Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal
, Halidai Rehemujiang 1,†, Tao Ma 1, Minyu Piao 1, Ruiying Huo 1 and Yan Tu 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting study but certain corrections are needed to improve the quality of the manuscipt.
Line 79: You refer to the primary objective. Is there a secondary objective?
2.1 Please change to ethics committee approval
2.2 This is part of the animals and diets section and it should be included in section 2.4 that should be renumbered to 2.3 and changed to animals and diets.
Lines 134 - 149: this is the apparent digestibility section (2.4)
Line 173: do you mean distilled or sterile water?
Line 177: average weight of ???
Line 211: The sentence is incomplete
Line 214: indicated by (please add the name)
Line 220: Please delete "In order to generate laboratory samples for chemical analysis," and change to "Crude 221 protein, moisture levels, and ether extract were determined in freeze dried samples, following the AOAC protocol.
Line 238: which internal standard did you use? A quantity of 5 ml is very high please check. The internal standard is usually 100 μl. Did you use fresh or freeze dried samples for fatty acid analysis?
Table 2: Please change items and parameter
Table 6: Some of the parameters you are reporting are related to carcass quality and some are related to meat quality please differentiate.
Table 8: the sum of fatty acids is not correct. The average fat content as presented in Table 6 is approximately 5.5 g/100g of muscle and this table the average fatty acid content is almost 0.100 g/100g. Even, when I start adding up the numbers the sum is different. My feeling is that you are adding up the percentages of identified fatty acids expressed to a 100. Usually, 6% of fatty acids are not identified.
In materials and methods, you report that you have used CLA standard. CLA is related to grass feeding. Did the animals have access to grass feeding?
Also the presentation of fatty acids should be as follows: saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
With regard to health related nutritional indices, you refer only to n-6/n-3. Please consider using more nutritional indices related to healthy meat consumption.
I strongly suggest that the materials and methods and the presentation of the results should be divided into three major categories allowing the reader to follow this research.
Animal performance (animals and diets, digestibility, etc)
Carcass and meat quality (colour, cooking loss, tenderness, etc)
Meat nutritional value (chemical composition, amino acids and fatty acids)
In the discussion section, you do not offer an explanation for the findings i.e. line 406.
When you explain the results please refer also to what is normal for sheep meat. For example sheep meat has a high content of saturated fatty acids.
Antioxidants in the diets (added and endogenous) have also an impact on meat colour.
Conclusions
Please write again this section. You cannot just refer to certain minor findings but conclude on the main findings in relation to animal performance, meat quality and nutritional value.
Author Response
We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 1 for carefully reviewing our article and providing useful comments and suggestions.
We have made revisions to the revised manuscript in response to the comments and recommendations received. We have copied each reviewer's comment below and followed up with a comprehensive answer Additionally, we have used red colour in the revised portions of the manuscript by using “Track Changes” function.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Line comment
17 FTMR (fermented total mixed ration)
24 were volatile fatty acids in rumen fluid or carcass fat?
35 what is meant by harsh feeding and full house feeding does this mean pasture production or feedlot production?
36 what is meant by sheep factories-feedlots?
43 34-40% crude protein
49 may limit the availability
58 These describe detoxification of rapeseed.
There are several references on feeding cottonseed products and gossypol toxicity that may be useful. Small Ruminant Research 114:86-89, Small ruminant Research 137:183-188 and Small Ruminant Research 81:137-145.
One has to ask the question if rumen fermentation may be adequate to destroy toxins without prefeeding fermentation.
69 while fermentation may improve feed quality, there is an energy cost and loss of dry matter.
95 was any effort made to stratify animals by bodyweight?
108,9 More than 1 CFU/kg was used? Correct these couple of sentences.
110 why difference in fermentation temperature?
120 is there a reason for fatty acid analysis of the mixture? Basically, differences between diets were negligible.
134 digestibility study
147 feces were dried at 65oC
148 diet and fecal samples were ground thru a 1 mm screen?
160 a portable pH meter…
161 rumen fluid was How much rumen fluid?
164-165 delete this sentence fragment
167 what was column coating?
168 what is meant by adjusted?
171 do you mean uL?
220 For laboratory chemical analysis, meat samples were first freeze-dried….
212 incomplete sentence
209 percentage cooking loss?
213-214 unclear relationship between cooked meat sample and sample used for WB shear.
225 analyze the amino acids
232 were added
239 chloroacetylmethanol is not listed by Sigma as a chemical.
245 should this be 20um for film thickness?
247 temperature program does not make sense.
248 carrier gas
264 lamb are shown in Table 2.
310 Ammonia levels for d 40 are very low. I think the analysis should be rerun although ammonia can be lost during storage/freezing/refreezing. BUN levels certainly indicate that rumen ammonia was higher.
369 delete statistically
366 delet3 statistically
397 increased bodyweight and daily gain-no statistical difference. Increased performance not supported by statistics.
420 don’t understand this sentence. There were no differences between diets for LDL and HDL.
444 Loin eye area?
Author Response
Manuscript ID: fermentation-1959644
Title: “Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal”.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 2 for carefully reviewing our article and providing useful comments and suggestions.
We have made revisions to the revised manuscript in response to the comments and
recommendations received. We have copied each reviewer's comment below and followed up with a comprehensive answer Additionally, we have used red colour in the revised portions of the manuscript by using “Track Changes” function.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: line17 FTMR (fermented total mixed ration)
Response 1: “ FTMR” change “ FTMR (fermented total mixed ration)
Point 2: line 24 were volatile fatty acids in rumen fluid or carcass fat?
Response 2: is rumen fluid volatile fatty acid.
Point 3: line35 what is meant by harsh feeding and full house feeding does this mean pasture production or feedlot production?
Response 3: this part modified
Point 4: Line36 what is meant by sheep factories-feedlots?
Response 4: this part modified
Point 5: Line 43 34-40% crude protein
Response 5: “34 % and 40 %” changed 34-40%
Point 6: Line 49 may limit the availability
Response 6: “might” changed “may”
Point 7: Line 58 These describe detoxification of rapeseed.
There are several references on feeding cottonseed products and gossypol toxicity that may be useful. Small Ruminant Research 114:86-89, Small ruminant Research 137:183-188 and Small Ruminant Research 81:137-145.
One has to ask the question if rumen fermentation may be adequate to destroy toxins without prefeeding fermentation.
Response 7: yes we can said like this, because the rumen of ruminants has a strong tolerance to toxins. Studies have shown that some toxic substances in the rumen of ruminants can be degraded
Point 8: Line69 while fermentation may improve feed quality, there is an energy cost and loss of dry matter.
Response 8: this part modified
Point 9: Line 95 was any effort made to stratify animals by bodyweight?
Response 9: yes , we was any effort made to stratify animals by body weigh
Point 10: Line 108,9 More than 1 CFU/kg was used? Correct these couple of sentences.
Response 10: modified to (1.0×1010 CFU/kg DM B. clausii: 5.0×109 CFU/kg DM S. cariocanus)
Point 11: line 110 why difference in fermentation temperature?
Response 11: Our previous research results showed that according to the nutritional value, digestibility and anti-nutritional factor detoxification effect of each treatment group, the optimal fermentation temperature was different. So in this experiment we use temperature different.
Point 12: line 120 is there a reason for fatty acid analysis of the mixture? Basically, differences between diets were negligible.
Response 12: like you said, basically, differences between diets were negligible. To examine the effect of diet on meat fatty acids, dietary fatty acids were also analyzed.
Point 13: line 134 digestibility study
Response 13: “digestibility test” changed “digestibility study”
Point 14: line 147 feces were dried at 65oC
Response 14: “were desiccated” changed ”were dried at”
Point 15: line 148 diet and fecal samples were ground thru a 1 mm screen?
Response 15: “crushed with a” changed “were ground thru a”
Point 16: line 160 a portable pH meter…
Response 16: ”A portable pH detector” changed “ a portable pH meter”
Point 17: line 161 rumen fluid was How much rumen fluid?
Response 17: rumen fluid was 5 ml
Point 18: line 164-165 delete this sentence fragment
Response 18: deleted this sentence
Point 19: line 167 what was column coating?
Response 19: we using chromatography on the Agilent Technology-78-90A (Agilent Tech, Waldbronn, Germany) for which a Supelco fused silica capillary column.
This part modified
Point 20: line168 what is meant by adjusted?
Response 20: modified this sentence
Point 21: line171 do you mean uL?
Response 21:yes, is ul, modified
Point 22: line 220 For laboratory chemical analysis, meat samples were first freeze-dried…
.Response 22: use you and another reviewer comment this part modified .
Point 23: line 212 incomplete sentence
Response 23: completed this sentence
Point 24: line 209 percentage cooking loss?
Response 24: “percentage of cooking loss” changed “ cooking loss were determine”
Point 25: line 213-214 unclear relationship between cooked meat sample and sample used for WB shear.
Response 25: modified this part
Point 26: line 225 analyze the amino acids
Response 26: ”detect the amino acids”changed “analyze the amino acids”
Point 27: line 232 were added
Response 27: ”been added” changed “were added”
Point 28: line 239 chloroacetylmethanol is not listed by Sigma as a chemical.
Response 28: modified this part
Point 29: line 245 should this be 20um for film thickness?
Response 29: we confirm this, this is HP-88, 100 m× 0.25 mm ×0.20 mm
Point 30: line 247 temperature program does not make sense.
Response 30: this is part of analyze fatty acids process. So we add this sentence
Point 31: line 248 carrier gas
Response 31: “transporter gas” changed “carrier gas”
Point 32: line 264 lamb are shown in Table 2.
Response 32: ” lamb are displayed in Table 2” changed “lamb are shown in Table 2.”
Point 33: line 310 Ammonia levels for d 40 are very low. I think the analysis should be rerun although ammonia can be lost during storage/freezing/refreezing. BUN levels certainly indicate that rumen ammonia was higher.
Response 33: we check our analyze process and result, and also we analyze again.
Point 34: line 369 delete statistically
Response 34:deleted statistically
Point 35: line 366 delet3 statistically
Response 35: deleted statistically
Point 36: line 397 increased bodyweight and daily gain-no statistical difference. Increased performance not supported by statistics.
Response 36: this part modified
Point 37: line 420 don’t understand this sentence. There were no differences between diets for LDL and HDL.
Response 37: this part modified
Point 38: line 444 Loin eye area?
Response 38: is eye muscle are, modified
Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to the editor and reviewer for their insightful
comments, which have helped us and significantly improved our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a very interesting study in which a large number of variables were evaluated and valuable information is provided.
The study presents important errors in the interpretation of the results (there is confusion about the statistical significance) and this is transferred to the discussion of the results and the conclusions of the study.
Likewise, the writing of the results could be improved if they were presented in the same order in which they appear in the tables and if, as in the case of Table 8, they were described by grouping the variables that had a similar statistical significance.
The file with the specific comments on the matter is attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Manuscript ID: fermentation-1959644
Title: “Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal”.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 3 for carefully reviewing our article and providing useful comments and suggestions.
We have made revisions to the revised manuscript in response to the comments and
recommendations received. We have copied each reviewer's comment below and followed up with a comprehensive answer Additionally, we have used red colour in the revised portions of the manuscript by using “Track Changes” function.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: line94 Explain why a randomized block design analysis is used. What other source of variation besides diets was identified in the study? In the statistical analysis section it is implied that the design of the ANOVA is completely random and in the results section no mention is made of any effect other than that of the diets.
Response 1: this part we write wrong, actually we use randomized design, not randomized block design, modified this sentences
Point 2: line 108-109 Are these values correct? Aren't they similar to the ones mentioned above? 1.0 and 5.0x109
Response 2: here changed 1.0×1010 CFU/kg DM B. clausii: 5.0×109 CFU/kg DM S. cariocanus
Point 3: table 1 Why were the diets not balanced to be isoenergetic and isoproteic?
Response 3: Design diet we concern isoenergetic and isoproteic, the data in the table are real values sampled from the through the diet, which are did not have statistically significant.
Point 4: Line 256-259 If all analyzes were carried out with the same design, mention it only once at the end. Address comment on line 94
Response 4: modified this part
Point 5: Line261 Writing the results in the same order in which they appear in the tables. Delete discussion
Response 5: Deleted discussion and writed the results in the same order in which they appear in the table
Point 6: Line This information should be located in the material and methods section
Response 6: This is full name of the abbreviation in the table, which needs to be indicated here.
Point 7: Line 290 This is not true. a is statistically equal to ab
Response 7: this part modified
Point 8: Line 305 Delete total volatile fatty acid
Response 8: deleted total volatile fatty acid
Point 9: Line334 The pH of FTMR-RSM and FTMR-CSM is similar. b is statistically equal to ab
Response 9: this part modified
Point 10: Table 7 Methionine content of FTMR-RSM and FTMR-CSM is similar. a is statistically equal to ab.
Response 10: this part modified
Point 11: line 358 They are all equal, (they all share the superscript a)
Response 11: this part modified
Point 12: line 361 Unir son iguales
Response 12: this part modified
Point 13: line 363 They are equal. a is statistically equal to ab.
Response 13: this part modified
Point 14: line 368 Incorrect. It is greater in the control than in both FTMR's
Response 14: this part modified
Point 15: table Describe the results of this table by grouping the variables that have a similar statistical significance, for example: C20:0, C22:0, C20:1, C20:3n6 and C20:4n6.
Response 15: this part modified
Point 16: line 391 Apparent digestibility and nitrogen metabolism are not discussed
Response 16: this part modified
Point 17: line 397-403 This is not correct, although it is true that at day 20, 40 and 60 there were differences in the live weight of the lambs, the growth (average daily gain) was never statistically affected by the diets.
Response 17:this part modified
Point 18: line 413 What role does the urea that was added in the FTMR diets play in the production of ammonia in the rumen?
Response 18: we for diets balanced to be isoenergetic and isoproteic, added urea in the diet.
Point 19: line 421 Reference (47) is missing
Response 19:this part modified
Point 20: line436-437 This is not correct, the results of this study indicate that diets significantly affect the concentration of Total VFA, acetate, propionate and butyrate
Response 20: this part modified
Point 21: line 440-443 It is not understood, so does the pH decrease or increase with the use of FTMR diets?
The pH of TVFA? what was measured is the pH of the ruminal liquid.
Response 21: we testing rumen liquid pH, and rumen liquid pH were decreased in fermented with CSM and RSM。The TVFA level of of the rumen liquid increased when FTMR with CSM in a ratio of 1:5 was used.
Point 22: line 443 Only two groups of lambs were fed with FTMR
Response 22: “three groups” changed “two groups”
Point 23: line 480 Reference (70) is missing
.Response 23: this part modified
Point 24: line491-492 The sentence is repeated and reference 75 is not from Su Chen, it is from World Health Organization (2007).
Response 24: this part modified
Point 25: line 504-505 Incorrect. The results indicate that the meat produced with the CSM diet is the one with the lowest SFA content. See table 8.
Response 25: this part modified
Point 26: line 543 The conclusion should highlight that the inclusion of the FMR maintains the productive parameters, the serum parameters and increases the methionine of meat. In addition, one of them increases the ruminal concentration of VFA and propionate and decreases the amount of SFA in the meat.
Response 26:this part modified
Point 27: line 547-548 This part of the conclusion is speculative since the acceptability of the meat was not evaluated.
Response 27:this part modified
Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to the editor and reviewer for their insightful
comments, which have helped us and significantly improved our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has improved significantly. However, there are still certain points that need clarification.
Line 213: after cooling for 20 min
Line 225: How did you determine moisture content in a freeze dried sample? This is not possible.
Line 477 - 478: "Smaller muscles have a higher cooking loss; the meat maintains more moisture, and the meat quality is preferable to larger muscles"
The word preferable does not make sense. Do you mean that quality in terms of tenderness can be more easily achieved in larger muscles due to the fact that they are capable of retaining higher moisture content?
Line 530: please change the word grabbed to attracted and delete the word treating. It is noted that n-3 fatty acids have a beneficial effect in relation to a healthy diet .
Lines 541-543: Our findings, however, were consistent with WHO recommendations, despite having a higher threshold than British standards but approaching the required amount. Similarly, our finding was lower than the earlier study, which revealed that the lowest n-6/n-3 ratio value of fattening male Hu lambs was 11.80.
The word threhold is not correct. It does not approched the required amount but the required value. You are certainly not approaching.
Also, you need to refer to other studies with sheep meat and report the fact that the n-6/n-3 is usually higher than the recommended value in sheep meat.
Table 6: Carcass yield should be determined in a cold carcass weight.
Table 8. Still, there is still a mistake to the total fatty acid content you are reporting. There is no chance that the fat content is approximately 5 g/100 g and the fatty acid content is 100 mg/100 g i.e. 0.1g/100g. This is a major mistake and it is obvious that you have mistakenly calculate the mg of each fatty acid. The entire Table is not correct. The percentage of identified fatty acids is usually 95%. Some authors choose to express their results in relation to identified fatty acids only where other authors choose to express their results in terms of total fatty acids.
Author Response
We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 1 for carefully reviewing our article and providing useful comments and suggestions.
We have made revisions to the revised manuscript in response to the comments and
recommendations received. We have copied each reviewer's comment below and followed up with a comprehensive answer Additionally, we have used red colour in the revised portions of the manuscript by using ﾡﾰTrack Changesﾡﾱ function.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Line 213: after cooling for 20 min
Response 1: we only have this objective, didn't have secondary object.
Point 2: Line 225: How did you determine moisture content in a freeze dried sample? This is not possible.
Response 2: ﾡﾰanimal careﾡﾱ changed ﾡﾰethics committee approvalﾡﾱ
Point 3:Line 477 - 478: "Smaller muscles have a higher cooking loss; the meat maintains more moisture, and the meat quality is preferable to larger muscles"
The word preferable does not make sense.? Do you mean that quality in terms of tenderness can be more easily achieved in larger muscles due to the fact that they are capable of retaining higher moisture content?
Response 3: this part modified
Point 4:Line 530: please change the word grabbed to attracted and delete the word treating. It is noted that n-3 fatty acids have? a beneficial effect in relation to a healthy diet .
Response 4: changed ﾡﾰ grabbedﾡﾱ to ﾡﾰattractedﾡﾱ and deleted treating.
Point 5: Lines 541-543: Our findings, however, were consistent with WHO recommendations, despite having a higher threshold than British standards but approaching the required amount. Similarly, our finding was lower than the earlier study, which revealed that the lowest n-6/n-3 ratio value of fattening male Hu lambs was 11.80.
The word threhold is not correct.? It does? not approched the required?amount?but the required?value. You are certainly not approaching. Also, you need to refer to other studies with sheep meat and report the fact that the n-6/n-3 is usually higher than the recommended value in sheep meat.
Response 5: we check our article and about this references, this sentences not our result, we write wrong, our result before this sentences were explained, so this sentences we deleted, thank you comments.
Point 6: Table 6: Carcass yield should be determined in a cold carcass weight.
Response 6: Dear reviewer you wright, carcass weight should be determine cold carcass weight, we write wrong , actually we determined cold carcass, so through you comment, we modified this part. Thank you.
Point 7:Table 8. Still, there is still a mistake to the total fatty acid content you are reporting.? There is no chance that the fat content is approximately 5 g/100 g and the fatty acid content is 100 mg/100 g i.e. 0.1g/100g. This is a major mistake and it is obvious that you have mistakenly calculate the mg of each fatty acid. The entire Table is not correct. The percentage of identified fatty acids is usually 95%. Some authors choose to express their results in relation to identified fatty acids only where other authors choose to express their results in terms of total fatty acids.
Response 7: Dear reviewer, we have double-checked and recalculated it, and after comparing our results with those of other researchers, we have determined that our expression unit is incorrect; therefore, we changed "mg/100 g tissue" to (% of total fatty acids) in table 8. Thank you for your suggestions and comments.
Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to the editor and reviewer for their insightful
comments, which have helped us and significantly improved our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
line 412 Adding should be adding
Author Response
We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 2 for carefully reviewing our article and providing useful comments and suggestions.
We have made revisions to the revised manuscript in response to the comments and
recommendations received. We have copied each reviewer's comment below and followed up with a comprehensive answer Additionally, we have used red color in the revised portions of the manuscript by using “Track Changes” function.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: line 90, 2.2.1 animal change Animal
Response 1: “animal” changed “Animal”
Point 2: line 228 This is redundant
Response 2: delete “to analyze the amino acids”
Point 3: line 294, add while there
Response 3: “there was” changed “while there was”
Point 4: Line295 add while between
Response 4: added “while between”
Point 5: Line 339 delete meat
Response 5: deleted meat
Point 6: Line 339-340 modified this sentence
Response 6: “among the FTMR-CSM and FTMR-RSM group pH no significant difference (P > 0.05).
” changed “between FTMR-CSM and FTMR-RSM groups no significant difference was found”
Point 7: Line 352 “concentrations” change “concentration”
Response 7: “concentrations” changed “concentration”
Point 8: Line353 “groups” change “group”
Response 8: “groups” changed “group”
Point 9: Line 353 “concentrations” change “concentration”
Response 9: “concentrations” changed “concentration”
Point 10: Line 372 delete this point
Response 10: deleted this point
Point 11: line 374 Why is the lack of significance only indicated for C24:1 if there are 22 other fatty acids in a similar situation?
Response 11: Dear reviewer, you are right, we recorrected to mention other fatty acids that were not significance.
Point 12: line 374 delete this point
Response 12: deleted this point
Point 13: line 376 “grater” change” was grater”
Response 13: “grater” changed” was grater”
Point 14: line 382 , Wrong, FTMR-CSM shows the lowest concentration of SFA
Response 14: Dear reviewer we have corrected like this “The concentration of SFA in the FTMR-CSM was lower than other two groups and while the concentration of USFA in the FTMR-CSM group was significantly higher than in the FTMR-RSM and control groups”. Thanks for your comments.
Point 15: line382, this is not possible to corroborate since in the table 8 ΣPUFA and Σ MUFA are shown separately but not their sum (Σ USFA).
Response 15: Dear reviewer, you are right that they are separately, and we have checked it but now we did the summation of (Σ USFA). ∑USFA=sum of unsaturated fatty acids (∑PUFA + ∑ MUFA), thus we made the summation in table 8. Thanks for your comments.
Point 16: line 553 delete were
Response 16: deleted were
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The document must be reviewed by an English speaker:
There are sentences without a verb.
There is a mishandling of singular and plural (example: when to write group or groups or when to write concentration or concentrations). Some examples are highlighted in green.
There is a misuse of verb tenses: present or past. Example in the conclusion: "FTMR with CSM were increases".
Although in the English language it is common to write using short sentences, in the document a common idea is separated into two sentences, which makes it difficult to read the document. Example on lines 293-296.
There are still errors in the description of the results. See chapter 3.7. Fatty Acids Profile of Longissimus thoracis (LT)meat.
It is again recommended to describe the results grouping them by the similarity of the statistical significances.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 3 for carefully reviewing our article and providing useful comments and suggestions.
We have made revisions to the revised manuscript in response to the comments and
recommendations received. We have copied each reviewer's comment below and followed up with a comprehensive answer Additionally, we have used red color in the revised portions of the manuscript by using “Track Changes” function.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: line 90, 2.2.1 animal change Animal
Response 1: “animal” changed “Animal”
Point 2: line 228 This is redundant
Response 2: delete “to analyze the amino acids”
Point 3: line 294, add while there
Response 3: “there was” changed “while there was”
Point 4: Line295 add while between
Response 4: added “while between”
Point 5: Line 339 delete meat
Response 5: deleted meat
Point 6: Line 339-340 modified this sentence
Response 6: “among the FTMR-CSM and FTMR-RSM group pH no significant difference (P > 0.05).
” changed “between FTMR-CSM and FTMR-RSM groups no significant difference was found”
Point 7: Line 352 “concentrations” change “concentration”
Response 7: “concentrations” changed “concentration”
Point 8: Line353 “groups” change “group”
Response 8: “groups” changed “group”
Point 9: Line 353 “concentrations” change “concentration”
Response 9: “concentrations” changed “concentration”
Point 10: Line 372 delete this point
Response 10: deleted this point
Point 11: line 374 Why is the lack of significance only indicated for C24:1 if there are 22 other fatty acids in a similar situation?
Response 11: Dear reviewer, you are right, we recorrected to mention other fatty acids that were not significance.
Point 12: line 374 delete this point
Response 12: deleted this point
Point 13: line 376 “grater” change” was grater”
Response 13: “grater” changed” was grater”
Point 14: line 382 , Wrong, FTMR-CSM shows the lowest concentration of SFA
Response 14: Dear reviewer we have corrected like this “The concentration of SFA in the FTMR-CSM was lower than other two groups and while the concentration of USFA in the FTMR-CSM group was significantly higher than in the FTMR-RSM and control groups”. Thanks for your comments.
Point 15: line382, this is not possible to corroborate since in the table 8 ΣPUFA and Σ MUFA are shown separately but not their sum (Σ USFA).
Response 15: Dear reviewer, you are right that they are separately, and we have checked it but now we did the summation of (Σ USFA). ∑USFA=sum of unsaturated fatty acids (∑PUFA + ∑ MUFA), thus we made the summation in table 8. Thanks for your comments.
Point 16: line 553 delete were
Response 16: deleted were
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
