Meat Quality in Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and Hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas)—A Nutritional and Technological Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I am pleased to ackowledge that the authors performed extensive modifications in order to improve their manuscript. I have no futher request or suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors have made the corrections and now the manuscript quality has improved for the publication therefore it may be accepted. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript (Meat quality in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and hares (Lepus 2 europaeus Pallas) - a nutritional and technological perspective) covered a topic very much relevant because the consumers are becoming more and more conscious from the aspect of the food quality. It is well known that rabbit meat has very favourable characteristics but studies justifying these statements are important. In general the study is well accomplished. The sample size is sufficient the methods are adequate and the interpretation of the results are also adequate. The englsih language is easy to read no substantial change is required. I have only some minor questions and remarks that should be answered before publishing the manuscript. Concerning statistical analysis authors stated that they used ANOVA and TUKEY POST HOC TEST. As far as I can see the only factor which was considered was "breed/species". However it is clear that the sex and weight of the used animal was also varying therefore they could also be included in the ANOVA. The authors should explicitely respond why they did not use these factors in the analysis. Besides, I have to note that I do not see the POSTHOC test result in the table at all. Since they examined 3 groups the significantly different means should have been marked with different letters. Moreover the table has to be understood it intself. In many occasions the authors used abbreviation in the tables that was never explained. This is not acceptable. All abbreviation has to be clarified in the footnote. Concerning references, reference 8 has to be modified. It is not sufficient just put the website address. DOI numbers are mostly missing. If it is a requirement then authors should complete the references with missing DOI numbers.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the manuscript is interesting. So far, few publications have been published on the meat quality of hares. The topic fits the profile of the journal. Unfortunately, its scientific level is not high enough to be published in a high-impact journal as Agriculture. I refuse it.

- The abstract is informative, however, there were differences between the two groups in several cases, but it was not indicated whether these differences were significant or not.

- L37-38: In the first sentence of the introduction, I recommend writing "currently" instead of "at the moment".

- L49: I suggest writing “In some recent studies [3-7]„ instead of “In recent study [3-7]”.

- L54-56: „Decreasing rabbit meat consumption is spreading around the world, and the Mediterranean basin, displays a decreasing per-capita consumption”. The first part of the sentence is incorrect, because there is an increase in production in the world (due to the production growth in Asia).

- L62-72: The list in the section beginning "Rabbit meat is a very good source of" should be replaced. Perhaps there should be written first about the valuable protein (essential amino acid) content, then the low fat content, and within that the favourable omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio. The minerals can only come after that. The high vitamin B12 content, which is characteristic of rabbit meat, should be emphasized. (Minerals are written twice consecutively. Omega fatty acids are included in two sentences.)

- The authors are right, very few articles have been published about hare meat quality. I draw the attention of the Authors to the following articles:

Rødbotten M, Kubberød E, Lea P et al (2004) A sensory map of the meat universe. Sensory profile of meat from 15 species. Meat Sci 68:137–144

Valencak T, Gamsajäger L, Ohrnberger S et al (2015) Healthy n-6/n-3 fatty acid composition from five European game species remains after cooking. BMC Res Notes 8:273

Vicenti A, Ragni M, di Summa A et al (2003) Influence of feeds and rearing system on the productive performances and the chemical and fatty acid composition of hare meat. Food Sci Technol Int 9:279–284

- L86-87: Please, delete this sentence “a recent study, from 2020, characterizes the meat of Spring Hare (Pedetes capensis) as an underutilised source of proteins [29].” because despite the name, it is not a hare, it does not belong to the genus Lepus.

- In tables and elsewhere: The names of the two species are quite short (hare and rabbit), so it is not worth using abbreviations (L.E. and F.G.), as it is more difficult for the reader to follow.

- In tables: Authors sometimes entered unrealistically small numbers as P values (e.g. 1.62 x 10^-6). If the value is less than 0.001, it is enough to write P<0.001.

- Results: It is unusual to present the results only in tables, without writing a single sentence about them. I recommend that there should be a Results and discussion chapter.

- Discussion: “The aim of this study was represented by the nutritional and technological comparative characterization of meat issued from farmed rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) - Flemish Giant breed and from hunted hares (Lepus europaeus Pallas).”

In accordance with the objective - after the presentation of the results - it should have been discussed what caused the difference in any traits.

Of course, it was primarily a difference between the two species.

At the same time, maturity at the time of slaughter may also have played a role (rabbits were examined at a younger age, hares at an older age). In this case, the literature data should have been used in which rabbits were examined (at a younger and older age). There may be such data for hares as well.

Feeding may have played an important role, especially on the fatty acid profile. Since others also examined farmed and hunted hares, the reason for the difference between them could have been analyzed.

Physical activity may also have played a role. (Rabbits have a limited range of motion, but hares could move around a large area.) The literature data could have been used here, when rabbits kept in small cages and in large pens were compared. Ecological husbandry (free range) could also have provided information.

- Discussion: The values ​​given in the table should not be repeated in the text. So much data can hardly be followed.

- L250: I suggest writing “Highest water content” instead of “Richest water content”.

- In several parts of the text: Comparing the results with poultry, broiler, pork, turkey or red deer can be very misleading.

- In several parts of the text: “The water content was close to that determined by” When authors compare their results with literature data, it should be absolutely stated that the respective authors achieved the result with hares or rabbits.

- In several parts of the text: You can write significant or P<0.01, but not both, because they mean the same thing.

- In several parts of the text: Both the name of the author and the order in the references are written (Chen et al., 2016) [33]. According to the recommendation of journal, they ask for the order of the reference list.

- In tables and several parts of the text: Too many decimals are sometimes written in tables and text (e.g. 484.12 or 80.13). Three digits are reasonably accurate (e.g. 484 or 80.1).

-L444-456: It also happens elsewhere that the authors list literary information (data) that is not directly related to their experiment.

Conclusions: The Discussions section contains some conclusions, and among the conclusions, some results.

During the review, I did not cover all the shortcomings, but I tried to describe the most important ones.

Its English needs to be also improved significantly.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is interesting and pertinent.

But the presentation is poor

The manuscript has been written poorly. Journal guidelines must be revisited before submission. A manuscript should always follow the author guidelines. the manner of reference citation within the manuscript should be checked. 

Language needs attention.Design of experiment is good 

All the results have been presented very well and have been thoroughly discussed

Reference should be rewritten and the numbers should be decreased. 114 references are too much for a research article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf