Effects of Eco-Organic Feed on Growth Performance, Biometric Indices, and Nutrient Retention of Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata)
, Ana Tomás-Vidal 1, Silvia MartÃnez-Llorens 1, Ignacio Jauralde 1, David Sánchez-Peñaranda 1 and Miguel Jover-Cerdá 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My suggestions can be found in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The englsih is good, there are only a few typo, which can be corrected easily
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editor
We have carefully read the reviewers’ comments regarding the manuscript recently submitted to Fishes," Effects of Organic Feed on Growth Performance, Biometric Indices, and Nutrient Retention of Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata).” Below we respond to each of the suggestions by the reviewers. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised in response to the reviewers' suggestions. The revised manuscript has been provided to a native English-speaking translator for review. We will re-upload a manuscript that responds to comments and changes and hopes that the revised manuscript will be published in SUSTAINABILITY smoothly.
Reviewer 1.
Point 1: Need to specified the title, because the “Organic feed” phrase is too general.
Response 1: Thanks to the reviewers’ suggestions, we have changed the word to (eco-organic ) for clarity and specificity.
Point 2: Reference number 6. is missing from the text.
Response 2: Revised and added, line 57.
Point 3: Insert an abbreviation list into the text.
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions; we have revised all abbreviations throughout the manuscript, and we prepared a list of abbreviations that you can find it after the abstract section.
Point 4: Line 16: At the first appearance, you must write out the whole word if you use an abbreviation.
Response 4: revised and added the whole word of abbreviations, line 16.
Point 5: Line 142: What was the stocking rate based on a m3 in each tank?
Response 5: The stocking rate based on an m3 was added, 22.9 fish/m3, line 144.
Point 6: Line 156: You write that all the diets contain 44% protein and 20% fat. As I have checked the table 1. the difference among the oil contents is so different, which has an effect on the fat content: How can you ensure that all the diets have the same fat content?
Response 6: We have individually analyzed all the raw materials, and their formulations have been adjusted to contain a protein percentage of 45 and a fat percentage of 18.8.
There were indeed several errors. The mistake originated from the diets used in a previous experiment. I greatly appreciate your comment and feedback. It's important to acknowledge and rectify such grave mistakes. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. And we attached these tables if you have any further questions or need additional assistance.
|
MATERIAS PRIMAS ANALIZADAS |
|||||||
|
% |
PB |
GB |
CHO |
FB* |
CE |
ED |
HUM |
|
Trigo |
11.41 |
1.76 |
83.34 |
1.85 |
1.63 |
12725.10 |
87.82 |
|
Gluten |
81.00 |
0.86 |
16.28 |
1.00 |
0.86 |
19121.86 |
93.33 |
|
Soja |
49.90 |
2.20 |
40.81 |
|
7.08 |
15940.87 |
88.13 |
|
H lubina |
44.91 |
40.93 |
|
|
17.83 |
|
98.83 |
|
ave |
58.45 |
27.50 |
|
|
16.06 |
|
97.48 |
|
H trucha |
76.71 |
17.36 |
|
|
9.43 |
|
95.71 |
|
Trigo |
12.70 |
2.30 |
83.30 |
|
1.70 |
|
92.40 |
|
Guisante |
23.00 |
3.30 |
71.60 |
|
2.10 |
|
91.80 |
|
Soja |
53.40 |
4.30 |
36.40 |
|
5.90 |
|
92.30 |
|
H Pescado |
74.30 |
12.40 |
0.00 |
|
14.30 |
|
91.70 |
|
ACSOJ |
0.00 |
100.00 |
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
ACPES |
0.00 |
100.00 |
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
Point 7: Chapter 2.3: Is there any organic fish oil exist? If not the fish oil supplementation is an accepted method to increase the oil content of the feed?
Response 7: No organic fish oil exists, but it is accepted to use it from sustainable fisheries in organic production systems. It is mentioned in the text in the last line of section 2.3.
Point 8: Line 222-223: You write about the Economic conversion ratio (ECR), productive protein value (PPV), and productive fat value (PPV). What are the formulas? How did you count these values?
Response 8: All formulas of these parameters are in the footnote of Table 5. Mentioned in the text and reference was added 226-235.
Point 9: Line 228: Is there any effect on the different analysis such a high level of clove oil bath?
Response 9: There are no effects of clove oil level on the different analyses. These fish weren’t used for analysis only for the biometric indices.
Point 10: Figure 1: Please sign the unit of measure at the weight. I can not see the significance level at the figure, and the signing of the statistical differences among the treatments.
Response 10: The unit of measure at the weight and the significance level were added to Figure 1.
Point 11: Table 4: The letters what used show the significance differences put in the upper index. Please make the lettering uniform. (The smallest value is a or the biggest value is a . It doesn’t matter which one, but makes it uniform.
Response 11: Revised. We have determined that the letter A represents the highest value. I have thoroughly reviewed the table but cannot identify the error you mentioned. We have been unable to find any mistakes thus far. If you come across any errors, please point them out to us.
Point 12: Line 340: There were not only can be found differences between the CONT and ORG diets but the TRO, SBS, and MIX diet. The only differ diet is the POU consider the PPV value.
Response 12: Yes, you have a reason. Revised and corrected as this, There were no differences between the CONT, ORG, TRO, SBS, and MIX diets. Line .
Point 13: Table 7: I think the Omega 6 and Omega 3 ratio is very important information, so I suggest counting it. All the data is available.
Response 13: The Omega 6 and Omega 3 ratio was added to Table 7.
Point 14: Line 403-404: Please elevate the importance of the trout meal and the sea bass meal during the production. What about the availability of these raw materials?
Response 14: Revised and added more information, lines 427- 455.
Using trout meal and sea bass meal by-products promotes resource efficiency, waste reduction, and the establishment of a circular economy. One of the key advantages of using these by-products is their positive environmental impact. Instead of discarding them, incorporating them into other products or processes minimizes the need for additional resources and waste disposal. This approach fosters a more sustainable production cycle and contributes to environmental conservation [37]. There is currently no commercial organic supply chain for trout and sea bass. These certified organic meal products should be manufactured in dedicated organic meal factories. The current availability of organic sea bass and trout is insufficient to justify these factories' existence. However, if such products were established, it could significantly enhance the profitability of organic production.
To conclude, we thank the reviewers for their comments/suggestions, as they allowed us to improve the manuscript significantly.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting and important area of research. But since it is difficult to get 100% organic vs 100% non-organic fish feed ingredients, the results of these study do not really show the difference in terms of effect on the metabolism (growth, nutrient utilisation) of the fish.
It is a starting piece of research. More refinement is needed in future to define the risks of contaminants in non-organic feeds, how these affect fish health and productivity. Also to show the economic benefit of using the more expensive organic ingredients.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editor
We have carefully read the reviewers’ comments regarding the manuscript recently submitted to Fishes," Effects of Organic Feed on Growth Performance, Biometric Indices, and Nutrient Retention of Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata).” Below we respond to each of the suggestions by the reviewers. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised in response to the reviewers' suggestions. The revised manuscript has been provided to a native English-speaking translator for review. We will re-upload a manuscript that responds to comments and changes and hopes that the revised manuscript will be published in SUSTAINABILITY smoothly.
Reviewer 2.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is an interesting and important area of research. But since it is difficult to get 100% organic vs 100% non-organic fish feed ingredients, the results of these study do not really show the difference in terms of effect on the metabolism (growth, nutrient utilisation) of the fish.
It is a starting piece of research. More refinement is needed in future to define the risks of contaminants in non-organic feeds, how these affect fish health and productivity. Also to show the economic benefit of using the more expensive organic ingredients.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for their suggestions; we agree entirely. Further research are needed to determine these topics and more.
Point 1: The need for more protein sources from organic sources must be ahead.
Response 1: Revised and corrected, line 116. The need for more protein sources from organic sources must be prioritised in research.
Point 2: to generate organic meals with more accurate fatty acids and amino acid profiles.
Response 2: Revised and corrected lines 119. to generate organic meals with nutritionally optimal fatty acids and amino acid profiles.
Point 3: The purpose of this research was to determine more about the effect that organic feeds.
Response 3: Revised and corrected line 120. The purpose of this research was to determine especificaly the effect that organic feeds.
Point 4: have on the growth of gilthead seabream and see how
Response 4: Revised and corrected line 121. have on the growth of gilthead seabream and to see how.
Point 5: affect growth and nutritional and biometric parameters.
Response 5: Revised and corrected lines 122. affect growth, nutritional and biometric parameters.
Point 6: The growth trial was carried out in a recirculating saltwater system (65 m3 capacity), with a rotary mechanical filter and a gravity biofilter (about 6 m3), and eighteen cylindrical fiberglass tanks
Response 6: Revised and corrected lines 128-129. The growth trial was carried out in a recirculating saltwater system (65 m3 capacity), with a rotary mechanical filter and a gravity biofilter (about 6 m3), and eighteen cylindrical fiberglass tanks
Point 7: All fish were acclimated to laboratory conditions before the two-week feeding experiment.
Response 7: Revised and corrected lines 141. All fish were acclimated to laboratory conditions two-weeks before the feeding experiment.
Point 8: AQC (6aminoquinolylNhydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate) was used to derivatize amino acids.
Response 8: Revised and corrected line 185. AQC (6aminoquinolylNhydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate) was used 182 to derive the amino acids.
Point 9: It would be good to include the risk of pesticides In nonorganic certified plant-based proteins for fish meals
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion; the suggestion was added, lines 411-417.
Point 10: Conclusion: So, do the results of this study show that there is no advantage to using organic ingredients for feeding fish? So, what is the reason for paying more for organic ingredients? Or does the study need to be better designed to ensure A fair comparison between the same ingredients One is organic, and one is not?
Response 10: Thanks for your comment; we have added text to reinforce the conclusion.
in this study in Table 1, you can see that the prices of the experimental organic diets with by-products are low compared to the control and control organic diets. And also, in Table 4, you can see economic conversion ratio was lowest in TRO, SBS, and MIX diets. The final weight of fish fed with the TRO and SBS diets is close to the control diets, although significantly in weight, their prices are still the lowest.
Point 11: Since it's a treatment we're not 100% organic force ingredients It would be useful in a future study to teach those non-organic ingredients for the presence of chemical contaminants, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, presence of any of these could be used to He made the degree or the percentage of The percentage of non-organic status then the results could be related to demonstrating in into effect and the hypothesis which could be tested in this non-organic ingredient test like pollutant contaminates cause reduced growth and health of the fed fish because this requires metabolic energy to detoxify, which otherwise could be used for more efficient growth.
Response 11: thank you for your comments and suggestions; we agree entirely. it is very useful to consider this in future studies.
To conclude, we thank the reviewers for their comments/suggestions, as they allowed us to improve the manuscript significantly.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
My comment on the paper as follow:
Title: organic is general term. Please be specific
Abstract:
Please provide full name of TRO, SBS, POU and MIX
Introduction:
Too many paragraphs. Please combine small paragraph
Materials and methods
Please provide references in each section
If possible provide blood analysis to enhance quality of paper
Additional gene expression can strengthen the findings of the study
Results
Authors able to present the study findings clearly
Disscussion
Accepted
References
Please make sure 80% of references are within 5 years
Overall need to proofread
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Editor
We have carefully read the reviewers’ comments regarding the manuscript recently submitted to Fishes," Effects of Organic Feed on Growth Performance, Biometric Indices, and Nutrient Retention of Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata).” Below we respond to each of the suggestions by the reviewers. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised in response to the reviewers' suggestions. The revised manuscript has been provided to a native English-speaking translator for review. We will re-upload a manuscript that responds to comments and changes and hopes that the revised manuscript will be published in SUSTAINABILITY smoothly.
Reviewer 3.
Point 1: Title: organic is general term. Please be specific.
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewers’ suggestions; we added the word (Eco-organic ) for more clarity and specificity.
Abstract:
Point 2: Please provide full name of TRO, SBS, POU and MIX.
Response 2: Revised and added lines 16
Introduction:
Point 3: Too many paragraphs. Please combine small paragraph.
Response 2: Revised and combined in 4 paragraphs.
Materials and methods
Point 4: Please provide references in each section
Response 2: Revised and provided refrences in each sectuion.
Point 5: If possible provide blood analysis to enhance quality of paper.
Response 2: unfortunately, we did not have the blood analysis for this study.
Point 6: Additional gene expression can strengthen the findings of the study.
Response 2: unfortunately, we did not have the gene expression analysis for this study.
References
Point 7: Please make sure 80% of references are within 5 yearshalver
Response 2: Revised, and we have updated as many references as possible, like Halver et al. 1980, Steffens et al. 1997, Hardy 1987, etc. For example, reference numbers 45, 49,50, 51, and 55.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 8: Overall need to proofread
A native English-speaking translator has reviewed this manuscript to ensure the integrity of grammar and wording. I hope that the revised manuscript can be successfully published in SUSTAINABILITY.
To conclude, we thank the reviewers for their comments/suggestions, as they allowed us to improve the manuscript considerably.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors really do a good study but I have some issues raised in the manuscript. Please find my comments in attached PDF. Suggested for major revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Dear Editor
We have carefully read the reviewers’ comments regarding the manuscript recently submitted to Fishes," Effects of Organic Feed on Growth Performance, Biometric Indices, and Nutrient Retention of Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata).” Below we respond to each of the suggestions by the reviewers. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised in response to the reviewers' suggestions. The revised manuscript has been provided to a native English-speaking translator for review. We will re-upload a manuscript that responds to comments and changes and hopes that the revised manuscript will be published in SUSTAINABILITY smoothly.
Reviewer 4.
Point 1: key words.
Response 1: Revised and corrected, line 28.
Point 2: Introduction
Response 2: Revised throughout the introduction. And you can see it in the manuscript.
Point 3: However, Transformed Animal Proteins (TAPs) can be used, and TAPs of organic origin would be considered organic.
Response 3: Revised and added reference line 87.
Point 4: The growth trial was carried out in a recirculating saltwater system (65 m3 capacity), 127 with a rotary mechanical filter and a gravity biofilter (about 6 m3), and eighteen cylindri- 128 cal fiberglass tanks (1750 L, three per treatment).
Response 4: Revised and corrected lines 125-126.
Point 5: From Monday to Saturday, fish were hand-fed twice daily (9:00 and 17:00 h.).
Response 5: Revised and added lines 149. The fish remain starved on Sunday.
Point 6: The specific growth rate (SGR), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), Economic conversion ratio (ECR), survival (S), productive protein value (PPV), and productive fat value (PPV)were all determined, with consideration given to the monthly biomass reports of any deceased fish.
Response 6: Revised and added the reference, line 224.
Point 7: Results
Response 7: Throughout the results section, all the results are explained in terms of statical significance. (p<0.05) or (p>0.05)
Point 8: the discussion, explain it more precisely. However, the growth results can be explained in the same way as in the ORG diet, the nature of the diet since fish protein has an amino acid profile closer to the nutritional needs of the fish. An adequate theory about the differences between the control diet and these two diets, SBS and TRO, can be offered because of are remains of this species and may be the availability of protein. The fish from the MIX treatment obtained a lower final weight than that of the organic ingredients with aquaculture proteins TRO and SBS because of the poultry meal in the MIX that was in its composition since this raw material affected the growth of the gilthead seabream and may be the availability of protein. Nevertheless, the lowest final weight was obtained with the POU treatment.
Response 8: This part of the discussion was revised and explained more precisely, lines 424-457. And throughout the discussion section
To conclude, we thank the reviewers for their comments/suggestions, as they allowed us to improve the manuscript significantly.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Congrat
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have modified the manuscript as advised. Thank you for that. The manuscript is now have the merit to be publish in the journal.
