Profiling of Fatty Acids and Rumen Ecosystem of Sheep Fed on a Palm Kernel Cake-Based Diet Substituted with Corn

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Profiling of fatty acids and rumen ecosystem of sheep fed on a palm kernel cake-based diet substituted with corn'' was published or under review in another journal earlier.  Please see link https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-282753/v1/a23b0769-fdf0-4221-97e1-baab679b6016.pdf?c=1631878854. 

As such the article should be rejected.

Author Response

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of "Profiling of fatty acids and rumen ecosystem of sheep fed on a palm kernel cake-based diet substituted with corn" for publication in the Journal of Agriculture. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers invested in providing feedback on our manuscript, and we are appreciative of the insightful comments and helpful improvements to our paper. The majority of the reviewers' recommendations have been implemented.

 

No.	Comments	Corrections made	Page / Line No.
	Reviewer 1
1	The manuscript entitled "Profiling of fatty acids and rumen ecosystem of sheep fed on a palm kernel cake-based diet substituted with corn'' was published or under review in another journal earlier.  Please see link https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-282753/v1/a23b0769-fdf0-4221-97e1-baab679b6016.pdf?c=1631878854.	The manuscript was published as a preprint, so it is not currently undergoing publication. As they mention, "preprint" is a preliminary report which is belong Research Square.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the research was to investigate the fatty acids profile and rumen ecosystem of sheep fed on a palm kernel cake-based diet compared to a corn-based diet. In my opinion, the conclusions of the conducted research are clear and result from the obtained research results. The material used for the research is sufficient, and the research methods have been selected appropriately. The arrangement of the figure and tables is clear and presents the obtained results very well. Discussing the results against the background of other authors is very detailed. The publications cited by the authors of the article are well-selected. For the most part, the authors refer to the latest knowledge published in renowned scientific journals. However, I have some notes to make, which I consider extremely important and, on the basis of which, unfortunately, I had to agree to a major revision.
In my opinion, while well done, the introduction could be improved. Indeed, recovery and valorization of agro-industrial residues are currently indicated as key factors for the development of the circular economy models and to promote the environmental sustainability of production systems. International scientific opinion is very interested in these issues, so I would suggest to the authors, before mentioning the by-products studied, to recall them briefly. In this regard, I suggest using manuscript doi:10.3390/ani9110918 as a template, which I strongly recommend using as a reference. Referring to corn is too generic and does not really understand the food treatments tested. Authors should specify which form of corn they refer to. As I assume, is it cornmeal? Or something else? Please specify, thanks. In the materials and methods (L 55-68) the authors should specify, by means of a table, the ingredients of the experimental diets and their chemical composition. Although they have stated this (see L 69), this valuable information has been omitted.
Hoping to have contributed to improving the manuscript's quality, I wish you good work.

Author Response

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of "Profiling of fatty acids and rumen ecosystem of sheep fed on a palm kernel cake-based diet substituted with corn" for publication in the Journal of Agriculture. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers invested in providing feedback on our manuscript, and we are appreciative of the insightful comments and helpful improvements to our paper. The majority of the reviewers' recommendations have been implemented.

	Reviewer 2
	The introduction could be improved	The correction has been done.
1	In this regard, I suggest using manuscript doi:10.3390/ani9110918 as a template, which I strongly recommend using as a reference.	The Reference has added
2	Referring to corn is too generic and does not really understand the food treatments tested.	The level of PKC was above recommended levels, but one interesting view is to check rumen microbial quantifications and replace PKC with corn to improve growing protozoa that will contribute to the elevation of copper toxicity in sheep. However, the level of PKC varies by breed (beef and dairy cattle can feed 80 and 50% of PKC in their diets, respectively), whereas sheep can feed 96% of PKC if chelating mineral elements are used in their diet, as well as the time of feeding (period). We used various levels of corn as a substitute to promote microbial growth and reduce copper absorption.
	Authors should specify which form of corn they refer to.	The correction has made in the materials and methods section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments of the author stating that the paper was a pre print in another journal addresses most of the concerns that arose in the review.

Author Response

Thank you for valuable comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your comments as much as possible. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
I have no comments on the manuscript in its current form.
Congratulations

Author Response

Your insightful comments are appreciated. The majority of the changes that we made to our manuscript were in response to the feedback that you provided. Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx