Effects of Inclusion of Mango Peel Waste in Diets of Layer Chickens on Performance and Egg Quality in Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, fermented mango peel waste was added to the diet of laying hens to explore its effect on the production performance and egg quality of laying hens. The results showed that mango peel could replace corn in the diet of laying hens by 28%. The results of this study will contribute to the progress of laying hens breeding technology and have great economic benefits. However, there are still some problems in this paper. It is recommended to receive after modification. The questions and recommendations are as follows:

1. Are there any literatures on 'mango peel waste added to chicken diet'? If so, it is recommended to quote in introduction.

2. There is no statistical analysis method in the material and method part.

3. It is suggested that the content of mango peel in table 3 should be reflected in the table, which can be written after Diet, so as to better distinguish the nutrient content in diets with different content of mango peel.

4. Lines 202-204, it is recommended that the author discuss the reasons for the 'feed weight ratio and feed intake of treatment 5 were significantly higher than those of the control group'.

5. 3.2.4 How to calculate the significance of the effect of mango peel on the daily egg production of hens?

6. 3.3.1 How to calculate the significance of the effect of adding mango peel on egg yolk color?

7. Are Figure 1 and Figure 2 suitable for a line chart?

Author Response

We appreciate for sparing time to go through this manuscript and highlighting areas that need correction.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

L 2-3: Please rephrase the title - it's confusing: fermented mango peels; 60 week old chicks?...maybe laying hens; why should privatization be done in Kenya?).

L11: layer chicken?

L13: Please specify what changes have occurred in the diet (was the weight of corn reduced?).

L17: Define abbreviations at first occurrence (T1, T5).

L26: Mango peels are a major by-product or waste (see title). Please make the distinction between a by-product and waste clear. Keep this in mind throughout the article.

L55-59: There are repeated statements - reword this paragraph.

L66-68: From the Abstract chapter it follows that fermented mango peels waste (L11) were used, and at L66-68 (the purpose of the research) it follows that mango peels waste was used. I have reservations that this study was done, but I have no proof of it, so I will treat the article as such.

L88: processed peels. The expression is confusing. Please elaborate (I can't understand anything).

L109: processed apple mango ?????

L112: what kind of mango peels: dried, fermented ????????

L111-112: In Diet 2 3.5% of maize used in control was removed and substituted with same quantity mango peels......... Not true: corn should have been 59.1-3.5= 55.6 (see table). The same with other diets.

L113-118: Consequently, the conclusion presented in the Abstract and in the Conclusions chapter is not true (the proportion of corn replacement did not reach 28%). In addition, the share of soybean meal increased from 13.8 (C) to 16.6% and corn decreased from 59.1 to 55.2 (diet 4). That is, corn decreases by 3.9 percentage points and soybean meal increases by 2.8 percentage points: what economy are we talking about? Between diet 4 and diet 5 there are inexplicable differences in composition: soybean meal decreases (16.6 to 14.8) and wheat pollard increases (2.6 to 9) (rich in CF like mango peels). In the paper there had to be a detailed analysis of mango peels (chemical composition, phenolic content......), to be able to support and discuss the results obtained.

L121-122: Detail how ME (kcal/kg) is calculated.

Fig. 2 repeats the data in table 5. Give up one of the two.

L291-298: remove - not related to research topic (mango peels).

Author Response

We extend our gratitude to you for going through the article and highlighting areas of   improvement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENT:

I consider this work is within the scope of “Agriculture”. It contains information useful in a field in which available information is scarce and of interest for laying hens feeding with alternative raw materials.

However, there are many points to improve. I indicate below these points to be improved in the manuscript.

Writing quality and style must be improved.

TITLE:

Remove point at the end of the title.

ABSTRACT:

The abstract need to be improved. Its quality is low.

Line 12: remove one of the two words “five”.

Line 13-14: Please check the correctness of the sentence.

Line 16: Please accompany with the full word the initials “FCR” the first time these initials appear in the Abstract.

Line 17: What is T₁ and T₅? You have not defines previously what does it means.

Lines 16-17: It is necessary to describe specific, numeric results. The description of the results is insufficient.

KEYWORDS:

These are OK.

INTRODUCTION:

Line 43: Cite the following citation “(Statistica, 2020)” in the format for citations of the journal: as a number between brackets.

Please improve writing quality of the Introduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

There are several points to be improved:

Lines 73-82: You speak about unprocessed peels and fermented peels, but it is unclear what of these two materials were used in the experimental feed formulation.

Lines 87-93: The experimental design and sample size is not clearly described. How many birds per treatment were used? How many birds per replication? In the same vein, rewrite better, because you speak about “25 cages measuring 192cm x 216cm with a height of 240cm”, while you also speak about a cage measuring 32 X 38 cm with a height of 40 cm housed individual…”. Moreover, in Lines 126-127 you indicate that birds “randomly allocated in the cages with each cage carrying six birds”. It is contradictory with individual housing. Please explain it clearly.

Lines 98-104: Please indicate average ambient temperature (or mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures) of the hens housing.

Line 107: Please cite NRC (1994) in the style for citations of the journal: NRC [number], with “number” being the order of the reference citation in the text.

Line 110: what is the reason behind the use of mango peels included at 3.5%, 7%, 14% and 28%, and not at increasing levels at constant intervals, as usual in nutrition trials?

Line 125: Please type “adlibitum”correctly: “ad libitum”

Line 121: Cite the following citation “AOAC (2012)” in the format for citations of the journal: replacing the year with the number of the reference between brackets: “AOAC [X]”.

Line 142: Cite the following citation “Cesari et al., (2014)” in the format for citations of the journal: replacing the year with the number of the reference between brackets: “Cesari et al. [X].

Lines 143-144: Please clarify whether Hen day egg production was calculated monthly or weekly (in Table 4 the parameters seem to be calculated on a weekly basis).

Lines 145-146: Please revise % Hen day egg production equation. I think it must be multiplied by 100.

Lines 150-151: Please type correctly the FCR equation. Moreover, indicate clearly the period of each sampling to calculate this parameter (weekly?)

The Material and methods section is lacking of a subsection of “Statistical analyses” in which the statistical analyses performed are described.

RESULTS and DISCUSSION SECTION:

Lines 184, 201: Remove the word “below”. Reference to tables and figures must be done exclusively by its number.

Line 213: Type “attributed” with normal font style (not italics or bold style).

Lines 216, 220, 236, 241, etc.: Please cite the references accordingly to the style usage of the journal: with the last name of the author and the number of the reference between brackets.

Please improve writing quality of the Materials and method section.

CITATIONS ACROSS THE MANUSCRIPT:

Numbering of the bibliographic citations across the manuscript text is wrong. The numbering must begin with number [1] at line 25 and follow the natural order of the numbers: 1, 2, 3…

REFERENCES SECTION:

In general terms, this section has not good adjustment to the style and format of the journal for references. I strongly recommend reviewing it for removing typos and correct potential flaws. For example:

Journal titles must be abbreviated.

References must be typed in the style used by the journal.

Latin names of the organisms must be typed in italics.

Do not type article titles with all words in capital letters.

Lines 36-359: These are two different references.

References must be sorted in the order of citation in the text, not alphabetically.

Etc.

TABLES:

Table 1: Indicate in the table footnote what is “AP” and “Ksh”. If “Ksh” is a national currency, it is mandatory to indicate in the table footnote its equivalency to an international currency (EUR or USD).

Table 3: Type “Kcal/kg” as follows: “kcal/kg” (with the k from kilo always as lowercase letter).

Table 4: Indicate the meaning of HDEP and FCR in the table footnote. Moreover, correct typo: “SEM” rather than “SED”.

Table 5: Correct typo: “SEM” rather than “SED”.

FIGURES:

Remove Figure 1. Data on Figure 1 is already included in Table 4, and in scientific writing the same information must not by displayed simultaneously in the form of table and figure. Moreover, the figure suggests visually a variation in the values displayed, while no significant effect exists.

Remove Figure 2. Data on Figure 2 is already included in Table 5, and in scientific writing the same information must not by displayed simultaneously in the form of table and figure. Moreover, this figure is not correctly drawn because the letters from the post hoc analysis are lacking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is advisable to submit the manuscript to a native English speaker to improve it.

Author Response

Much appreciation to you. Your input and direction were very important.

Please note Literature on use of mango peels in layer chicken or generally poultry is little. it is a new area of study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to all of the reviewer's comments and suggestions.

Author Response

Please find the attached responses to reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although several of my previous recommendations have been addressed, there are still several points to be improved. I have indicated these points in a commented version of the manuscript I have uploaded.

There are many typos and flaws in the manuscript typesetting. 

Moreover, English quality is low. I strongly recommend to submit the manuscript for revision by a native English speaker with expertise in scientific writing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is low. I strongly recommend to submit the manuscript for revision by a native English speaker with expertise in scientific writing. I have indicated several points to be improved, but there are many other not highlighted.

Author Response

Please find the attached responses to your comments. We appreciate your guidance.  Major revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf