Investigation of the Plumage Condition of Non-Beak-Trimmed Rhode ISLAND-Type Pedigree Hens in Cages and Alternative Pens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please clarify the following issues;

(line 117) "The plumage condition was evaluated on a 4-grade scale, where four points were given for the intact plumage and one point for the strongly damaged and incomplete plumage"   -  What does "strongly damaged and incomplete plumage" mean? You wrote that "4 points" means that the plumage is absolutly intact, please specify the rules for awarding points 3; 2;1

(line 175-177) "The condition of the neck plumage worsened with age in both genotypes included in the study (Table 3). Between weeks 33 and 61, we measure 22,5% lower values for the Rhode Island Red genotype, and 19,3% lower values in the Rhode Island White herd" -  please add: lower values of what?

Conclusions section is too long and too similar to Results and Discussion, and in my opinion it should be corrected.

  Kind regards,

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Authors,

 

Please clarify the following issues;

 

(line 117) "The plumage condition was evaluated on a 4-grade scale, where four points were given for the intact plumage and one point for the strongly damaged and incomplete plumage"   -  What does "strongly damaged and incomplete plumage" mean? You wrote that "4 points" means that the plumage is absolutly intact, please specify the rules for awarding points 3; 2;1

 

(line 175-177) "The condition of the neck plumage worsened with age in both genotypes included in the study (Table 3). Between weeks 33 and 61, we measure 22,5% lower values for the Rhode Island Red genotype, and 19,3% lower values in the Rhode Island White herd" -  please add: lower values of what?

 

Conclusions section is too long and too similar to Results and Discussion, and in my opinion it should be corrected.

 

Kind regards,

 

Response:

First of all, we would like to thank you for taking on the task of correcting the manuscript.

We are glad that you made suggestions for improvement, all of which we agree with. That is why we modified the manuscript.

 

Point 1: (line 117) "The plumage condition was evaluated on a 4-grade scale, where four points were given for the intact plumage and one point for the strongly damaged and incomplete plumage"   -  What does "strongly damaged and incomplete plumage" mean? You wrote that "4 points" means that the plumage is absolutly intact, please specify the rules for awarding points 3; 2;1

Response 1: You are absolutely right. I added.

4: Intact plumage

3: Slightly damaged feathers (the tip of the feather is worn, body covered with plumage overall)

2: Moderately damaged (the feather shows a partial lack of rachis, skin parts visible)

1: Strongly damaged and incomplete plumage (rachis without vane, big skin parts visible)

 

Point 2: (line 175-177) "The condition of the neck plumage worsened with age in both genotypes included in the study (Table 3). Between weeks 33 and 61, we measure 22,5% lower values for the Rhode Island Red genotype, and 19,3% lower values in the Rhode Island White herd" -  please add: lower values of what?

Response 2: I agree, I clarified it in the text: “lower plumage point values”.

 

Point 3: Conclusions section is too long and too similar to Results and Discussion, and in my opinion it should be corrected.

Response 3: I agree, I modified or deleted some long sentences.

 

In the revised manuscript, you can view comments, replies to them, and any changes to the manuscript.

You are Reviewer 1, I have marked your comments in blue.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, your manuscript deal with the investigation on the plumage condition of non-beak-trimmed Rhode Island-type elite hens in cages and alternative pen, interesting topic however I have some major concern and suggestions in the attached file. The material and methods, results and discussion sections must be implemented.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear authors, your manuscript deal with the investigation on the plumage condition of non-beak-trimmed Rhode Island-type elite hens in cages and alternative pen, interesting topic however I have some major concern and suggestions in the attached file. The material and methods, results and discussion sections must be implemented.

 

Response:

Dear reviewer! Thank you very much for taking on the task of reviewing our manuscript. Thank you for drawing our attention to the errors and for providing helpful suggestions. We agree with your suggestions, so we modified the manuscript in the places you requested, wherever we could.

 

Point 1: I suggest to talk of breeders instead of elite, please reformulate the title.

Response 1: You are absolutely right. I agree, I modified it. The new expression: pedigre.

 

Point 2: The abstract is too long I think.

Response 2: I agree, I modified and shortened it.

 

Point 3: Please add informations regarding the breeder, if the hens were from the same place or a mix of different.

Response 3: I agree. The hens were from the same place, that is why I added: “all originated…”

 

Point 4: Please insert also the data of egg production insert information regarding the light conditions, temperature and humidity anc vaccinations.

Response 4: I agree, I added the information regarding the light conditions, temperature and humidity. “In the poultry house the average temperature was 14-18ºC, humidity was between 65 and 70%. The lighting period was 16L:8D (light: 5:00–21:00 hours; 30 lux, warm white).”

I agree that it would be nice to see egg production data in the article. But the authors intend to publish it in another article.

 

Point 5: Wich kind of litter?

Response 5: Relevant question. I added (dust-free softwood shavings).

 

Point 6: Please insert information regarding the yought hens, portion of the breeding process that have an important impact on welfare and egg production?

Response 6: It is a relevant question, I added: All genotypes were reared (according to the parent stock management guide of the Bábolna TETRA Ltd.) in the same building, under the same conditions, in deep litter until the 18th week of life.

 

Point 7: Please make in italicum.

Response 7: I agree, I modified it.

 

Point 8: This section must be enlarged, adding a deeper discussion and adding more references, I suggest this recent paper: 10.3390/ani12182307

Response 8: Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. I really liked it, I used it.

 

In the revised manuscript, you can view comments, replies to them, and any changes to the manuscript.

You are Reviewer 2, I have marked your comments in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job, the paper has improved a lot.