Effect of β-Mannanase Addition during Whole Pigs Fattening on Production Yields and Intestinal Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments were taken into account. I have no more comments or questions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer: thank you very much for you comments. They have improved greately the paper.

 

Thanks.

Guillermo Ramis

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A very extensive manuscript, concerning various aspects of the influence of the β-mannanase supplementation in pig nutrition. There are typos in the text in some places that would need to be checked and corrected. Moreover:

Line 42 - typing error

Line 59 - "there is been" - grammatical error

Line 118 - "piggery" alone will do

Table 1 - "pork fat" - is it pork fat in the feed?

Table 4 - the text below the table contains information previously contained in the material and methods, so it is an unnecessary repetition (line 262-264)

Figure 2 - the text highlighted in red should not be under the graph, but in the text of the results discussion

Figure 3 - Below the graphs is an overview of the stool rating scale. It was already included in the text, in the methodology (significance of differences)

References require checking if it complies with the requirements (e.g. line spacing)

Author Response

Dear reviewer: thank you very much for the second review of the paper. We have answered every suggestion in detail:

Line 42 - typing error. Corrected

Line 59 - "there is been" - grammatical error. Corrected

Line 118 - "piggery" alone will do. Corrected

Table 1 - "pork fat" - is it pork fat in the feed?. Yes

Table 4 - the text below the table contains information previously contained in the material and methods, so it is an unnecessary repetition (line 262-264). Removed

Figure 2 - the text highlighted in red should not be under the graph, but in the text of the results discussion. We have included the following sentence:

Interestingly, the control group grew significantly faster during the growing phase (p<0.0001), while the HC group grew significantly faster during the finishing phase (p=0.047). This compensatory growth resulted in a lack of differences in growth when analysing the whole period. The same phenomenon can be observed in the weight gain, so that in the end there was no difference in either weight gain or growth

 

Figure 3 - Below the graphs is an overview of the stool rating scale. It was already included in the text, in the methodology (significance of differences). The fecal score has been removed and the significance of difference included (p=0.008) 

References require checking if it complies with the requirements (e.g. line spacing). Reviewed. Interestingly, line spacing was introduced by the Mendely manager, but effectively, it does not meet Animals' requirements. Not only the line spacing but also the program has not respected the formatting of the name of the journals or the year and has changed authors. Now meet these requirements as far as we have reviewed.

 

Thanks a lot for your revision that has greatly improved our paper.

 

Guillermo Ramis

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf