Growth and Muscle Quality of Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) in In-Pond Raceway Aquaculture and Traditional Pond Culture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study explored the effect of different aquaculture mode on the growth and muscle quality of grass carp. Authors gave the evidence about the advantage of in-pond raceway aquaculture mode via different parameters. However, this manuscript still has some problems need to be solved.
Line 17. The full name of “TPC” should be provided.
Line 19. The “crude protein” needs to be replaced with “the content of crude protein”.
Line 20. The “chewiness in grass carp” needs to be replaced with the “chewiness of grass carp”.
Line 23-24. This sentence needs to be revised to avoid misunderstanding.
Line 23. “p” should be replaced with “p”
Line 32-78. The background of GSM and 2-MIB should be mentioned.
Line 38-54. The description of these two paragraphs should be streamlined.
Line 56-58. It has chaos of logic between the first sentence and second sentence.
Line 82. Please give reason why the experiment carried for 83 days.
Line 84. “x” should be replaced by “﹡”.
Line 101-103. The description of each water quality parameters should be provided in more details.
Line 117. “Weight gain” should be replaced by “weight gain rate”.
Line 183-187. The case letter in this part needs to be checked.
Line 186. The data of water quality parameters should be described.
Figure 1. In this figure, there are three questions need to be revised. Firstly, the legend in figure should be same as it in manuscript. Second, the time point is not consist with the scale of axes. Thirdly, high resolution is necessary.
Line 195. The case letter in this part needs to be checked.
Line 197. P value should be represented in italics and there are many same mistakes in the whole manuscript.
Table 3. The abbreviation of each parameter is not consistent with part “3.2 Growth Performance”. Besides, it is obvious that the data of weight and length have significant differences if authors analysis the data by using Duncan’s test. Please check and add essential information in this table.
Line 220-222. The content of each nutrient should be described clearly and “crude fat” is not correct.
Line 235. Which two parameters have significant difference?
Table 5. The hardness between these two groups is significantly different, it should be noted.
Line 243. The full name of 2-MIB should be provided or it can be mentioned in the part of introduction.
Figure 2. In the figure 1, it can be seen that the water quality parameters were measured six times. However, the concentration of 2-MIB and geosmin were just measured three times. Please provide the reason.
Line 252. “got depressed” is not correct.
Line 315-319. The relationship between collagen content and fat content should be described in more detail. As a common knowledge, fat content has a tight connection with soft texture. The correlation between pH and softness should be proved by published study.
Line 334-338. This part is appropriate for introduction.
The manuscript requires extensive editing to bring the writing to an acceptable level for publication in an English-language journal. There are many instances of grammatical errors and poor wording.
Author Response
25.04.2023
To,
The Reviewer
We pay huge appreciation and are grateful to reviewer for his/her valuable critics and insights and for guiding us to enrich the contents of submitted manuscript. We heartily accept all the comments, critics and suggestions passed from the reviewer’s side. We have responded all the comments point by point below and incorporated systematically in the revised manuscript. All the changes and improvements are indicated in track change form.
Thank you.
Kamala Gharti
Reviewer’s comment: This study explored the effect of different aquaculture mode on the growth and muscle quality of grass carp. Authors gave the evidence about the advantage of in-pond raceway aquaculture mode via different parameters. However, this manuscript still has some problems need to be solved.
Authors response: Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions and understanding of the scope of our work. We have responded to your concerns point by point below and all the changes are indicated in track change form in the manuscript.
We had rewritten some sections and attempted to clarify the meaning of sentences or paragraphs.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 17. The full name of “TPC” should be provided.
Authors response: TPC changed to traditional pond culture (TPC)
Reviewer’s comment: Line 19. The “crude protein” needs to be replaced with “the content of crude protein”.
Authors response: Addressed the issue according to the comment
Reviewer’s comment: Line 20. The “chewiness in grass carp” needs to be replaced with the “chewiness of grass carp”.
Authors response: Corrected
Reviewer’s comment: Line 23-24. This sentence needs to be revised to avoid misunderstanding.
Authors response: Done, the sentence is revised as “The abundance of Proteobacteria was found higher in TPC (p<0.05) whereas the richness of Planctomycetes was observed higher in IPRA (p<0.05)”.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 23. “p” should be replaced with “p”
Authors response: All ‘’p’’ replaced with “p” in manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: Line 32-78. The background of GSM and 2-MIB should be mentioned.
Authors response: The paragraph discussing the off flavour producing compounds, GSM and 2- MIB is added in introduction section as per the comments
Reviewer’s comment: Line 38-54. The description of these two paragraphs should be streamlined.
Authors response: Thank you for comment, these paragraphs were modified accordingly
Reviewer’s comment: Line 56-58. It has chaos of logic between the first sentence and second sentence.
Authors response: Comment addressed
Reviewer’s comment: Line 82. Please give reason why the experiment carried for 83 days.
Authors response: The experiment was designed to run for 3 months but due to expected changes in weather conditions (based on its forecast) during the final days of works, we concluded it a week before. Thus, total experimental duration came to be 83 days.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 84. “x” should be replaced by “﹡”.
Authors response: Addressed
Reviewer’s comment: Line 101-103. The description of each water quality parameters should be provided in more details.
Authors response: Thank you for your comments. The work focuses primarily on the growth performances and muscle quality of grass carp and the water quality parameters were the supporting part, we discussed to make it possible short. But we can share the complete analytical protocols we followed for the process.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 117. “Weight gain” should be replaced by “weight gain rate”.
Authors response: Yes, we did it
Reviewer’s comment: Line 183-187. The case letter in this part needs to be checked.
Authors response: Yes, we did it
Reviewer’s comment: Line 186. The data of water quality parameters should be described.
Authors response: Thank you, we addressed and mended the manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: Figure 1. In this figure, there are three questions need to be revised. Firstly, the legend in figure should be same as it in manuscript. Second, the time point is not consist with the scale of axes. Thirdly, high resolution is necessary.
Authors response: Thank you very much for your inputs. The legends in the figure were made consistent with that in manuscript, scale of axes was and time line (days interval) were corrected and high-resolution figure is attached
Reviewer’s comment: Line 195. The case letter in this part needs to be checked.
Authors response: Yes, we did it
Reviewer’s comment: Line 197. P value should be represented in italics and there are many same mistakes in the whole manuscript.
Authors response: Sorry for this inconsistency, all ‘’p’’ replaced with “p” in whole manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: Table 3. The abbreviation of each parameter is not consistent with part “3.2 Growth Performance”. Besides, it is obvious that the data of weight and length have significant differences if authors analysis the data by using Duncan’s test. Please check and add essential information in this table.
Authors response: Thank you for comments. The inconsistency in abbreviations and mean comparison in this section were addressed accordingly.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 220-222. The content of each nutrient should be described clearly and “crude fat” is not correct.
Authors response: Crude lipid word is used in place of crude fat; just crude lipid content was significant between IPRA and TPC produced fish so we focused more on it. Other parameters were just mentioned to state their non-significant values
Reviewer’s comment: Line 235. Which two parameters have significant difference?
Authors response: We appreciate your concern, marked the BARs with significant difference, for instance, concentration of 2- MIB at 31th July between IPRA and TPC showed highly significant difference. We mended this concern in manuscript accordingly
Reviewer’s comment: Table 5. The hardness between these two groups is significantly different, it should be noted.
Authors response: We again analysed the data and run DMRT for mean comparison but did not get the significant difference in muscle hardness between IPRA and TPC. Though, the value range seems much bigger, this parameter was non- significant, might be due to the fact of higher SD
Reviewer’s comment: Line 243. The full name of 2-MIB should be provided or it can be mentioned in the part of introduction.
Authors response: Thank you, the brief contents of 2- MIB and Geosmin, the off-flavour compounds, was added in introduction section from Line 59 to 67 and the concern is appropriately addressed
Reviewer’s comment: Figure 2. In the figure 1, it can be seen that the water quality parameters were measured six times. However, the concentration of 2-MIB and geosmin were just measured three times. Please provide the reason.
Authors response: Thank you very much for critical concern. Yes, water quality parameters were measured and analysed six times during the research period but the concentration of 2- MIB and Geosmin were analysed just 3 times. This is because 2- MIB and Geosmin concentrations were determined in muscle sample which were sampled just 3 times according to the research plan (to minimize the stress to fishes during the experiment).
Reviewer’s comment: Line 252. “got depressed” is not correct.
Authors response: Addressed, reworded with “decreased”
Reviewer’s comment: Line 315-319. The relationship between collagen content and fat content should be described in more detail. As a common knowledge, fat content has a tight connection with soft texture. The correlation between pH and softness should be proved by published study.
Authors response: Thank you for comments. The relation between muscle hardness, muscle protein content, especially the muscle collagen content (hardness due to higher density of myofibrils of less than 20 µm diameter) were discussed and added in manuscript. Similarly, the correlation of muscle softness, muscle fat content and muscle pH were added and supported with the published articles.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 334-338. This part is appropriate for introduction.
Authors response: Thank you, followed your suggestion and mended the manuscript accordingly
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
25.04.2023
To,
The Reviewer
The authors are indebted to expert reviewer for his/her valuable insights and inputs and for guiding us to improve the contents of this manuscript. We heartily accept all the comments, critics and suggestions passed from the reviewer’s side. We have responded and addressed all the comments point by point below and incorporated systematically in the revised manuscript. All the changes and improvements are indicated in track change form.
In addition to track change version of the manuscript, we have also submitted its clean version for your consideration.
Thank you.
Kamala Gharti
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions and understanding of the scope of our work. We have responded to your concerns point by point below and all the changes are indicated in track change form in the manuscript.
We had rewritten some sections and attempted to clarify the meaning of sentences or paragraphs in some parts.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Reviewer’s comment: Line 16 and line 87-88: Use the same unit (32tail/m3 675fish/ha)
Authors response: Thank you for comment, we had correctly amended the concern in manuscript, stocking densities for both culture systems were expressed in same unit but the approach we used too were common in past literatures so humbly ask for your critics in this respect.
Reviewer’s comment: I advise to put an abbreviation list in the front.
Authors response: We had revised and corrected the manuscript with the full name and truncated form in parenthesis when it comes first at manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: In the Abstract write down what is TPC.
Authors response: Amended the comment as Traditional pond culture (TPC)
Reviewer’s comment: In the abstract and the introduction they did not write anything about the growth but it is in the title.
Authors response: Thank you with due appreciation for your critical comment. The growth and associated attributes were added and discussed in both the abstract and introduction section
Reviewer’s comment: There is a chapter about the water quality, but the title did not mention it.
Authors response: Yes, we did not spell out the water quality in title as our work focuses primarily on the growth performances and the muscle quality of grass carp. We understood and took the water quality parameters as the basic factors that affects growth, production and quality as well as other issues so discussed these facts on text without mentioning in the title
Reviewer’s comment: Where you use an abbreviation, at the first appearance please write down the whole phrase. There are more cases in the text (TPC, 2-MIB, TSS).
Authors response: We had revised and corrected the manuscript with the full name and truncated form in parenthesis when it comes first at manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: Line 88: From the materials and methods it does not turn out how many TPC were involved into the experiment.
Authors response: The comment is addressed in manuscript properly; the experimental procedure included 3 IPRA and 3 TPC
Reviewer’s comment: At table 1: A few occasion the min and max values are exchanged. Please make the correction.
Authors response: Thank you, we corrected the problems in manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: At table 1: The water quality indicators concern the whole duration of the experiment?
Authors response: Yes, this table showed the water quality parameter of experimental units of complete culture period, amended in manuscript and shown in track change mode
Reviewer’s comment: At table 1: The unit of measure is wrong at the temperature and is missing at the dissolved oxygen (DO is the mg/l).
Authors response: Sorry for the error from our side. Yes, it is well revised and corrected
Reviewer’s comment: Line 110: How do you get the n (18) value? In the material and methods it was written down there were 10 raceways. If three grass carp were sampled from each raceways it has to be at least 30 pieces and still we do not know how many ponds were involved into the experiment.
Authors response: The experimental procedure included 3 IPRA units among the available 10 units and 3 TPC units, thus we have n= 18 when 3 fishes were sampled from each unit. Sorry for poor clarity in the manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: Line 190-195: The authors write about such a result what did not present before (Total nitrogen, Total phosphorus, Chlorophyll-A, Chemical oxygen demand, Total soluble solid)
Authors response: Thank you very much for comment. We revised and mended this specific section as “Likewise, the concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorous and chemical oxygen demand were significantly higher (p<0.01) in IPRA. However, chlorophyll–a was higher (p<0.01) in TPC (Table 1)”.
Reviewer’s comment: Table 3: There is missing a lot of data from the Table 3. My opinion that approximately the half of the table is missing. Please make the correction. In this form this table is incomprehensible.
Authors response: Much appreciated your critical insights. Stocking weight and specific growth rate were added in the table and mean comparisons were performed for all the data sets.
Reviewer’s comment: The Chapter 3.2. in this form is wrong and short. The authors have to rethink, and rewrite the whole chapter.
Authors response: Revisions are appropriately texted and described in manuscript in track change mode, the attributes showing significant differences between IPRA and TPC were well covered in manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: 204 line: The title of the chapter is not exact. Please make the correction!
Authors response: Revised and corrected according to comment
Reviewer’s comment: Line 205: If there are no significant differences among the values it means there is no difference, so except the crude lipid the statements are false.
Authors response: Thank you, we had corrected it in manuscript as “The crude lipid content in grass carp muscle was found statistically higher (p<0.05) in the IPRA (1.71±0.47) as compared in TPC (1.38±0.21). However, no statistical differences in moisture, mineral ash and crude protein between the two culture systems during the whole experimental period were documented. Nutritional composition of grass carp flesh is depicted in Table 4”.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 214: The same that Line 205. If there is no significant difference, it is meaning there is no difference.
Authors response: We had revised it in manuscript as “The comprehensive texture characteristics of Grass Crap muscle are presented in Table 5. The flesh adhesiveness was evident statistically higher (p<0.05) in TPC than that in IPRA. There were no significant differences in physico- chemical characteristics (pH and WHC) in grass carp muscle between two culture systems. The fish muscles from TPC were observed to have a higher pH level while WHC was recorded higher in IPRA after 6-10 hrs of post-mortem but the differences in both attributes were non-significant”.
Reviewer’s comment: Line 220: Table 5. does not contain such a result responsiveness only the adhesiveness.
Authors response: Sorry for problem, we removed the responsiveness from the text
Reviewer’s comment: Discussion: My opinion that needs a lot of work still remains with the results, so it is very difficult to judge the chapter in this form. I advise the authors to make the correction in the results and just after comes the evaluation of the discussion part.
Authors response: We want to thank the expert reviewer for his/her critical comments, suggestions and insights on our manuscript. We hope we had have addressed and incorporated all the concerns raised by reviewer and expect to move ahead for next review and publication. We appreciate and welcome the comments and suggestions for mending and improving the manuscript.
Humbly ask the reviewer to have his/her bird’s eye view on discussion section for further improving the manuscript
Reviewer’s comment: My general opinion is to reduce the results and focus on the flesh quality measurements of the grass carp. From the rest of the experiments write another article.
Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion. We are trying to have all these data set in an article, so we prefer to have all these parts integrated into a single paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made almost all the recommendations. Still remains only a few mistakes into the text. In the attached file they can find the advices.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
