent: The need for two decimal places in LW is excessive when declaring weights above 10 kg, consider expressing to the tenth here and throughout the paper.

Line 62: Change ["Natural"] to Natural and explain your perceived discrepancy with the terminology.

Line 114: Change 'Pens have 6 m2' to 'Pen dimensions were 6m2'

Line 121: Provide justification for 28 mg Monensin treatment. Even if it is industry standard, it should still be stated.

Line 123: Space between vitamin and D3.

Line 127: CRINA plus HyD has not been expressed previously and should be elaborated on or substituted with EO+D3.

Line 147: Because feed offered was either increased or decreased dependent on weight, it would be worth disclosing how often each treatment observed no refusals throughout the experiment.  Because the interpretation of your study is heavily dependent on DMI and efficiency, this data is worth stating.

Lines 154-158: These descriptions for CP and aNDFom analysis should be added to Table 1 as a footnote.

Line 163: Elaboration of ADG/DMI should be provided. What DMI was used to make this calculation? Considering ADG is the difference in SBW from d 121 and d 1, was average DMI used? If so, please state.

Line 170: Replace ',' with '.' to begin a new sentence ".  Those values were calculated..."

Line 171: 'in the basal diet'

Line 173: You've described a quadratic calculation for 'dietary net energy'; however, you've stated 'x' as being equal to the 'net energy for maintenance'.  Please clarify as dietary net energy, which is assumed to be total dietary net energy, is different from net energy for maintenance.

Line 211: Because pen has been stated as the experimental unit for growth performance data, how was gain, efficiency, and DMI assessed? Were they averaged for each pen and used for statistical inference? If lamb was the 'observational unit' and gain, efficiency, and DMI for each lamb was used for statistical inference, lamb within pen would be part of this model and should be stated as such.  More elaboration is needed regardless of the approach.

Line 219: Hours spent in a particular THI may be helpful to understand heat load. Providing the average Ta and RH throughout an average day for each EXP week may give better insight on the time spent over a THI threshold. consider adding through supplementary data.

Line 224: Report in Table 1, adding the observed equivalence for each treatment ingredient.

Line 231: Is this greater than or equal to or just equal to?

Line 237: Change 'to' to 'for'

Table 2: Consider adding location of experiment in the footnotes.

Table 2: Temp and RH should be expressed to the tenth, especially if your deviation is also expressed this way.

Line 258: Consider revising 'livestock production represents challenges to sustain efficient productivity' to 'challenges exist when sustaining efficient productivity in livestock systems.'

Line 260: Change consistent to 'that is consistent'.

Line 261: Consider revising sentence structure.

Line 269: Provide clarification here.  I do not see this statement represented in your table.  Some feedback on how this data was generated is appreciated (i.e. 1.121/1.119 kg DM/d).

Line 274: Table 2 should be Table 3 and all other subsequent tables should be re-labeled.

Table 2b: Superscript letters which highlight statistical differences.

Line 284: Was there an opportunity to use the same EO blend with an additional supplementation of D3 or BS? I understand that these two treatments are product on the market, but it is difficult to isolate the effect of EO, D3, and BS.

Line 290: Change affect to effect

Line 296: change 'may to associated' to 'may be associated'

Table 3: Consider decimal alignment throughout the table.

Table 3: If CCW is not an approved acronym by Animals and MDPI, please define in the footnotes.

Table 4: Decimal align

Line 349: insert 'to' before MON.

Line 361: Limited discussion is provided for Table 4; however, a paragraph is written on the results displayed in Table 4.  Please elaborate more on these results by either expanding on the antimicrobial/anti-inflammatory statement made or including context from other studies.

Line 364: Reflecting on the objective of this work, to compare two EO & D3 or BS treatments to monensin, you do well to compare EO & D3 to monensin but state little on EO & BS vs monensin.  An expansion of the conclusions with this in mind is warranted.

 

 

 

 

 

Overall quality of English is great.  There are a few grammatical suggestions in the comments which should be considered. Consider revising some sentences' structure as they may be run-ons or periods may be improperly placed.

Author Response

Response to REVIEWER 3

AU: We are grateful to reviewers for the time and effort in helping improve the quality of the manuscript. The observations were wise and timely which permit the improvement substantially the manuscript. We have addressed the concerns in our revised manuscript accordingly.

All changes and correction made are highlighted in yellow in the corrected version of the manuscript.

Responses

RW: Overall quality of English is great.  There are a few grammatical suggestions in the comments which should be considered. Consider revising some sentences' structure as they may be run-ons or periods may be improperly placed.

RW: Line 27 and subsequent: The need for two decimal places in LW is excessive when declaring weights above 10 kg, consider expressing to the tenth here and throughout the paper.

AU: All weight declaration in the document above 10 kg were expressed as is suggested.

 

RW: Line 62: Change ["Natural"] to Natural and explain your perceived discrepancy with the terminology.

AU: Placing quotes around the natural word was just a typographical error that has already been corrected

RW: Line 114: Change 'Pens have 6 m2' to 'Pen dimensions were 6m2'

AU: Done

RW: Line 121: Provide justification for 28 mg Monensin treatment. Even if it is industry standard, it should still be stated.

AU: Justification was provided as is suggested

RW: Line 123: Space between vitamin and D3.

AU: Correction was done

 

RW: Line 127: CRINA plus HyD has not been expressed previously and should be elaborated on or substituted with EO+D3.

AU: CRINA plus HyD was substituted with EO+D3 as is suggested

 

RW: Line 147: Because feed offered was either increased or decreased dependent on weight, it would be worth disclosing how often each treatment observed no refusals throughout the experiment.  Because the interpretation of your study is heavily dependent on DMI and efficiency, this data is worth stating.

AU: As is known, in this type of study it is important that the animals are not restricted in their feed consumption. But it is sought that they do not have too much food since it causes the selectivity of the components of the diet. The feed bunk management used was the "licked feed bunk". There is a record of consumption per pen during the adaptation to the experimental diets. When the experiment started, feed delivery was offered approximately 10% above of registered consumption, when the feed bunk appeared "licked" for 2 consecutive days the feed supply was increased by 10%.  On the contrary, when feed refusals were above 10% of consumption, feed delivery was reduced 10% until intake became stable. This represent around maximal 5% of refusal/lamb (~50 g/kg).

RW: Lines 154-158: These descriptions for CP and aNDFom analysis should be added to Table 1 as a footnote.

AU: Done

 

RW: Line 163: Elaboration of ADG/DMI should be provided. What DMI was used to make this calculation? Considering ADG is the difference in SBW from d 121 and d 1, was average DMI used? If so, please state.

AU: Pertinent specification about of average DMI used to calculate feed efficiency was done as is suggested.

 

RW: Line 170: Replace ',' with '.' to begin a new sentence ".  Those values were calculated..."

AU: Done

 

RW: Line 171: 'in the basal diet'

AU: The correction was made

 

RW: Line 173: You've described a quadratic calculation for 'dietary net energy'; however, you've stated 'x' as being equal to the 'net energy for maintenance'.  Please clarify as dietary net energy, which is assumed to be total dietary net energy, is different from net energy for maintenance.

AU: Thanks! The correction was made.

 

RW: Line 211: Because pen has been stated as the experimental unit for growth performance data, how was gain, efficiency, and DMI assessed? Were they averaged for each pen and used for statistical inference? If lamb was the 'observational unit' and gain, efficiency, and DMI for each lamb was used for statistical inference, lamb within pen would be part of this model and should be stated as such.  More elaboration is needed regardless of the approach.

AU: Thanks! The statement was rewritten as follows: Growth performance data (gain, gain efficiency, and dietary energetics), DM intake, and carcass data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design, with the pen as the experimental unit, using procedures of SAS software [30], with treatment and block as fixed effects and experimental unit within treatment as random effect. Visceral organ mass data was analyzed using the MIXED procedures of SAS software [30], with treatment and pen as fixed effects and interaction treatment × pen and individual carcasses within pen by treatment subclasses as random effects

 

RW: Line 219: Hours spent in a particular THI may be helpful to understand heat load. Providing the average Ta and RH throughout an average day for each EXP week may give better insight on the time spent over a THI threshold. consider adding through supplementary data.

AU: The following information was inserted as is suggested: Daily maximal THI exceeded 80 for 119 d of the 121 days of the trial, corresponding to “danger” conditions according to code of Mader et al. [26]. The number of hours per day that THI exceeded 80 was 6.2±1.02.

 

RW: Line 224: Report in Table 1, adding the observed equivalence for each treatment ingredient.

A: Done

 

RW: Line 231: Is this greater than or equal to or just equal to?

AU: Thanks! Is greater than…Correction was made

 

RW: Line 237: Change 'to' to 'for'

AU: Change was made as suggested

 

RW: Table 2: Consider adding location of experiment in the footnotes.

AU: location was added as suggested

 

RW: Table 2: Temp and RH should be expressed to the tenth, especially if your deviation is also expressed this way.

AU: Change was done as is suggested

 

RW: Line 258: Consider revising 'livestock production represents challenges to sustain efficient productivity' to 'challenges exist when sustaining efficient productivity in livestock systems.'

AU: Good point! The statement was changed following your suggestion.

 

RW: Line 260: Change consistent to 'that is consistent'.

AU: Done

 

RW: Line 261: Consider revising sentence structure.

AU: Sentence was restructured

 

RW: Line 269: Provide clarification here.  I do not see this statement represented in your table.  Some feedback on how this data was generated is appreciated (i.e. 1.121/1.119 kg DM/d).

AU: Thanks! The ratio was corrected as: (1.123/1.119 kg DM/d). where 1.123 is the average DMI for EO+BS lambs (Table 3) and 1.119 is expected DMI according to NRC 2007 equation approach (indicated previously).

 

RW: Line 274: Table 2 should be Table 3 and all other subsequent tables should be re-labeled.

AU: Now the Tables are numbered correctly

 

RW: Table 2b: Superscript letters which highlight statistical differences.

AU: Done

 

RW: Line 284: Was there an opportunity to use the same EO blend with an additional supplementation of D3 or BS? I understand that these two treatments are product on the market, but it is difficult to isolate the effect of EO, D3, and BS.

AU: Honorable reviewer, not in this experiment. But our group have been the opportunity to test supplementation alone of EO and BS and EO or BS plus other feed additives in other experiments (some already published). 

 

RW: Line 290: Change affect to effect

AU: Done

 

RW: Line 296: change 'may to associated' to 'may be associated'

AU: Done

 

RW: Table 3: Consider decimal alignment throughout the table.

AU: Done

 

RW: Table 3: If CCW is not an approved acronym by Animals and MDPI, please define in the footnotes.

AU: CCW is defined in Mat and Met section (subheading 2.6)

 

RW: Table 4: Decimal align

AU: Done

RW: Line 349: insert 'to' before MON.

AU: Done

 

RW: Line 361: Limited discussion is provided for Table 4; however, a paragraph is written on the results displayed in Table 4.  Please elaborate more on these results by either expanding on the antimicrobial/anti-inflammatory statement made or including context from other studies.

AU: We expand the discussion as is suggested

RW: Line 364: Reflecting on the objective of this work, to compare two EO & D3 or BS treatments to monensin, you do well to compare EO & D3 to monensin but state little on EO & BS vs monensin.  An expansion of the conclusions with this in mind is warranted.

AU: Conclusion was rewritten in order to cover your wise suggestion

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript as per suggestions but still need some improvement.

the title looks vague please revise

the summary of the paper has been revised.

plz revise L32-33

L-58-61 revise please 

L 66 add reference please DOI: 10.29261/pakvetj/2023.002 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1145610

revise these sub-title please 2.1 Location in which the study was performed

2.2 Weather measurement and temperature humidity index (THI) estimation

3.2 Relative intake of additives

3.3 Growth performance and dietary energetics

why the results tables are added in discussion section ?????

please adjust all results tables in results section 

in conclusion section please add the future recommendations 

please delete the old and unnecesary references. you have added more than 60 references please revise and delete an appropriate references 

English language must  be revised please still many corrections  

 

n/a

Author Response

AU: We are grateful to reviewer for the time and effort in helping improve the quality of the manuscript. The observations were wise and timely which permit the improvement substantially the manuscript. We have addressed the concerns in our revised manuscript accordingly.

All changes and correction made are highlighted in yellow in the corrected version of the manuscript.

Responses

RW: The title looks vague please revise

AU: Following your suggestion, the Title was rewritten in order to be more specific

RW: the summary of the paper has been revised.

AU: ok

RW: plz revise L32-33

AU: Sentence was revised and corrected

RW: L-58-61 revise please 

AU: AU: Sentence was revised and corrected

RW: L 66 add reference please DOI: 0.29261/pakvetj/2023.002 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1145610

AU: We add only the second reference, the first reference is more directed to heat stress and mammary gland metabolism

RW: Revise these sub-title please 2.1 Location in which the study was performed

AU: Sub-title 2.1 was revised and corrected

RW: 2.2 Weather measurement and temperature humidity index (THI) estimation

AU: Sub-title 2.2 was revised and corrected

RW: 3.2 Relative intake of additives

AU: Sub-title was changed as: “Additives intake”

RW: 3.3 Growth performance and dietary energetics

AU: Sub-title was changed as: “Growth performance and dietary energy”

RW: why the results tables are added in discussion section ?????

AU: Tables were relocated

RW: please adjust all results tables in results section 

AU: Tables were relocated

RW: in conclusion section please add the future recommendations.

AU: Following your suggestion we added some recommendations 

RW: Please delete the old and unnecesary references. you have added more than 60 references please revise and delete an appropriate reference. 

AU: Honorable reviewer, 80% of old references are related to monensin studies. As you well know, most of the information on monensin was generated decades ago. All the cited studies are relevant and necessary to support the arguments discussed. On the other hand, the other old references are from sources that support methodologies and procedures described in materials and methods, therefore they are also necessary to be cited.

RW: English language must be revised please still many corrections

AU: All manuscript was exhaustively revised and corrected when it was necessary