Nutritional Profiling of Wild (Pangasius pangasius) and Farmed (Pangasius hypophthalmus) Pangasius Catfish with Implications to Human Health
, Md. Arifur Rahman 2,†, Muhammad A. B. Siddik 2,*, Md. Sazedul Hoque 1, SM Majharul Islam 3 and Ioannis N. Vatsos 3,*
Mohammad Lokman Ali
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following comments/issues may be taken care of, to improve the MS
Highlights
- Well explanation
- Rephrase long sentences
Introduction
1. Well written
Material and Methods parts
1. Well explanation and written
Results parts
1. Why the proximate composition is significant among the parameters except carbohydrate? Is it reasons for feed in the case of farmed pangasius?
2. Why the lipid content is higher in wild species than in farmed one?
3. Why flavor type amino acids do not write separately in the table 2?
4. In the table 4, is it dry basis or wet basis?
5. What you mean by indicates *, ** and ns in the figure 2 and 3? Explain in the legend section
Discussion parts
1. Refresh the fatty acid section
2. Rephrase
Conclusions parts
1. Good
References part
1. Concise the references
2. Marine species papers should be omitted.
Author Response
Reviewer 1: The following comments/issues may be taken care of, to improve the MS.
Highlights
- Well explanation
- Rephrase long sentences
Response: Thank you very much for your nice comments and suggestions. We are agreed to your comments and the manuscript re-written according to your recommendations which might be easier for readers to understand than the previous version of the manuscript.
Introduction
1. Well written
Response: Thanks for the positive remarks.
Material and Methods parts
1. Well explanation and written
Response: Thanks.
Results parts
1. Why the proximate composition is significant among the parameters except carbohydrate? Is it reasons for feed in the case of farmed pangasius?
Response: There was also significant difference in case of carbohydrate between wild and the farmed pangasius. After your comments we have analyzed it again to draw a conclusion and found it significant. In addition to feeding, other reason like fish habitat, environmental condition, food availability factors also been added in the revised discussion section.
2. Why the lipid content is higher in wild species than in farmed one?
Response: An explanation has been given in the discussion section.
3. Why flavor type amino acids do not write separately in the table 2?
Response: Revised in the text.
4. In the table 4, is it dry basis or wet basis?
Response: Revised.
5. What you mean by indicates *, ** and ns in the figure 2 and 3? Explain in the legend section
Response: Sorry it was a mistake. Has been revised in the text.
Discussion parts
1. Refresh the fatty acid section
Response: Revised
2. Rephrase
Response: Revised
Conclusions parts
1. Good
Response: Thanks for positive comments.
References part
1. Concise the references
Response: Revised
2. Marine species papers should be omitted.
Response: Revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interested research. The results should be disseminated among the people.
Author Response
This is an interested research. The results should be disseminated among the people.
Response: Thanks for reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have one concern that is written in review report and its mandatory to justify and clearify why it is so?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have one concern that is written in review report and its mandatory to justify and clarify why it is so?
Comments: The authors Chakma et al investigated the nutritional profiles of wild (Pangasius pangasius) 14 and farmed (Pangasius hypophthalmus) pangasius catfish collected from the various sources of river 15 and culture ponds in Bangladesh. They have used ample parameters and appropriate methodology. It’s a very good topic to be investigated and they did justice with it. But I have one observation that is in table 1 the proximate composition differed significantly her, as per my knowledge goes it should not be particularly Crude protein content so I suggest to recheck the value of refences in wherever ever applicable to support this finding. Over all, article meets the quality of wring so after justifying this query the article may consider for publication in the fishes journal.
Response: The data for crude protein content between wild and the farmed pangasius were rechecked. After your comments we have analyzed it again to draw a conclusion and found the same result. Please see the reference number 44, 45, 46, and 47 and our result agrees with these studies.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper described nutrition values of farmed and wild catfish. The data was solid. There are some place need to pay attention.
1. The content of this paper is very similar to an article by Monalisa et al. Therefore it should be included in the introduction and compare the difference. Monalisa, K., Islam, M. Z., Khan, T. A., Abdullah, A. T. M. and Hoque, M. M. 2013. Comparative study on nutrient contents of native and hybrid Koi (Anabas testudineus) and Pangas (Pangasius pangasius, Pangasius hypophthalmus) fish in Bangladesh. International Food Research Journal 20(2): 791-797 (2013)
2. Line 133-134 is confusing, please consider to rewrite it.
3. Line 139 is very confusing. the GC oven programed from 180 to 250 C for 5 min. Is it too short? What is the GC column used in this study?
4. Is there any reference for the nutritional contribution of LA and sum of EPA+DHA?
5. Line 347. animal protein is described as a substitute for plant protein is not appropriate. please consider to rewrite it.
6. the overall quality is good.
Author Response
This paper described nutritional values of farmed and wild catfish. The data was solid. There are some place needs to pay attention.
1. The content of this paper is very similar to an article by Monalisa et al. Therefore it should be included in the introduction and compare the difference. Monalisa, K., Islam, M. Z., Khan, T. A., Abdullah, A. T. M. and Hoque, M. M. 2013. Comparative study on nutrient contents of native and hybrid Koi (Anabas testudineus) and Pangas (Pangasius pangasius, Pangasius hypophthalmus) fish in Bangladesh. International Food Research Journal 20(2): 791-797 (2013).
Response: Thank you reviewer for suggesting important references to find out the factors responsible for compositional differences between similar species. The suggested publications has been examined and cited for appropriate factors where relevant.
2. Line 133-134 is confusing, please consider to rewrite it.
Response: Revised.
3. Line 139 is very confusing. The GC oven programed from 180 to 250 C for 5 min. Is it too short? What is the GC column used in this study?
Response: Revised. Please see the section 2.5. Fatty acid composition.
4. Is there any reference for the nutritional contribution of LA and sum of EPA+DHA?
Response: Please see the reference number 30.
5. Line 347. animal protein is described as a substitute for plant protein is not appropriate. please consider to rewrite it.
Response: Revised.
6. The overall quality is good.
Response: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.
