Enhancing Broiler Welfare and Foot Pad Quality through the Use of Medicinal Plant-Based Pellets as Bedding Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is of interest to a wider readership – but this referee has number of serious concerns regarding this submission.

First, although the manuscript is generally comprehensible, I am afraid it needs some major professional revision of the language and grammar to an extent far beyond what can be expected of a reviewer. Recommend that the authors seek the services of English editorial advice/ native English speaker to improve the clarity.

L3: Medicinal plant, not medical – change this throughout the test.

L11: a serious issue is that fractions are used to describe the inclusion levels. This is very confusing- use of % will improve clarity.  Use 30%, instead of 30/100. Change here and throughout the text.

ABSTRACT: Needs be rewritten to better reflect the findings. for example,  L11: .. 4 treatments x 75 chickens – incorrect and confusing; L13-14: add botanical nomenclatures – here and in the introduction; L14: thymus !!  L15: FPD – write in full first, L16: feet, not paws.

FIGURE 1 C: redundant. Delete.

L81: mulch!!; L127: MJ/kg !

L211: Statistics – a fatal issue - missing details – revision is needed. Were there significant differences between the two trials? How tested?. How exactly these two data sets were handled?.  Mean +/- Pooled SEM needed in all Tables, instead of individual treatment means +/- SD; L218-223: this is not valid statistical analysis. Perhaps correlation analyses.

L227-9: redundant. Delete.

All TABLES: The numbers and decimals in tables should be follow the rule of: xxxx, xxx, xx.x, x.xx, 0.xxx and 0.0xxx.

ALL TABLES: legends should stand-alone. Also show no of observations/trt & replications etc. as footnotes

TABLES: Check the units. e.g. % of what??

TABLE 6: why this analysis? Not valid

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Readable, but there are issues. Needs editorial input

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

R1: First, although the manuscript is generally comprehensible, I am afraid it needs some major professional revision of the language and grammar to an extent far beyond what can be expected of a reviewer. Recommend that the authors seek the services of English editorial advice/ native English speaker to improve the clarity.

A: The entire text of the manuscript was translated into English by a qualified translator. Moreover, it has been checked by a native speaker. We present a language proofreading certificate. We have corrected all language errors once again. We hope that in its current form the quality of the English language is high.    

R1: L3: Medicinal plant, not medical – change this throughout the test.

A: „Medical” has been corrected to „medicinal” throughout the manuscript

R1: L11: a serious issue is that fractions are used to describe the inclusion levels. This is very confusing- use of % will improve clarity.  Use 30%, instead of 30/100. Change here and throughout the text.

A: Throughout the text and in Table 1 one for bedding materials, % is used instead of levels (g/g)

R1: ABSTRACT: Needs be rewritten to better reflect the findings. for example,  L11: .. 4 treatments x 75 chickens – incorrect and confusing; L13-14: add botanical nomenclatures – here and in the introduction; L14: thymus !!  L15: FPD – write in full first, L16: feet, not paws.

A: The summary has been significantly improved. We have taken into account all the reviewer's suggestions.

R1: FIGURE 1 C: redundant. Delete.

A: In Figure 1 delete C: equipments

R1: L81: mulch!!; L127: MJ/kg !

A: The error: mulch on bedding material has been corrected and the entry MJ/kg has been supplemented.

R1: L211: Statistics – a fatal issue - missing details – revision is needed. Were there significant differences between the two trials? How tested?. How exactly these two data sets were handled?.  Mean +/- Pooled SEM needed in all Tables, instead of individual treatment means +/- SD; L218-223: this is not valid statistical analysis. Perhaps correlation analyses.

A: To the Tables 1 and 2 we have added two additional columns which contain general means and pooled SEMs based on ANOVA. The description of statistical methods in section “2.5. Statistical analysis” was extended. Rearing broilers on two trials was intended to increase the number of repetitions for each experimental group (from 2 to 4), but it was not compared.

R1: L227-9: redundant. Delete.

A: This has been removed

R1: All TABLES: The numbers and decimals in tables should be follow the rule of: xxxx, xxx, xx.x, x.xx, 0.xxx and 0.0xxx.

A: This has been corrected

R1: ALL TABLES: legends should stand-alone. Also show no of observations/trt & replications etc. as footnotes

A: All captions of Tables and Figures have been supplemented so that they are independent without knowledge of the main text.

R1: TABLES: Check the units. e.g. % of what??

A: Where necessary, explanations regarding units of measurement have been added in table captions.

R1: TABLE 6: why this analysis? Not valid

A: Currently, this is Table 7 and we would like to leave it unchanged. We believe it is important because it shows the main effects on the most important microorganisms and is closely related to Figure 3.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept Minor Revisions

Line 11-23 - The abstract is confusing because there are so many types of bedding. Recommend adding the bedding type after the letter S and numbers.

Lines 19-20 - You may want to add the high levels of summer savory may be toxic.

Line 23 - Add a sentence - Based on our research, maybe the best bedding. A good abstract should clearly provide the results of your research. 

Lines 81-97 - Excellent description of the straw chaff and the pelleting process.

Table 1 - Recommend some additional titles to make the table less confusing. On the Parameter line - Label the plain straw chaff and the plain straw pellets as controls.

Label the P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6 as Experimental groups - pellets with medicinal plants. Making the titles clearer is recommended for all the tables.

4. Discussion  - For readers not familiar with the scientific names of plants, both the common name and the scientific name should be included in the discussion.

Line 301 - Insert the scientific name after oregano in parentheses.

This paper contains interesting information that should be published. The authors need to make the material less confusing. doing na additional table that shows the ingredients of all the experimental pellets would be helpful. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

R2: Line 11-23 - The abstract is confusing because there are so many types of bedding. Recommend adding the bedding type after the letter S and numbers.

A: The summary has been significantly improved. The letter S refers to the FPD scale, which was used to assess chickens kept in all types of bedding materials.

R2: Lines 19-20 - You may want to add the high levels of summer savory may be toxic.

A: We added this information as suggested by the reviewer

R2: Line 23 - Add a sentence - Based on our research, maybe the best bedding. A good abstract should clearly provide the results of your research.

A: We have supplemented the abstract in accordance with the Reviewer's proposal

R2: Lines 81-97 - Excellent description of the straw chaff and the pelleting process.

A: Thank you very much

R2: Table 1 - Recommend some additional titles to make the table less confusing. On the Parameter line - Label the plain straw chaff and the plain straw pellets as controls.

A: Added notes in table captions for straw chaff and straw pellets as control groups. This was also explained in the description of statistical methods. Table titles have been shortened wherever possible. In general, however, they are short and it seems to us that they cannot be shortened any further without losing their meaning.

R2: Label the P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6 as Experimental groups - pellets with medicinal plants. Making the titles clearer is recommended for all the tables.

A: The groups: straw chaff and straw pellets are marked as control groups. However, above the groups P1-P6 there is an "experimental group". Yes, as we wrote earlier, table titles are as short and simple as possible. Further changes will make them incomprehensible to readers who do not know the entire content of the manuscript.

R2: 4. Discussion  - For readers not familiar with the scientific names of plants, both the common name and the scientific name should be included in the discussion.

A: The scientific name is given in parentheses the first time the plant name (common name) is used in the abstract and in the test methods. It seems to us that providing the scientific name every time the common name is used will only result in a deterioration of the quality of the text. Every reader can check the name by going back to the abstract or research methods. We focused on using the common name because the manuscript is in English and we believe these names are widely known.

R2: Line 301 - Insert the scientific name after oregano in parentheses.

A: All scientific names of the medicinal plants used are given twice after the common names. In the abstract and in methodology. We think this is correct and should be enough. Giving scientific names every time can make the text difficult to read. We decided to mainly use common names in English because these are commonly known.

R2: This paper contains interesting information that should be published. The authors need to make the material less confusing. doing na additional table that shows the ingredients of all the experimental pellets would be helpful.

A: Thank you for your positive feedback. Such a table has been added as Table 1.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The importance of this research lies in its potential to enhance broiler welfare and foot pad quality, which are significant aspects of poultry farming. Medicinal plant-based pellets as bedding materials could offer a natural solution to improve broiler growth performance and health, as indicated by the higher body weights and better foot pad quality in some treatments. Additionally, the reduction in Listeria sp. suggests that these bedding materials could also have a beneficial antimicrobial effect.

However, the study seems to indicate variability in results depending on the type of medicinal plants used in the pellets. For instance, the highest mortality occurred on P2 bedding, which suggests that not all combinations of medicinal plants may yield positive outcomes. Moreover, while some treatments improved body weight and foot pad quality, they did not necessarily lead to better feed conversion ratios or lower mortality rates across all treatments.

It's important to consider these findings within broader poultry management practices and to conduct further research to optimize the types and proportions of medicinal plants used in broiler bedding materials.

- In the title; replace medical plant with medicinal plant, as well as in all the text of your paper

in the Introduction section: add this reference: On-Farm Assessment of Broiler Welfare in Tunisia Using Welfare Quality® Broiler Protocol.Pakistan J. Zool., pp 1-7, 2024

Material and method: it is better to add a table of the composition and the characteristics of bedding material 

Which experiment design was used? be precise

For statistical analysis, since authors use controls, it is better to use statistical tests specialized in comparing treatment with controls.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

R3: The importance of this research lies in its potential to enhance broiler welfare and foot pad quality, which are significant aspects of poultry farming. Medicinal plant-based pellets as bedding materials could offer a natural solution to improve broiler growth performance and health, as indicated by the higher body weights and better foot pad quality in some treatments. Additionally, the reduction in Listeria sp. suggests that these bedding materials could also have a beneficial antimicrobial effect.

However, the study seems to indicate variability in results depending on the type of medicinal plants used in the pellets. For instance, the highest mortality occurred on P2 bedding, which suggests that not all combinations of medicinal plants may yield positive outcomes. Moreover, while some treatments improved body weight and foot pad quality, they did not necessarily lead to better feed conversion ratios or lower mortality rates across all treatments.

It's important to consider these findings within broader poultry management practices and to conduct further research to optimize the types and proportions of medicinal plants used in broiler bedding materials.

A: Thank you for finding our research important. We agree with the Reviewer that the use of medicinal plants in pellets gave different results depending on the species of herb used. This is actually the first study of this type. Initially, the quality of the material itself, i.e. pellets, was analyzed (Gontar et al., 2022), and then the results were validated using pellets as bedding for broilers. This study was performed on an experimental farm, the next stage is to analyze the use of pellets containing medicinal plants on commercial farms. We hope that in the future we will also be able to present results from field tests that will clearly indicate one best bedding material.

R3: In the title; replace medical plant with medicinal plant, as well as in all the text of your paper

A: „Medical” has been corrected to „medicinal” throughout the manuscript

R3: in the Introduction section: add this reference: On-Farm Assessment of Broiler Welfare in Tunisia Using Welfare Quality® Broiler Protocol.Pakistan J. Zool., pp 1-7, 2024

A: The literature has been supplemented (point 15).

R3: Material and method: it is better to add a table of the composition and the characteristics of bedding material

A: Tables added. Table 1: Bedding material composition

R3: Which experiment design was used? be precise

A: We are not sure what the Reviewer's question refers to. As for the experimental design/setup, it is presented in detail in Figure 1. Table 1, added at the reviewers' request, should also better illustrate the composition of individual bedding materials.

R3: For statistical analysis, since authors use controls, it is better to use statistical tests specialized in comparing treatment with controls.

A: In Tables 1 and 2 results of Dunnett’s multiple range test were added to compare the means between the treatments with control (Straw chaff or Straw pellet). In other Tables (3, 4 and 5) the comparisons with control were not added because there are only proportions (not means) for which there is no specific method for comparison with control.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regrettably, I find that the revision is below par. Some previous comments were not adequately addressed. The major flaws are identified below.  

Professional revision of the language and grammar is still warranted to improve clarity.

ABSTRACT: must be improved. Do not use numbers (P1 etc.) to identify treatments

TABLE 1: Columns 3, 5 and 7 are confusing!!

L233: Still this factorial analyses (and Table 6 data) do not make much sense!.

ALL TABLES: Mean +/- Pooled SEM is now given; therefore, SD of individual treatments are redundant. Please improve.

All TABLES: Check and add units

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs improvement

Author Response

Response to the comments Reviewer 1:

Response to the review of paper no. agriculture-3067485, entitled “ENHANCING BROILER WELFARE AND FOOT PAD QUALITY THROUGH THE USE OF MEDICAL PLANT-BASED PELLETS AS BEDDING MATERIAL.”

We would like to thank you very much for your insightful and extensive review of our work. We have tried to take into account all comments, remarks and suggestions. We provide responses to specific comments below. All changes by the Authors and the Native speaker were introduced into the text of the manuscript using "change tracking". We hope that in its current form our manuscript will be better and suitable for publication in Agriculture.

R1: Regrettably, I find that the revision is below par. Some previous comments were not adequately addressed. The major flaws are identified below.  

A: Dear Reviewer, We are sorry that our proofreading of the manuscript is not satisfactory. We tried to improve everything so that the corrections made were satisfactory to all reviewers. Below are the answers to all of the questions below. We incorporated all suggestions in the revised manuscript.

R1: Professional revision of the language and grammar is still warranted to improve clarity.

A: We tried to make the English language as understandable and correct as possible. The entire manuscript was translated and checked by qualified Native speakers. As the problem with the quality of the English language persisted, we sent the entire manuscript again for language proofreading. We hope that in its current form the quality of the English language is adequate.

R1: ABSTRACT: must be improved. Do not use numbers (P1 etc.) to identify treatments

A: This has been corrected

R1: TABLE 1: Columns 3, 5 and 7 are confusing!!

A: Columns 3, 5 and 7 simply show the percentages of each pellet component. Perhaps the column names are confusing. We tried to simplify the table.

R1: L233: Still this factorial analyses (and Table 6 data) do not make much sense!.

A: This analysis and Table 6 have been removed

R1: ALL TABLES: Mean +/- Pooled SEM is now given; therefore, SD of individual treatments are redundant. Please improve.

A: This has been corrected

R1: All TABLES: Check and add units

A: In fact, during the first review we did not notice a missing unit for BW and an error in the unit for FI in Table 2. This has been corrected.