Comparative Analysis of Statistical Regression Models for Prediction of Live Weight of Korean Cattle during Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript conducted a comparative experiment for three models of WRM, GPRM and GPPM based on observed data to find out which model predicts the weight change well during the growth period of Korean cattle, and got nice results.

1)      It is important to note that sex cannot be ignored in the process of cattle weight change, and the authors also refer to MALE cattle (L466, title) in other data descriptions, so is the full text based on analyses performed on cattle of the same sex, or on both male and female individuals, and if it is the former, please clarify in the Methods section to state that otherwise the statistical modeling that does not take into account the sex factor is unreliable.

2)      Structurally, the manuscript lacks comparisons/discussions with previous papers in the prediction of live weight changes in cattle, and the manuscript should not only compare your three statistical models, but should also compare with published papers of the same or similar models to make an assessment of how well the statistical models perform; in contrast, the manuscript list too much literatures in the Introduction section (I would suggest your authors to simplify it to short paragraphs, or compare these models with yours in discussion section if possible).

3)      In abstract, ‘However, the GPPM method is a proposed method that can predict the individual body weight of livestock, and is considered to be a method that can be widely used in farms’. For this conclusion, authors should clarify why GPPM method is proposed for predicting individual body weight in Results section, any data supports it, all this should be emphasized/clarified in your Results and Discussion section.

Others:

L220: the sex (male/female) of Korean cattle should be clarified.

L343: It should be formula 14. If so, it needs to be amended accordingly, L353, L360, etc.

L460, Fig1: For x and y axis, we don’t know what units are being used to calculate growth time (X axis, day or month?), and the same question is asked about the change (g or kg?) in weight (Y axis).

L466: For items N, SD, Min, and Max in Table 2, give explanation for these abbrevs. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. As your advices, we made a attached response letter.

Author Response File:

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 1

This manuscript conducted a comparative experiment for three models of WRM, GPRM and GPPM based on observed data to find out which model predicts the weight change well during the growth period of Korean cattle, and got nice results.

1) It is important to note that sex cannot be ignored in the process of cattle weight change, and the authors also refer to MALE cattle (L466, title) in other data descriptions, so is the full text based on analyses performed on cattle of the same sex, or on both male and female individuals, and if it is the former, please clarify in the Methods section to state that otherwise the statistical modeling that does not take into account the sex factor is unreliable.

Thank you for pointing out this. Based on your advice, we have added the following sentence to the Experimental Results section to explicitly state the unreliability of statistical modeling that does not consider the sex factor:

"In this study, our analysis was exclusively conducted on male cattle. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize that sex was not considered as a variable in our statistical modeling. Consequently, any statistical models that do not account for the sex factor may be unreliable in the context of this research."

2) Structurally, the manuscript lacks comparisons/discussions with previous papers in the prediction of live weight changes in cattle, and the manuscript should not only compare your three statistical models, but should also compare with published papers of the same or similar models to make an assessment of how well the statistical models perform; in contrast, the manuscript list too much literatures in the Introduction section (I would suggest your authors to simplify it to short paragraphs, or compare these models with yours in discussion section if possible).

We appreciate the valuable feedback. In our research, we conducted experiments by obtaining monthly time-series data through observations and weight measurements of live cattle raised in actual farms. Since our study focuses on the growth process of living organisms, we adopted a statistical modeling approach following the method outlined in Lohr's "Sampling: Design and Analysis" [32], which allows us to predict results with a limited amount of sample data. Such statistical models can be challenging to directly compare with recent deep learning methods that require a large amount of training data.

In response to the suggestion, we have summarized the references in the introduction section to make the paper more concise and clear. Thank you once again for your feedback.

3) In abstract, ‘However, the GPPM method is a proposed method that can predict the individual body weight of livestock, and is considered to be a method that can be widely used in farms’. For this conclusion, authors should clarify why GPPM method is proposed for predicting individual body weight in Results section, any data supports it, all this should be emphasized/clarified in your Results and Discussion section.

Thank you for your advice, we have added below section in the concolusion section.

Others:

L220: the sex (male/female) of Korean cattle should be clarified.

Thank you for your advice, we have explicitly specified "male cattle" in the data collection section of 2.1.

L343: It should be formula 14. If so, it needs to be amended accordingly, L353, L360, etc.

Thank you for your pointing out, as your advice, the equation numbers have been changed from 13 to 29.

L460, Fig1: For x and y axis, we don’t know what units are being used to calculate growth time (X axis, day or month?), and the same question is asked about the change (g or kg?) in weight (Y axis).

Thank you for your pointing out, as your advice, we have added the X, Y axis unit in the Figure 1. X: month, Y: Kg

L466: For items N, SD, Min, and Max in Table 2, give explanation for these abbrevs. 

Thank you for your pointing out, as your advice, we have added the explanation for these abbreviations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research, titled ‘An Comparative Analysis of Statistical Regression Models for Live Weight Prediction in Korean Cattle during the Growth Period,' proposes a prediction system that can automatically measure changes in the weight of Korean cattle during their growth period using three statistical regression models. While the topic may have moderate interest within the scientific community, especially considering the existing documentation of such models, the paper can still contribute to the existing bibliography. This is particularly relevant because data availability for Korean cattle may be limited. The paper aligns well with the scope of the journal. However, I believe that in its current form, it has several shortcomings:

- I would like to propose a revision to the article's title to enhance its clarity and impact. For example, I suggest 'Comparative Analysis of Statistical Regression Models for Predicting Live Weight in Korean Cattle during Growth.' However, if the authors have a better title in mind, they are welcome to use it.

- I suggest rewriting the abstract. In particular, the authors should remove section headings and provide more space for the study's results. Additionally, I recommend thoroughly checking the grammar and optimizing the text for readability.

- The introduction requires a complete overhaul as it is excessively lengthy and overly focused on the individual analysis of the cited articles. I recommend summarizing this information and relocating some parts to the discussion section, which is intended for comparing the obtained data with that of other articles.

- The Materials and Methods section should be further expanded. For example, the authors should include more data regarding the breed, gender, and average age of the animals considered. Additionally, it should clearly specify the number of animals involved and the scope of the recorded data. I would recommend adding a section providing information about the characteristics of the farms and the animals' diet. Another section should detail what was measured and how the measurements were conducted. As an illustrative example, I suggest reading and citing the papers with the references '10.3390/vetsci10090554' and '10.1080/1828051X.2022.2032850,' which serve a similar purpose to this paper.

- The discussion section is missing. Additionally, I would like to remind the authors that if they choose to keep the results and discussion sections separate, citations should not be included in the discussion section.

- The citations should be numbered in the order of appearance. Therefore, I recommend checking them and renumbering them accordingly.

- I also advise the authors to use citations exclusively from papers that investigate this approach on ruminants or cattle. In the text, there are citations from other species such as minks or broilers. Additionally, it is recommended to cite only from published papers (not preprints, e.g., citation n24) or doctoral theses. As mentioned, this approach is widely used, and finding similar papers should not be challenging.

Specific comments:

L22: Replace 'food' with 'feed' since we are discussing animals.

L134: The term 'Bos indicus' should be italicized.

L153: Please ensure that the names of the authors in the cited studies are correctly reported

Author Response

Thank you for your review. As your advices, we made a attached response letter.

Author Response : 

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 2

The research, titled ‘An Comparative Analysis of Statistical Regression Models for Live Weight Prediction in Korean Cattle during the Growth Period,' proposes a prediction system that can automatically measure changes in the weight of Korean cattle during their growth period using three statistical regression models. While the topic may have moderate interest within the scientific community, especially considering the existing documentation of such models, the paper can still contribute to the existing bibliography. This is particularly relevant because data availability for Korean cattle may be limited. The paper aligns well with the scope of the journal. However, I believe that in its current form, it has several shortcomings:

Thank you for your valuable comment.

- I would like to propose a revision to the article's title to enhance its clarity and impact. For example, I suggest 'Comparative Analysis of Statistical Regression Models for Predicting Live Weight in Korean Cattle during Growth.' However, if the authors have a better title in mind, they are welcome to use it.

Thank you for your valuable comment. According to your advice, we have revised the title.

- I suggest rewriting the abstract. In particular, the authors should remove section headings and provide more space for the study's results. Additionally, I recommend thoroughly checking the grammar and optimizing the text for readability.

Thank you for your valuable comment. According to your advice, we have rewritten the abstract including removing section headings.

- The introduction requires a complete overhaul as it is excessively lengthy and overly focused on the individual analysis of the cited articles. I recommend summarizing this information and relocating some parts to the discussion section, which is intended for comparing the obtained data with that of other articles.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have removed the sentences and summarize the paragraph as your advice.

- The Materials and Methods section should be further expanded. For example, the authors should include more data regarding the breed, gender, and average age of the animals considered. Additionally, it should clearly specify the number of animals involved and the scope of the recorded data. I would recommend adding a section providing information about the characteristics of the farms and the animals' diet. Another section should detail what was measured and how the measurements were conducted. As an illustrative example, I suggest reading and citing the papers with the references '10.3390/vetsci10090554' and '10.1080/1828051X.2022.2032850,' which serve a similar purpose to this paper.

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added the reference 33 and revised sentences as your advice.

- The discussion section is missing. Additionally, I would like to remind the authors that if they choose to keep the results and discussion sections separate, citations should not be included in the discussion section.

Thank you for your valuable comments. As your advices, we have divided 4. Discussion and 5. Conclusion.

- The citations should be numbered in the order of appearance. Therefore, I recommend checking them and renumbering them accordingly.

Thank you for your valuable comments. As your advices, we have renumbered the whole references.

- I also advise the authors to use citations exclusively from papers that investigate this approach on ruminants or cattle. In the text, there are citations from other species such as minks or broilers. Additionally, it is recommended to cite only from published papers (not preprints, e.g., citation n24) or doctoral theses. As mentioned, this approach is widely used, and finding similar papers should not be challenging.

Thank you for your valuable comments. As your advices, we have cited the only from published papers. We deleted the n24.

Specific comments:

L22: Replace 'food' with 'feed' since we are discussing animals.

Thank you for your valuable comments. As your advices, we have revised food to feed.

L134: The term 'Bos indicus' should be italicized.

Thank you for your valuable comments. As your advices, we have italicized for ‘Bos indicus’

L153: Please ensure that the names of the authors in the cited studies are correctly reported

Thank you for your valuable comments. As your advices, we rechecked the names of authors in the cited studies.

Reviewer 3 Report

The major concern of this study is the low number of experimental animals (13 and 15), Is this number sufficient to confirm such models? If so please add a reference.

For the Background of the abstract, may you have to insert specifically which animal you mean instead of livestock, livestock is a general word.

Line 20 in the abstract, please remove "for the predict".

Which Korean cattle do you mean?

Actually, the first sentence of the results in the abstract is related to the methods part.

Again line 37, livestock is a general word.

Line 62, this paragraph seems to be linked with the further one, Which problems do you mean here?

Line 68, please remove expressions like "let's consider..."

The introduction is very long, it has to be reduced and be specific on the objectives.

In the methods part, you have to insert the environmental conditions of these farms, and specifically add the breed of these animals and which animal production they used for (milk or meat production).

Line  447, please remove "Experimental"

All the abbreviations have to be inserted in their first mentions in full names including the tables.

The conclusion has to be just one paragraph.

Seems good

Author Response

Thank you for your review. As your advices, we made a attached response letter.

Author Response : 

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 3

1. The major concern of this study is the low number of experimental animals (13 and 15), Is this number sufficient to confirm such models? If so please add a reference.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In accordance with your advice, we have included reference 32, which pertains to Lohr's "Sampling: Design and Analysis." Furthermore, we have incorporated the suggested sentence into Section 3.1, addressing the distribution of the collected data. Your input has greatly contributed to the enhancement of our paper, and we appreciate your thoughtful guidance.

2. For the Background of the abstract, may you have to insert specifically which animal you mean instead of livestock, livestock is a general word.

Thank you for your valuable comment. In accordance with your advice, we have revised livestock to cattle in background of the abstract.

3. Line 20 in the abstract, please remove "for the predict".

Thank you for your valuable comment. In accordance with your advice, we have revised whole sentence.

4. Which Korean cattle do you mean?

I apologize for any confusion. In our study, "Korean cattle" refers to cattle raised in South Korea. We have specifically selected two livestock farms, Daihwang Livestock and Myeongin Breeding, as the sources of our data for this study. These cattle represent a subset of the broader Korean cattle population, and our analysis is based on the data collected from these specific farms during the breeding period.

5. Actually, the first sentence of the results in the abstract is related to the methods part.

Thank you for pointing that out. We acknowledge the observation regarding the first sentence in the abstract. We have revised manuscript.

6. Again line 37, livestock is a general word.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have revised manuscript.  

7. Line 62, this paragraph seems to be linked with the further one, Which problems do you mean here?

Thank you for pointing that out. We have revised sentence as your advice to more Cleary.

8. Line 68, please remove expressions like "let's consider..."

Thank you for pointing that out. We have revised sentence as your advice.

9. The introduction is very long, it has to be reduced and be specific on the objectives.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have removed the sentences and summarize the paragraph as your advice.

10. In the methods part, you have to insert the environmental conditions of these farms, and specifically add the breed of these animals and which animal production they used for (milk or meat production).

As your advice, we have added the “Edible” in the sentence. And have added the condition of breeding.

11. Line  447, please remove "Experimental".

Thank you for pointing that out. We have removed the “Experimental..” as your advice.

12. All the abbreviations have to be inserted in their first mentions in full names including the tables.

Thank you for pointing that out. Following the advice, we have checked and revised abbreviations.

13. The conclusion has to be just one paragraph.

Thank you for pointing that out. Following the advice, we have removed redundant content from the conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully clarified the issues in the manuscripts. Some minor error should be checked again, such as the title and the authors names are different in files of modify-trace (agriculture-2606896-modify trace) and final review v2 version (agriculture-2606896-peer-review-v2). The authors need to thoroughly investigate similar issues throughout the manuscript, especially between different versions of the manuscripts.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 1

The authors have carefully clarified the issues in the manuscripts. Some minor error should be checked again, such as the title and the authors names are different in files of modify-trace (agriculture-2606896-modify trace) and final review v2 version (agriculture-2606896-peer-review-v2). The authors need to thoroughly investigate similar issues throughout the manuscript, especially between different versions of the manuscripts.

I appreciate your meticulous feedback.

During the review round 1, some reviewers requested changes to the paper's title, which have been incorporated. It seems that the confusion arose from all the revision processes being recorded in the trace files.

As you mentioned, the first author's name has been corrected from Hyung-Hwan Na to Myung-Hwan Na. It was initially submitted with an incorrect name, and we have carefully reviewed and rectified this error from the beginning in accordance with your meticulous feedback.

Author Response : 

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 1

The authors have carefully clarified the issues in the manuscripts. Some minor error should be checked again, such as the title and the authors names are different in files of modify-trace (agriculture-2606896-modify trace) and final review v2 version (agriculture-2606896-peer-review-v2). The authors need to thoroughly investigate similar issues throughout the manuscript, especially between different versions of the manuscripts.

I appreciate your meticulous feedback.

During the review round 1, some reviewers requested changes to the paper's title, which have been incorporated. It seems that the confusion arose from all the revision processes being recorded in the trace files.

As you mentioned, the first author's name has been corrected from Hyung-Hwan Na to Myung-Hwan Na. It was initially submitted with an incorrect name, and we have carefully reviewed and rectified this error from the beginning in accordance with your meticulous feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

I commend your diligent efforts in addressing the feedback provided by previous revisions. I also apologize for any difficulties I encountered while tracking the changes, as the text was not highlighted. Nevertheless, I have made every effort to identify and review the modifications, even in the absence of highlights. Additionally, I have some further suggestions for revisions that, in my opinion, will contribute to improving the overall quality of your manuscript. In my view, the introduction section appears excessively lengthy. Personally, I find the inclusion of an overview of methods proposed in previous studies somewhat redundant, and I fail to see its significance. Moreover, I am puzzled by the absence of a discussion of these studies in the discussion section, which, for a scientific article, seems rather brief. I recommend considering the removal of this section from the introduction and incorporating it, with appropriate modifications, into the discussion section to enrich it.

Furthermore, I have identified some inconsistencies in your citations. Specifically, citation number 29 does not seem relevant, and I was unable to locate any formulas, even though it is referenced for mathematical formulas (LL 403-404). Additionally, there are references to citations that do not appear in the bibliography section (e.g., citation number 33 is non-existent). I advise carefully reviewing the text to ensure accurate citation placement.

Lastly, I strongly discourage including bibliographic references within the results section. Instead, I recommend that such references be added to the discussion section, where they can be discussed in greater detail and contextually linked to your findings.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 2

I commend your diligent efforts in addressing the feedback provided by previous revisions. I also apologize for any difficulties I encountered while tracking the changes, as the text was not highlighted. Nevertheless, I have made every effort to identify and review the modifications, even in the absence of highlights.

Thank you for your valuable comment.

Additionally, I have some further suggestions for revisions that, in my opinion, will contribute to improving the overall quality of your manuscript. In my view, the introduction section appears excessively lengthy. Personally, I find the inclusion of an overview of methods proposed in previous studies somewhat redundant, and I fail to see its significance.

Thank you for your valuable advice. Following your suggestions, we have shortened the length of the initial manuscript's introduction from 218 lines to 111 lines and removed redundancy.

Moreover, I am puzzled by the absence of a discussion of these studies in the discussion section, which, for a scientific article, seems rather brief. I recommend considering the removal of this section from the introduction and incorporating it, with appropriate modifications, into the discussion section to enrich it.

Thank you for your valuable advice. I have addressed your points by dividing the manuscript into sections 4 (Discussion) and 5 (Conclusion), and I have included the discussion points in the Discussion section.

Furthermore, I have identified some inconsistencies in your citations. Specifically, citation number 29 does not seem relevant, and I was unable to locate any formulas, even though it is referenced for mathematical formulas (LL 403-404). Additionally, there are references to citations that do not appear in the bibliography section (e.g., citation number 33 is non-existent). I advise carefully reviewing the text to ensure accurate citation placement.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In accordance with the revision requests from some reviewers, I have reorganized the order of references in the manuscript to match the order in which they are cited in the text. I have also excluded non-official archive references. Consequently, while it may appear in the trace file, reference number 29 in the revised manuscript is cited as "29. Korean Livestock Act Enforcement Regulation [Presidential Decree No. 32692, June 14, 2022]," which is referenced in Section 3.1, "Distribution of Collected Data," specifically related to regulations concerning livestock conditions. Reference number 33 has been removed in the revised manuscript and is no longer present.

Lastly, I strongly discourage including bibliographic references within the results section. Instead, I recommend that such references be added to the discussion section, where they can be discussed in greater detail and contextually linked to your findings.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The revised manuscript's conclusion does not include any bibliographic references.

Author Response : 

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 2

I commend your diligent efforts in addressing the feedback provided by previous revisions. I also apologize for any difficulties I encountered while tracking the changes, as the text was not highlighted. Nevertheless, I have made every effort to identify and review the modifications, even in the absence of highlights.

Thank you for your valuable comment.

Additionally, I have some further suggestions for revisions that, in my opinion, will contribute to improving the overall quality of your manuscript. In my view, the introduction section appears excessively lengthy. Personally, I find the inclusion of an overview of methods proposed in previous studies somewhat redundant, and I fail to see its significance.

Thank you for your valuable advice. Following your suggestions, we have shortened the length of the initial manuscript's introduction from 218 lines to 111 lines and removed redundancy.

Moreover, I am puzzled by the absence of a discussion of these studies in the discussion section, which, for a scientific article, seems rather brief. I recommend considering the removal of this section from the introduction and incorporating it, with appropriate modifications, into the discussion section to enrich it.

Thank you for your valuable advice. I have addressed your points by dividing the manuscript into sections 4 (Discussion) and 5 (Conclusion), and I have included the discussion points in the Discussion section.

Furthermore, I have identified some inconsistencies in your citations. Specifically, citation number 29 does not seem relevant, and I was unable to locate any formulas, even though it is referenced for mathematical formulas (LL 403-404). Additionally, there are references to citations that do not appear in the bibliography section (e.g., citation number 33 is non-existent). I advise carefully reviewing the text to ensure accurate citation placement.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In accordance with the revision requests from some reviewers, I have reorganized the order of references in the manuscript to match the order in which they are cited in the text. I have also excluded non-official archive references. Consequently, while it may appear in the trace file, reference number 29 in the revised manuscript is cited as "29. Korean Livestock Act Enforcement Regulation [Presidential Decree No. 32692, June 14, 2022]," which is referenced in Section 3.1, "Distribution of Collected Data," specifically related to regulations concerning livestock conditions. Reference number 33 has been removed in the revised manuscript and is no longer present.

Lastly, I strongly discourage including bibliographic references within the results section. Instead, I recommend that such references be added to the discussion section, where they can be discussed in greater detail and contextually linked to your findings.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The revised manuscript's conclusion does not include any bibliographic references.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript is improved, and iam sufficient with their modifications thus i suggest to send the manuscript for production

It seems good

Author Response

Thank you for your time and efforts.

Author Response: 

Response Letter to Reviewers

Dear editors and reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editors’ and reviewers’ comments and editors’ kind instructions. Please find our point-by-point responses from the following.

The amendments are shown in bold.

Reviewer: 3

1. The major concern of this study is the low number of experimental animals (13 and 15), Is this number sufficient to confirm such models? If so please add a reference.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In accordance with your advice, we have included reference 32, which pertains to Lohr's "Sampling: Design and Analysis." Furthermore, we have incorporated the suggested sentence into Section 3.1, addressing the distribution of the collected data. Your input has greatly contributed to the enhancement of our paper, and we appreciate your thoughtful guidance.

2. For the Background of the abstract, may you have to insert specifically which animal you mean instead of livestock, livestock is a general word.

Thank you for your valuable comment. In accordance with your advice, we have revised livestock to cattle in background of the abstract.

3. Line 20 in the abstract, please remove "for the predict".

Thank you for your valuable comment. In accordance with your advice, we have revised whole sentence.

4. Which Korean cattle do you mean?

I apologize for any confusion. In our study, "Korean cattle" refers to cattle raised in South Korea. We have specifically selected two livestock farms, Daihwang Livestock and Myeongin Breeding, as the sources of our data for this study. These cattle represent a subset of the broader Korean cattle population, and our analysis is based on the data collected from these specific farms during the breeding period.

5. Actually, the first sentence of the results in the abstract is related to the methods part.

Thank you for pointing that out. We acknowledge the observation regarding the first sentence in the abstract. We have revised manuscript.

6. Again line 37, livestock is a general word.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have revised manuscript.  

7. Line 62, this paragraph seems to be linked with the further one, Which problems do you mean here?

Thank you for pointing that out. We have revised sentence as your advice to more Cleary.

8. Line 68, please remove expressions like "let's consider..."

Thank you for pointing that out. We have revised sentence as your advice.

9. The introduction is very long, it has to be reduced and be specific on the objectives.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have removed the sentences and summarize the paragraph as your advice.

10. In the methods part, you have to insert the environmental conditions of these farms, and specifically add the breed of these animals and which animal production they used for (milk or meat production).

As your advice, we have added the “Edible” in the sentence. And have added the condition of breeding.

11. Line  447, please remove "Experimental".

Thank you for pointing that out. We have removed the “Experimental..” as your advice.

12. All the abbreviations have to be inserted in their first mentions in full names including the tables.

Thank you for pointing that out. Following the advice, we have checked and revised abbreviations.

13. The conclusion has to be just one paragraph.

Thank you for pointing that out. Following the advice, we have removed redundant content from the conclusion section.