Chemical Composition and Palatability of Nutraceutical Dog Snacks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript is a well-documented evaluation of nutraceutical treats based on an insect protein source of the authors' own production (extruded and baked), taking into account the nutritional preferences of dogs, as well as an analysis of their chemical composition and mineral content.
All sections of the manuscript are presented in the correct format. The abstract is brief, pertinent, and appropriate for the article. The authors provided an excellent background on dog snacks in the Introduction section. The Materials and Methods section explains in depth the sources of data and statistical methods used. Tables and figures are used to present the results in detail. The discussion section compares the results of the study to those of other reports, and the conclusions support the presented findings.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for the insightful review of our manuscript.
In behalf of co-authors, once again thank you for your valuable comments.
Wioletta Biel
Reviewer:
Comments to the Author
Point 1: lines 26-29: In contrast to the methodology, which was written in detail, the results and conclusion were not well anticipated. Please rephase.
Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion, we expanded the abstract.
Point 2: lines 122-123: The formulation of hypotheses ought to precede the formulation of objectives.
Response: Changed.
Point 3: line 128: Does the diet contain isonitrogenous and isoenergetic compounds? Please clarify that.
Response: We are aware of this, but from the beginning we did not assume combining baked and extruded snacks. Therefore, the diets were not isonitrogenous and isoenergetic. However, our goal was to test the acceptance of the form of the snack, how the baking and extrusion processes affects dogs' willingness to eat the treats.
Point 4: line 161: Please mention the apparatus that was used to assess the fat content.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we added details.
Point 5: line 165: Add reference
Response: Thank you for this comment, we clarified the information „Total carbohydrates (TC) were calculated according to the equation 1, based on the results of other proximate components determined according to AOAC [16].”
Point 6: Table 4. Please check the SD value; it is quite high.
Response: It’s correct.
Point 7: lines 320-321: The author should not give any kind of justification in this section.
Response: Deleted.
Point 8: line 629: Italic
Response: Corrected.
Point 9: line 632: Please correct it
Response: Corrected.
Point 10: line 655: Please write the full bibliography.
Response: Added.
Point 11: lines 656-658: Kindly write out the complete reference.
Response: This reference is completed.
Point 12: line 707: Correct it, and please do so for others. Scientific terms should be written in italics.
Response: Thank you, we corrected it in all places.
Point 13: line 748: Please follow the style of reference writing.
Response: Thank you, we changed the style.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Tables 3, 4, 5 - the authors should present the data for each sample (e.g., S1, S2, S3 and S4) in average and SD, instead of showing the mean and SD for S1/2, or S3/4 together.
Consider changing the right SEM image for Fig 2a & 3a, or adjusting the contrast. The image is difficult to be seen.
Will a higher number of dog for the palatability test be more significant in the results?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for the insightful review of our manuscript. Below we attached the list of changes made according to your suggestions. In the revised version of the manuscript we have marked the corrected parts of the text in the track change mode. We also checked English language and style.
In behalf of co-authors, once again thank you for your valuable comments.
Wioletta Biel
Reviewer:
Comments to the Author
Point 1: Tables 3, 4, 5 - the authors should present the data for each sample (e.g., S1, S2, S3 and S4) in average and SD, instead of showing the mean and SD for S1/2, or S3/4 together.
Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion, however, the authors decided to keep the tables as they are. Our aim was to show statistically significant differences between snacks obtained by two different methods - baked and extruded. We cannot merge them because in a given group (S1 and S2 or S3 and S4) - snacks differed in the percentage share of components (which is given in the methods) and therefore we do not give results as a sum from a given form of production. The second Reviewer did not suggest changes to the tables, therefore we leave this issue to the Editor's decision.
Point 2: Consider changing the right SEM image for Fig 2a & 3a, or adjusting the contrast. The image is difficult to be seen.
Response: We changed the SEM images.
Point 3: Will a higher number of dog for the palatability test be more significant in the results?
Response: Thank you for this interesting question. However, in accordance with the current method for such tests, the minimum requirement for the number of animals to be tested has been met. Given the clear results from which dogs' preferences can be inferred, we believe that more of them would not significantly affect the results.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accepted
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comment
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for the insightful review of our manuscript.
In behalf of co-authors, once again thank you for your valuable comments.
Wioletta Biel and co-authors
Point 1: Accepted.
Response: Thank you for appreciating the work we put into improving the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
