Effect of Moringa oleifera Leaf Powder Supplementation on Growth Performance, Digestive Enzyme Activity, Meat Quality, and Cecum Microbiota of Ningdu Yellow Chickens
, Aijuan Zheng 2 and Jiang Chen 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present study provides a relevant information and evidence based facts about the effect of Moringa oleifera leaf powder supplementation on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity etc. of Ningdu yellow chicken.
Here are my minor comments, which should be considered:
I am missing the hypothesis of the research.
L134: Please add a total number of selected chickens
L137: The carcass weight refered to...
L142: Carcass yield was expressed as percentage of live weight at 42 d. Breast yield...
I do not understand the number 42.
L147: please add how many samples of the blood was tested?
L160: add the total number
L173: ...meat was evaluated by...
How was the colour evaluated? On the surface without skin? Or on the cut?
L175: ....were taken 45 min...
L177: ...breast muscle cubes (2 x 2 x 2) of the weight around 10 g (you can add plus minus deviation)
Add the number of the samples tested for drip loss, CL and shear force
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
Thanks very much for your kind work of our manuscript entitled “Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf powder supplementation on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, meat quality, and cecum microbiota of Ningdu yellow chickens” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-3137095). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions, and the amendments are highlighted with Red in the revised manuscript.
Comments 1: L134: Please add a total number of selected chickens
Response1: Thank you for pointing this out. A total of 300 chickens will be counted when ADG, ADFI and F/G are calculated.
Comments 2: L137: The carcass weight refered to...
Response2: The carcass weight refers to the weight of a bird after being butchered, removing all the internal organs, the head, abdominal fat and paws.
Comments 3: L142: Carcass yield was expressed as percentage of live weight at 42 d. Breast yield...I do not understand the number 42.
Response 3: We are very sorry failed to describe the day of age clearly and precisely. We have corrected the day of age into 105d.
Comments 4: L147: please add how many samples of the blood was tested?
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the number of samples in the reviewed manuscript in L142
Comments 5: L173: ...meat was evaluated by...
How was the colour evaluated? On the surface without skin? Or on the cut?
Response 5: The color of the inner surface of breast meat is evaluated by measuring the brightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) values with the portable colorimeter CR-400 (Konica Minolta Sensing Business Unit, Osaka, Japan).
Comments 6: L175: ....were taken 45 min...
Response 6: The two meat colour measurements were taken at 45 min and 24 h after slaughter, and the samples were stored in refrigeration at 4 ºC.
Comments 7: L177: ...breast muscle cubes (2 x 2 x 2) of the weight around 10 g (you can add plus minus deviation)
Add the number of the samples tested for drip loss, CL and shear force
Response 7: Thanks for your friendly reminder. We have added the number of samples in the reviewed manuscript in L167.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments are in the attached file.
However, the results' presentation is a little confuse and in conclusion, and in all the results and discussion, the authors did not present the best value based on regression equations.
I suggest that the authors rewrite the paper with a tukey test or with regression (and choose the best model for each parameter, linear or quadratic) and compare the means using dunnett test.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
Thanks very much for your kind work of our manuscript entitled “Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf powder supplementation on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, meat quality, and cecum microbiota of Ningdu yellow chickens” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-3137095). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions, and the amendments are highlighted with Red in the revised manuscript.
Comments 1: L110: in natural or dry basis? What was the dry matter content?
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The MOLP is dry basis. We have also added the information in the revised manuscript in
Comments 2: L122: Ratio of ingredients in feed formulation
Response 2: We apologise for our carelessness. We have carefully corrected the proportions of the ingredients.
Comments 3: L145: “two chickens” a very small number.
Response 3: Two chickens were selected from each replicate, This means that a total of 60 chickens were picked (n=12), which meets the statistical requirements.
Comments 4: L208 here must be P≤ 0.05
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected it.
Comments 5: L209 The linear and quadratic effects of dietary MOLP supplementation dose were asses sed using regression analysis
Response 5: We have corrected it. Both the linear and quadratic regression analysis were used to evaluate impacts of die-tary MOLP supplementation dosage (L216).
Comments 6: L227 TG in M4 group was significantly lower than those in the M0, M0.5 M1 and M2 groups
choose the model that best fit or linear or quadratic.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion, we have corrected it accordingly.
Comments 7 : L335 if you use the regression you can find an intermediate level, that probably was clos e, but not, 2.
Response 7: by quadratic regression analysis, and a reliable equation was obtained for FCR: y = 0.056x2 – 0.29x + 4.15 (P < 0.05, R2 = 0.605). The optimal inclusion of MOLP in diets was calculated as 2.59%.
Comments 8: L342 choose one model
Response 8: Agree, we have revised it accordingly
Comments 9: L371 maybe because there was a reduction in lipase activity?
Response9: Thank you for your suggestion. This experiment showed that there has no significant difference in lipase activity between treatment groups, so the relationship between abdominal fat and intestinal lipase activity was not analyzed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work, the authors evaluated the effects of dietary supplementation with Moringa oleifera leaf powder (MOLP) on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, meat quality, and cecum microbiota of Ningdu yellow chickens. The design of the studio is adequate. The work presents internal coherence between all sections (introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion). The results are expressed clearly and the discussion is appropriate to the results obtained.
Below I describe some minor suggestions
Introduction
Line 50-52: The apparent metabolizable energy of MOLP in broiler was 11.4 MJ/kg, the crude protein was 25%~31%, the fat was 6%~7%, the crude fiber was less than 12% [5;6]. These sentence could be written in present tense.
line 66: there is a number that should be in parentheses.
Line 68: The sentence: “Results showed that..”: could be changed for “These authors showed that…”
Line 74-76: “MOLP could be used as a feed ingredient for broilers to improve polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) contents, oxidative stability, color of breast muscle, and abdominal fat.”: a reference is needed.
Materials and Methods
Line 107: The sentence must start with capital letter.
Line 114: “and the procedures of immunization and sanitation and disinfection of”: the second "and" must be replaced by a comma.
Line 141-143: “Carcass yield was expressed as percentage of live weight at 42 d. breast yield, leg yield and abdominal fat were calculated as percentage of carcass.” What does 42 days refer to? 42 days from the start of the experiment? Clarify
Line 133-134: “Subsequently, the average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and ration of feed to gain (F/G) were calculated.”…. Add the equations.
Line 172: 2.5. Meat Quality Measurements: How many chickens were used for this determination? How old were they?
Line 182: Cooking loss: For this determination, describe what cuts were used and what size.
Line 196: “2.6. Cecum Microflora”: How was the sample taken? From how many chickens? what age? Describe what indices were calculated and what each of them means
Results
Line 287: “2 L∗, lightness; a∗, redness; b∗, yellowness”… this footer does not correspond to this table
Table 7: the word “item” has a suprascript that does not correspond
Line 292: “As shown in Figure 1，In the M2 group, Chao1 indexes was significantly higher than those in the M0, M0.5, M1and M2 groups (Figures 1A)”: This sentence doesn't make sense
Line 298: n=6: “n is indicated in the materials and methods section”
Line 315: UCG-004, CHKCI001: What genres do they correspond to?
Line 319-321: The relative abundance of Phascolarctobacterium tended to decrease in response to MOLP supplementation in diets: this genre does not appear on the charts.
Discussion
Line 362: “Similarly, M. Shen, T. Li, L. Qu, K. Wang, Q. Hou, W. Zhao and P. Wu [17]”: replace with Shen et al…
Line 378-380: “Shen et al. [17] observed that serum total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol contents were lower with level (2.5% and 10%) of MOLP fed in laying chickens diets. This sentence is not completely understood. Please write it more clearly.
Line 413-415: “Moreover, the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes in the 1%-4% Moringa leaf-added groups were lower than control group” …. The opposite is said above. Do you mean bacteroidetes or should say firmicutes?
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
Thanks very much for your kind work of our manuscript entitled “Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf powder supplementation on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, meat quality, and cecum microbiota of Ningdu yellow chickens” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-3137095). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions, and the amendments are highlighted with Red in the revised manuscript.
Comments 1: The apparent metabolizable energy of MOLP in broiler was 11.4 MJ/kg, the crude protein was 25%~31%, the fat was 6%~7%, the crude fiber was less than 12% [5;6]. These sentence could be written in present tense.
Response1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten these sentences in present tense.
Comments 2 : Line 66: there is a number that should be in parentheses.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this precious suggestion. This was a redundant reference number, which we have removed.
Comments 3: Line 68: The sentence: “Results showed that..”: could be changed for “These authors showed that…
Response 3: Thank you very much for this precious suggestion. We've changed it according to the revision suggestions you gave us.
Comments 4: Line 74-76: “MOLP could be used as a feed ingredient for broilers to improve polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) contents, oxidative stability, color of breast muscle, and abdominal fat.”: a reference is needed.
Response 4: Thank you very much for this comment. The paragraph is an statement that the author summarises the functions of the MOLP.
Comments 5: Line 107: The sentence must start with capital letter.
Response 5: Thanks for your friendly reminder. We have corrected the sentence.
Comments 6 : Line 114: “and the procedures of immunization and sanitation and disinfection of”: the second "and" must be replaced by a comma.
Response 6: Thanks for your friendly reminder. We have corrected the sentence.
Comments 7: Line 141-143: “Carcass yield was expressed as percentage of live weight at 42 d. breast yield, leg yield and abdominal fat were calculated as percentage of carcass.” What does 42 days refer to? 42 days from the start of the experiment? Clarify
Response 7: We are very sorry failed to describe the day of age clearly and precisely. We have corrected the day of age into 105d.
Comments 8: Line 133-134: “Subsequently, the average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and ration of feed to gain (F/G) were calculated.”…. Add the equations.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing out this. The computational equations for ADG, ADFI, and F/G are as follows:
ADG (average daily gain) = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test
ADFI=total feed consumed/(Days on test*number of chickens)
F/G=Total Feed Consumed/total weight gain
But, these Equation's are universally accepted that they are generally not listed in manuscripts.
Comments 9: Line 172: 2.5. Meat Quality Measurements: How many chickens were used for this determination? How old were they?
Response 9: Thanks for your friendly reminder.. A total of 60 chickens of 105 days of age were selected for this determination and two chickens were taken from each replicate.
Comments 10: Line 182: Cooking loss: For this determination, describe what cuts were used and what size.
Response 10: We have added the size information in the revised manuscript ( Line 178).
Comments 11: Line 196: “2.6. Cecum Microflora”: How was the sample taken? From how many chickens? what age? Describe what indices were calculated and what each of them means
Response11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sample information in the revised manuscript (Line 191).
Comments 12: Line 287: “2 L∗, lightness; a∗, redness; b∗, yellowness”… this footer does not correspond to this table
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed this footnote to Table 7.
Comments 13: Table 7: the word “item” has a suprascript that does not correspond
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the suprascript.
Comments 14: Line 292: “As shown in Figure 1，In the M2 group, Chao1 indexes was significantly higher than those in the M0, M0.5, M1and M2 groups (Figures 1A)”: This sentence doesn't make sense
Response14: Thank you for pointing this out. There has a mistake here, and we have corrected it.
Comments 15: Line 298: n=6: “n is indicated in the materials and methods section”
Response 15: Thanks for your friendly reminder. we agree with this comment.
Comments 16: Line 315: UCG-004, CHKCI001: What genres do they correspond to?
Response 16: UCG-004 is Ruminococcaceae_UCG-004 and CHKCI001 is Clostridiales bacterium CHKCI001 (Line 311).
Comments 17: Line 319-321: The relative abundance of Phascolarctobacterium tended to decrease in response to MOLP supplementation in diets: this genre does not appear on the charts.
Response 17: Since the significance of the genus Phascolarctobacterium was 0.05< P <0.1, the charts do not depict this genus，and we removed this description to avoid ambiguity.
Comments 18: Line 362: “Similarly, M. Shen, T. Li, L. Qu, K. Wang, Q. Hou, W. Zhao and P. Wu [17]”: replace with Shen et al…
Response 18: we agree with this comment.
Comments 19: Line 378-380: “Shen et al. [17] observed that serum total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol contents were lower with level (2.5% and 10%) of MOLP fed in laying chickens diets. This sentence is not completely understood. Please write it more clearly.
Response 19: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected it to “Shen et al. [17] found that the levels of serum total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were reduced in laying chickens that were fed diets containing 2.5% and 10% MOLP”
Comments 20: Line 413-415: “Moreover, the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes in the 1%-4% Moringa leaf-added groups were lower than control group” …. The opposite is said above. Do you mean bacteroidetes or should say firmicutes?
Response 20: We are very sorry that there is mistaken in this sentence. We have changed bacteroidetes to firmicutes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted
