Exogenous Phytase Improves Growth Performance, Nutrient Retention, Tibia Mineralization, and Breast Meat Quality in Ross-308 Broilers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this manuscript holds substantial interest and value for both academic readers and industrial applications for broiler production. Nevertheless, a few supplementary improvements could further enhance its clarity, as indicated below;

1.      Changing “trt” to “treatment” (line 123 and 159).

2.      A P-value below 0.10 should not be considered indicative of a significant difference; instead, it should be less than 0.05 to be deemed significant. Please review the comprehensive data across all tables and incorporate necessary revisions into the main body text of the manuscript.

3.      It seems to be that this study was carried out under a complete randomized design (CRD), but the author mentioned that experimental data were subjected to analysis via the general linear model procedure of SAS in a complete randomized block design.

4.      It appears that this study was conducted using a completely randomized design (CRD); however, the author mentioned that the experimental design was accorded to a completely randomized block design. Word of “block” should be deleted.

5.      Please delete “is” (line 174). Or if feasible, the author may consider using this sentence as a replacement for the previous one; “The hypothesis for this study aimed to investigate whether enhancing broilers' diets with various levels of phytase (ranging from 250 to 3000 U/kg of feed) could lead to improvements in their growth performance, nutrient utilization, calcium and phosphorus retention, meat quality, and foot pad score when compared to those fed standard PC and NC diets.” (line 174-177).

6.      Please delete “1” (line 221).

7.      Author mentioned that “healthy foot pad condition of broilers could be due to either proper sanitary condition or due to the effect of dietary phytase which helps them to maintain gut health resulted with reduced cecal score” Is there any reference to support author’s reason? (line 241-243)

8.      Figure 1 should be enhanced to improve resolution and include symbols (A and B) to clearly identify each group.

9.      Figure 1 should include symbols (A to F) to clearly identify each group.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have effectively demonstrated proficient English writing and presentation skills. Only minor revisions are necessary, such as adding a superscript to a footnote.

Author Response

Overall, this manuscript holds substantial interest and value for both academic readers and industrial applications for broiler production. Nevertheless, a few supplementary improvements could further enhance its clarity, as indicated below.

Response: Author would like to thank the reviewer for spending his precious time to review our paper and making positive feed-back towards our manuscript. We have tried to modified the manuscript according to your comments using a red-color text.

1. Changing “trt” to “treatment” (line 123 and 159).

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised the trt- treatment throughout the manuscript.

2. A P-value below 0.10 should not be considered indicative of a significant difference; instead, it should be less than 0.05 to be deemed significant.Please review the comprehensive data across all tables and incorporate necessary revisions into the main body text of the manuscript.

Response: As per your suggestion we have revised the P-value

3. It seems to be that this study was carried out under a complete randomized design (CRD), but the author mentioned that experimental data were subjected to analysis via the general linear model procedure of SAS in a complete randomized block design.

Response: Apologize, we have revised the sentence.

4. It appears that this study was conducted using a completely randomized design (CRD); however, the author mentioned that the experimental design was accorded to a completely randomized block design.Word of “block” should be deleted.

Response: Apologize, for typographical mistake. Authors would really thank the reviewer for pointing this. We have revised it accordingly

5. Please delete “is” (line 174). Or if feasible, the author may consider using this sentence as a replacement for the previous one; “The hypothesis for this study aimed to investigate whether enhancing broilers' diets with various levels of phytase (ranging from 250 to 3000 U/kg of feed) could lead to improvements in their growth performance, nutrient utilization, calcium and phosphorus retention, meat quality, and foot pad score when compared to those fed standard PC and NC diets.” (line 174-177).

Response: Thank you so much for the valid suggestion. We have revised it accordingly. 6.      Please delete “1” (line 221).

Response: Thank you so much for pin pointing this error, as it highly helps to improve the quality of this manuscript.

7. Author mentioned that “healthy foot pad condition of broilers could be due to either proper sanitary condition or due to the effect of dietary phytase which helps them to maintain gut health resulted with reduced cecal score” Is there any reference to support author’s reason?(line 241-243)

Response: Thanking so much raising this valid comment. As per your comments we have include the reference.

Dang, D.X.; Chun, S.G.; Kim, I.H. Feeding broiler chicks with Schizosaccharomyces pombe-expressed phytase-containing diet improves growth performance, phosphorus digestibility, toe ash, and footpad lesions Anim Biosci. 2022, 35(9):1390.

8. Figure 1 should be enhanced to improve resolution and include symbols (A and B) to clearly identify each group.

Response: Thank you so much. We have attached the Fig. 1 image with better quality and include A and B symbols accordingly.

9. Figure 2 should include symbols (A to F) to clearly identify each group.

Response: As per your comments we have include symbols (A to F) in Fig. 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Exogenous Phytase Improves Growth Performance, Nutrient Retention, Tibia Mineralization, and Breast Meat Quality in Ross-308 Broilers" addresses a significant topic related to broiler nutrition and performance enhancement. The study focuses on the impact of exogenous phytase supplementation on various aspects of broiler production. The topic is highly relevant to the poultry industry, as it addresses the potential benefits of phytase supplementation on broiler growth and meat quality. Phytase is a critical enzyme in improving phosphorus utilization in poultry diets, which can have substantial economic and environmental implications.

Critique of the Paper:

1. Novelty of the Study:
• The paper does not clearly establish what sets it apart from similar studies in the existing literature. It's essential to highlight the unique contributions or novel aspects of the current research.
2. Initial Body Weight:
• The paper does not adequately explain why the initial body weight is higher than normal. This could be due to a variety of factors, such as genetics, diet, or environmental conditions, which should be addressed.
3. Abbreviations and Terminology:
• The abbreviations of minerals are not properly introduced or defined. It's crucial to provide a clear and concise explanation of each abbreviation used in the paper.
• Throughout the paper, there are issues with the presentation of calcium and phosphorus. It's important to ensure accurate and consistent representation of these elements.
4. Abstract:
• The abstract is poorly structured. The materials and methods section should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should succinctly summarize the key findings, methodology, and implications of the study.
5. Introduction:
• The introduction section is not effectively presented. It should provide a comprehensive overview of the background, significance, and objectives of the study. This helps to contextualize the research and establish its relevance.
6. Calcium and Phosphorous Levels:
• There is a mention of a reduction in calcium and phosphorous in the NC group, but it's suggested that this reduction may not be significant. It's important to provide a clear rationale and context for these observations, especially considering normal dietary levels for broilers.
7. Results and Discussion:
• The results and discussion sections should be separate. This allows for a clearer presentation of the data before delving into the interpretation and discussion of the findings.
8. Phytase Activity:
• The activity of phytase is referenced, but it's not defined or explained. Providing a clear definition and explanation of this term is crucial for understanding the study's methodology and results.

Overall, the paper requires substantial revisions to address these points. It's important to enhance the clarity, structure, and presentation of the research to ensure it meets the standards expected for publication. Additionally, providing a clear rationale for the observed results and highlighting the unique contributions of the study will strengthen its overall impact.

Top of Form

Author Response

Response to reviewer

The paper titled "Exogenous Phytase Improves Growth Performance, Nutrient Retention, Tibia Mineralization, and Breast Meat Quality in Ross-308 Broilers" addresses a significant topic related to broiler nutrition and performance enhancement. The study focuses on the impact of exogenous phytase supplementation on various aspects of broiler production. The topic is highly relevant to the poultry industry, as it addresses the potential benefits of phytase supplementation on broiler growth and meat quality. Phytase is a critical enzyme in improving phosphorus utilization in poultry diets, which can have substantial economic and environmental implications.

Response: Author would like to thank the reviewer for spending his precious time to review our paper and making positive feed-back towards our manuscript. We have tried to modified the manuscript according to your comments using a red-color text.

 

Critique of the Paper:

Novelty of the Study:

• The paper does not clearly establish what sets it apart from similar studies in the existing literature. It's essential to highlight the unique contributions or novel aspects of the current research.

Response: Previously, Coweison et al. [2006] stated that super-dosing that i.e. adding >1,500 FTU/kg phytase enhance the broiler performance. Following this, de Souza Nardelli et al. (2018) examine the effect of fungal ((NATUPHOS®) and bacterial phytase (RONOZYME HiPhos®) with positive control diet (available Ca:P -7.5:3.4 ratio) with or without phytase supplementation (each enzyme supplemental level -750 FTU kg⁻¹ concentration). The above-mentioned study has provoked to hypothesize that whether adding phytase exceeding 1000 FTU/kg or greater (2000 -3000 FTU/kg) to negative control diet could reveal conducive result on broilers. Thus, we intend to examine the supplemental effect of exogenous phytase (doses from 250 to 3000 U/kg feed) to NC diet on growth performance, nutrient retention, and bone mineralization in Ross-308 broilers. In conclusion, though the standard diets (PC and NC) were able to compensate the P deficiency and promote performance and bone mineralization, the elevated (1000 FTU/kg) level of phytase to NC diet showed a higher response. From this, we believe that adding graded level of phytase to NC diet would be a new approach for poultry producers to reduce the raw ingredient costs to increase the broiler productivity.

 

Initial Body Weight:

• The paper does not adequately explain why the initial body weight is higher than normal. This could be due to a variety of factors, such as genetics, diet, or environmental conditions, which should be addressed.

Response: Author would like to thank the reviewer for pin pointing this valid comment which highly helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised it accordingly.

Abbreviations and Terminology:

• The abbreviations of minerals are not properly introduced or defined. It's crucial to provide a clear and concise explanation of each abbreviation used in the paper.

Response: Thank you so much for valid suggestion. We have revised it according to the revised it accordingly.

• Throughout the paper, there are issues with the presentation of calcium and phosphorus. It's important to ensure accurate and consistent representation of these elements.

Response: We have revised the presentation of calcium and phosphorus throughout the manuscript. Thank you so much.

2. Abstract:
   • The abstract is poorly structured. The materials and methods section should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should succinctly summarize the key findings, methodology, and implications of the study.

Response: We have revised the abstract as per your comments

3. Introduction:
   • The introduction section is not effectively presented. It should provide a comprehensive overview of the background, significance, and objectives of the study. This helps to contextualize the research and establish its relevance.

Response: Necessary modification were done as per your comments.

4. Calcium and Phosphorous Levels:
   • There is a mention of a reduction in calcium and phosphorous in the NC group, but it's suggested that this reduction may not be significant. It's important to provide a clear rationale and context for these observations, especially considering normal dietary levels for broilers.

Response: Actually, standard diets were able to compensate the P deficiency and promote performance and bone mineralization, but the elevated (1000 -3000 FTU/kg) level of phytase to NC diet showed a higher response. So, we suggest that incorporating exogenous enzyme phytase to broiler feed exceeding 1000 units (U)/kg would be more beneficial to achieve better productivity.

5. Results and Discussion:
   • The results and discussion sections should be separate. This allows for a clearer presentation of the data before delving into the interpretation and discussion of the findings.

Response: Apologize, for denying the suggestion this time. Our research wishes to keep the result and discussion combined. We will definitely follow your invaluable suggestions in the upcoming research.

6. Phytase Activity:
   • The activity of phytase is referenced, but it's not defined or explained. Providing a clear definition and explanation of this term is crucial for understanding the study's methodology and results.

Overall, the paper requires substantial revisions to address these points. It's important to enhance the clarity, structure, and presentation of the research to ensure it meets the standards expected for publication. Additionally, providing a clear rationale for the observed results and highlighting the unique contributions of the study will strengthen its overall impact.

Response: Reviewer comments are highly helped us to improve the quality and to rectify our mistake. Author would really appreciate the reviewer for giving a chance to correct the mistake and re-consider our work by suggesting some correction. We took all your comments and suggestions in a positive way and modified everything with a red-color text.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript was well-written and the content was informative and well-presented. I commend the authors for the comprehensive and systematic review of the topic. The manuscript will be a valuable contribution to this journal.

However, I’ve mentioned a few minor corrections that need to be corrected in the comment section of the main manuscript file. Some of these are the following:

Please add one line at the end of the abstract, which basically explains the basic output of this study and the future recommendations related to this study work as well. 

Please rewrite the conclusion part of this manuscript: To highlight the basic research gap that authors actually try to cover in this study along with their future recommendations, on the basis of their conclusion. Also, add 1-2 sentences about future recommendations based on your current findings. 

Best Wishes 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer

The manuscript was well-written and the content was informative and well-presented. I commend the authors for the comprehensive and systematic review of the topic. The manuscript will be a valuable contribution to this journal.

Response: Author would like to thank the reviewer for spending his precious time to review our paper. Reviewer comments are highly helped us to improve the quality and to rectify our mistake. Author would really appreciate the reviewer for giving a chance to correct the mistake and re-consider our work by suggesting minor correction. We took all your comments and suggestions in a positive way and modified everything with a red-color text.

However, I’ve mentioned a few minor corrections that need to be corrected in the comment section of the main manuscript file. Some of these are the following:

Please add one line at the end of the abstract, which basically explains the basic output of this study and the future recommendations related to this study work as well. 

Response: Appreciated. As per your suggestion we have revised the abstract.

Please rewrite the conclusion part of this manuscript: To highlight the basic research gap that authors actually try to cover in this study along with their future recommendations, on the basis of their conclusion. Also, add 1-2 sentences about future recommendations based on your current findings. 

Response: Authors would like thank the reviewer for suggesting a valuable comment which help us to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Please mention the disinfectant name

Response: Thank you so much for raising this valid comment.

To disinfect the instrument, we use - 2% formaldehyde solution

To clean the surface, we use - Roxycide™ (50 grams Roxycide™ powder to 10 lit of water, 20-40 ml per cubic meter).

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments