Dietary Fiber Source and Length of Feeding Partitions Differentially Affected Behavior, Immune Status, and Productivity of Group-Housed Dry Sows
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Group housing of sows is considered better from the welfare perspective than individual housing. However, it has its drawbacks too. One of the major problems is aggression among group-housed sows especially during feeding and regrouping of sows. There is no simple solution but every attempt to reduce this undesirable behavior is welcome.
The topic of the manuscript fits well to the scope of the Agriculture journal. The title and the summary are adequate and provide good overview of the content. The objectives of the study are clearly described. The experiment was well designed and the results are adequately detailed and thoroughly discussed. The conclusions are correct and based on the results that are provided. Tables are well-structured, adequate and self-explanatory. However, the quality of Figures could be improved (better resolution should be used). The list of references is adequate and up-to-date. The length of the manuscript is adequate. The manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the currently widely discussed topic.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments. The only point that needed to be addressed was the resolution of the figures. I had to edit the figures, thus when I added to the revised manuscript, I made did not reduce the size too much. Hopefully, this addresses your concern.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments, review of manuscript id: Agriculture-1022346
Title: ”Dietary fiber source and length of feeding partitions differentially affected behaviour, immune, and productivity of group-housed dry sows”
The manuscript needs some corrections, as mentioned below and in “Comments”.
You use the word “immune” in the title and several places in the text, consider if it may be better to use “immunity” or “immune status”.
For the feeding stall partitions you are using “short” also written as “Sht” and “long (also written as “Lng” in the text. You are not consequent when you use the fill names or the abbreviations in the text, why do you not use “short” or “long” throughout the manuscript? You do not save much space by using the abbreviations.
The English language is in general good, except for the “Abstract”..
Comments.
Abstract, lines 12 – 24. In general, the English language in the abstract must be improved. Some sentences are incomplete. Also, correct some writing errors.
Introduction, in general. Avoid mention the same in the introduction and in the discussion.
Materials and Methods, line 69 -71. This sentence is incomplete.
Materials and Methods, Table 1. The two gestational diets differ on crude protein content (13.78% and 18.96%, respectively). Is there a reason for this, except different contents of crude protein in the feed ingredients? Usually, when growth parameters are compared between diets the diets is made as equal as possible in energy and crude protein (and also amino acids).
Materials and Methods, line 175. You are mentioning “adjusted litter weight at birth” twice in this line. Is this an error, or it is any reason for this?
Results, line 224 (and also in the following pages). You are writing “neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio”, “N:L”, and “N:L-ratio” throughout the manuscript. Be consequent. I prefer that you write it without any abbreviations.
Results, Figure 2. Instead of “(a)” under the left part of this figure, write “mean sow body weight (BW)”, and do the same for the right part (write “mean body condition scores” instead of “(b)”).
Results, Table 5. Define the range used for the skin lesion scores as a footnote in Table 5. Also, write “skin lesion scores” instead of “body lesion scores” in the title of Table 5.
Results, Table 6. In this table you present “BW gain” (D30to D70; D70 to D90; D90 to D104; and Total). You also present “Total BW loss”. In “Materials and Methods” you have not described how these values are calculated. This must be done. I also find your values for “Total BW gain” strange. In particular the result for the “MIDD-SY” diet. Please explain this.
Discussion, in general. To make the discussion easier to read, you may consider to introduce some sub-chapters, as you have done in “Results”.
Discussion, lines 288. Consider writing “…but gave more skin lesions…” instead of “…but reduced skin lesion scores…”. This will make the sentence easier to read.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive review. I have addressed each of your comments. Some of them required more extensive changes than others, so for the most part, I have directed you toward Lines with track changes on. I am attaching the file with my response to your comments.
-----------------
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments Note: all changes are highlighted in yellow as well as track changes are on. Line numbers are relative to having track changes on.
Point 1: You use the word “immune” in the title and several places in the text, consider if it may be better to use “immunity” or “immune status”.
Response 1: “immune” has been changed to “immune status” throughout the manuscript, with a few exceptions. When it was appropriate, “immune measure” (L145, L234, L428) was used instead.
Point 2: For the feeding stall partitions you are using “short” also written as “Sht” and “long (also written as “Lng” in the text. You are not consequent when you use the fill names or the abbreviations in the text, why do you not use “short” or “long” throughout the manuscript? You do not save much space by using the abbreviations.
Response 2: changed abbreviated sht and lng (all other versions) to short and long. This change was made throughout the text, tables, and figures. All highlighted in yellow.
Point 3: The English language is in general good, except for the “Abstract”.
Response 3: rewrote and corrected grammar errors in the abstract. L-12 through L-32 has been rewritten to reflect the reviewer's concern, resulting in other changes being made to improve the grammar. Too many changes made; please see abstract.
Point 4: Introduction, in general. Avoid mention the same in the introduction and in the discussion.
Response 4: Deleted the information and/or edited sentences to reduce the repetitiveness between the introduction and the discussion repetitiveness. See L47-51 and L61-73
Now reads:
A competitive feeding system provides little to no protection for the individual sow; aggression around feeding is often more intense. Smaller-bodied sows are often displaced from the feeder by larger sows resulting in larger sows consuming other sows’ feed allotment, especially smaller sows [3]. Larger sows gain more weight and have better body condition scores; however, group-housed sows often have higher lesion scores and more variable conditions scores [4-6].
Other strategies, including varying group size and floor-space allowance [14] or adding individual feeding partitions [15], have also been used to minimize aggression among group-housed sows with variable outcomes as well. For example, floor-space allowance affected lesion severity scores, whereas vulva lesions and oral-nasal-facial behaviors were reduced among sows fed a fiber gestation diet (15% wheat middlings and 30% soybean hulls) compared to those fed a control diet [9]. Moreover, both floor-space allowance and fibrous interactively affected aggression, such that sows housed in pens with increased floor-space allowance and fed fiber diet having more bouts of aggression around the waterer than those in pens with less floor-space [16].
Point 5: Materials and Methods, line 69-71. This sentence is complete.
Response 5: these lines and others were edited to correct this issue. New lines 87-95
Now reads:
Thirty-six sows per group (n = 5 groups), balanced for sow body weight and parity, were randomly allotted to one of two dietary fiber treatments and one of two feeding stall lengths at gestational D35 (n = 9 sows/diet-length-block combination). Dietary treatments consisted of fiber supplemented diets composed of either 30% wheat middlings and 15% soybean hulls (MIDD-SY) or 30% distillers dried grains with solubles and 30% corn germ meal (DDGS-GM). The partitions used to make individual feeding places within the group-pens were either short (58.4 cm; (short); width = 48.3 cm) or long (203.2 cm (long); width = 57.2 cm) in length; with the short ones being long enough to protect the sow from head to shoulders, and the long ones extended from her head to rump.
Point 6: Materials and Methods, Table 1. The two gestational diets differ on crude protein content (13.78% and 18.96%, respectively). Is there a reason for this, except different contents of crude protein in the feed ingredients? Usually, when growth parameters are compared between diets the diets is made as equal as possible in energy and crude protein (and also amino acids).
Response 6: the difference in CP% was due to the differences in ingredients supplemented to formulate the two dietary fiber diets. The amount of each diet fed to the sows was adjusted to equalize the differences in metabolizable energy. However, no adjustments were made to % crude protein since the primary interest was about the impact of fiber type on aggression and other behaviors that will ultimately impact other well-being measures, including immune status and performance. Added lines 123-124
Now reads: The diets had a calculated composition (as fed basis) of 13.8 and 18.9 % CP, respectively. The difference between the two diets in % CP can be attributed to differences in ingredients used to formulate the treatment diets.
Point 7: Materials and Methods, line 175. You are mentioning “adjusted litter weight at birth” twice in this line. Is this an error, or it is any reason for this?
Response 7: this was a careless oversight; the repetitiveness has been deleted, and L 205-207 were rewritten
Calculated piglet and litter traits included: mean piglet birth and weaning weight, and mean weight gain from birth to weaning, and litter weights at birth and weaning, and adjusted litter weights at birth and weaning.
Point 8: Results, line 224 (and also in the following pages). You are writing “neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio”, “N:L”, and “N:L-ratio” throughout the manuscript. Be consequent. I prefer that you write it without any abbreviations.
Response 8: All abbreviations for N:L ratio have been changed to neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio throughout the text and tables. Highlighted in yellow
Point 9: Results, Figure 2. Instead of “(a)” under the left part of this figure, write “mean sow body weight (BW)”, and do the same for the right part (write “mean body condition scores” instead of “(b)”).
Response 9: The figure was modified to reflect the change that was requested. The letters a and b were changed to descriptive text. The a and b were also removed from the text. L293-L295.
Point 10: Results, Table 5. Define the range used for the skin lesion scores as a footnote in Table 5. Also, write “skin lesion scores” instead of “body lesion scores” in the title of Table 5.
Response 10: Changed body to skin in the title for Table 5 (L279). The scoring system was added in the footnote (L304-307).
Scores ranged from 0 to 7 for all body regions: score 0 = no lesions, 1 = dehairing/callus/balding, 2 = redness/swelling, 3 = swelling and callus/abscess, 4 = scabbed over scratch, 5 = marked wound/fresh scratch, 6 = severe wound/open wound, and 7 = severe swelling.
Point 11: Results, Table 6. In this table, you present “BW gain” (D30to D70; D70 to D90; D90 to D104; and Total). You also present “Total BW loss”. In “Materials and Methods” you have not described how these values are calculated. This must be done. I also find your values for “Total BW gain” strange. In particular, the result for the “MIDD-SY” diet. Please explain this.
Response 11: the error in Table 6 for total BW gain was corrected in the table. In M&M, L198 and L200-202 were added/modified. The body weight on a specified gestational day was recorded before blood sampling; thus, body weight was recorded each time simultaneously with blood sampling.
Sow BW gains were calculated from D30 to D70, D70 to D90, D90 to D104, total gain (D30 until D104), using sow body weight recorded on specific gestational weigh day. Total BW loss was calculated using body weight at gestational D30 and end of lactation (or at weaning).
Point 12: Discussion, in general. To make the discussion easier to read, you may consider to introduce some sub-chapters, as you have done in “Results”
Response 12: Added subheadings as suggested, which are found at L324, L367, L392, L433. Edited L326-339, 341-346, 353-357, Moved the Immune status section ahead of the productivity section (section 4.3 became 4.2 and vice versa). These changes were grammar issues.
Added Conclusion section L455 but did not change the paragraph, only a few edits.
Point 13: Discussion, lines 288. Consider writing “…but gave more skin lesions…” instead of “…but reduced skin lesion scores…”. This will make the sentence easier to read.
Response 13: Edited this sentence which can be found at L303-304 and highlighted in yellow.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments, Second review of manuscript id: Agriculture-1022346
Title: ”Dietary fiber source and length of feeding partitions differentially affected behaviour, immune status, and productivity of group-housed dry sows”
The revision of the manuscript is done according to the comments from the reviewers. The revised manuscript still needs some minor corrections, as mentioned below
Comments.
Abstract, (actual lines 17 and 18 in the abstract). Consider to write in full “long ones” or “long partitions” instead of only “long”. Remember that the abstract should be read independent of the article.
Results, lines 120 – 122 (2.2. Dietary treatments). Here, the sentence is repeated three times. These lines must be rewritten.
Results, Table 6. Check the lay-out for the “BW-gain” in this table. The lines in this section should match each other.
Author Response
I have attached my responses to your comments
------------------
Point 1: Abstract, (actual lines 17 and 18 in the abstract). Consider to write in full “long ones” or “long partitions” instead of only “long”. Remember that the abstract should be read independent of the article.
Response: The changes I made to reflect the concern are made in L19, 23, and 24 within the abstract.
L 19: …either shoulder (short) or full-body (long) in length.
L23: ….long partitions
L24: …long ones.
Point 2: Results, lines 120 – 122 (2.2. Dietary treatments). Here, the sentence is repeated three times. These lines must be rewritten.
Response: I accepted all changes and still could not find the repetitive sentences you referred to under the Dietary treatment section or within the results since the results did not contain the same subheadings. I am more than happy to change if you can point me in the right direction with this revised version. Thank you.
Point 3: Results, Table 6. Check the lay-out for the “BW-gain” in this table. The lines in this section should match each other.
Response: I removed the Total (d30-D104) and replaced it with D30-D104 to be consistent within that category.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
