The Muscle Fibre Characteristics and the Meat Quality of m. longissimus thoracis from Polish Native Złotnicka Spotted Pigs and the Crossbreed Fatteners from the Crossing of Duroc and Polish Large White Boars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, find the review in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
Please find corrected version of manuscript. As many suggestion were same or similar here we answered all doubts/misspelling/suggestion from both reviewers and merge answers into one file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
While there are good reasons for the evaluation of meat from the native breed crosses the authors should avoid using non-significant meat quality data to support their underlying keenness to highlight the value of the polish native breed. There is sufficient clear significant data to do this
There are a range of changes and corrections suggested in the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find corrected version of manuscript. As many suggestion were same or similar here we answered all doubts/misspelling/suggestion from both reviewers and merge answers into one file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provide a new version without highlighted changes. This makes it very difficult to review the new version.
Also, in the joint Rebuttal letter to the two reviewers, I don't see any reference to my review. Especially with regard to Major / Modrate concerns ... This reviewer has already discussed these facts with the Editor. Maybe there was a mistake in generating the rebuttal letter?
Author Response
Dear Reveiwer,
I'm very sorry - There were some problem with uploading file and I did not realized before accepting that answears to Your review were not added.
Please find them in file below - as I said because most comments were similar I created one file for both reviewers with answears
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is much improved but there remain some points that need to be considered and attended too.
Ln 1: remove ‘performed investigations was’ add ‘investigations were’
Ln 9: remove ‘comparison’ add ‘compared’
Ln 16: remove ‘smallest’ add ‘lowest’
Ln 17: ‘toother’ problem with the text’
Ln 18: remove ‘characterised by the best tenderness’ add ‘the most tender’
Ln 19: remove ‘hybrids of the Złotnicka Spotted breed with Duroc and Polish Large White breeds was worse’ add ‘of the Złotnicka Spotted bred hybrids with the Duroc and Polish Large White breeds was poorer’
Ln 23: remove ‘Duroc breed pigs is a good solution.’ Add ‘Duroc pigs would be a suitable solution.’
Ln 118: remove ‘ageing’ duplicated in sentence.
Ln 138: , a* > 0 , a* < 0 green, b*’ note what colour a* > 0 , trends to red
Ln 244: remove ‘fat’ add ‘far’
Ln 244: remove ‘proved’ add ‘indicate’ as the statement ‘There is no consensus in the literature on the subject about differences in muscle fibre composition’ indicates it has not been proved as an absolute
Ln 257: remove ‘comparing’ add ‘compared’
Ln 264: ‘muscles of glycolytic character of metabolic changes’ this is confusing
Ln 278: remove ‘comparison’ add “compared’
Ln 283: remove ‘Own’ add ‘The present’
Ln 278: remove ‘by’
Ln 311: , In the authors’ own research, the intramuscular fat content in ZS x ZS porkers was 3.30%., which research is this? If previous it needs to be referenced
Ln 352: remove ‘swine groups’ use ‘genotypes’ as in Ln 349.
Ln 358: remove ‘was the worst’ add ‘had poorer’
Ln 360: remove ‘and protein content while’ add while ‘protein content’
Ln 365: remove ‘ZS x duroc’ add ‘from the’
ln 366: remove ‘parameters’ add ‘parameters of’
Ln 381: remove ‘small’ add ‘of the small’
Ln 384: remove ‘article add ‘articles’
Ln 384: remove ‘characterized by’ having’
Ln 385: remove ‘of’ add ‘the’
Ln 385: remove ‘is among’ add ‘is likely’
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
As suggested we changed mistakes/unclear parts of manuscript
Please see attachment
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the content of this third review of the manuscript has improved considerably.
However, the authors should make every effort to review the entire document in order to complete a presentable version. Here are some of the errors / inaccuracies detected:
Abstract: Right justify
Line 258: (Suggestion) I would rephrase and emphazise that the use of this breed is economically suitable
References and elsewhere: Check the size and style types
All Tables: carefully recheck all the details! Examples:
Tables 2 and 3: Should "breed" be changed by "male"?
Table 4: Differente groups and data are not in thesame line
Table 6: P values for Barrows and Gilts?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find in attachment our responses to Your comments
best regards
Łukasz Migdał
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
