A Non-Invasive Sound Technology to Monitor Rumen Contractions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Animals 1837302
A non invasive sound technology to monitor rumen contractions
This is a well-written technical note, only a few recommendations are made.
The biggest concern is the lack of sample size (3) with no replication which is noted as a limiting factor. It is noted that the Curo MkII was used only once per cow for 20 min (L111-112), is this correct? Was there a reason why this was not extrapolated out for a longer period? I also understand that this is potentially commercially sensitive data (L289-291) and there was no funding provided (L280). This manuscript can be recommended for publication as it is a technical note and is novel enough for consideration in spite of the lack of sample size.
L250 states that the authors aim to move to an entire herd over a complete lactating period – this is a big jump from the present study which is only 3 cows for a total of 20 minutes
A bit confused also of the range – it says 40 metres for Bluetooth but then “anywhere around the world”, what is the remote link and how does it work?
Minor comments:
L61-62 – a bit confused by this, the technology has the objective of automation and provide clues on ruminal movement dynamics but there is a challenge of monitoring systems? The monitoring systems should be an advantage, what is the challenge to obtain this real-time data?
L79 – change “To this end” to “In the present technical note,”
L90 – how old was cow #1, was she a heifer?
L97 – change “dry” to “dry and pregnant” as per L225. Add “These two” before animals
L100 – put grass silage before maize silage and put space between % and DM
L101 – put space between % and DM
L103 – after “kg of DM”, add “, and for dry cows based on 9.1 kg,”
L104 – remove the final sentence
L106 – add “the” before solid black
L128 – no need for capital w for world
Figure 3 – put the right panel in the middle as it flows better
L155 – change “subject” to “animal”
L157 – were these licks and tail movements observed during the 20 minutes of experimentation?
L170 – put comma after (234-239 Hz)
L173 – change “with-it” to “with it,”
L177-180 – these sentences starting from “Note that” can be removed as they were mentioned in the text
L184 - change “trace” to “panel”
L188 - change “trace” to “panel”
Figure 5 – it may benefit to label the two panels as “Cow #2” (Left 1) and “Cow #3” (Right 1), the left and right names are a bit confusing
L222 – change “Co.” to “County”
L224 – is this paragraph comparing two non-lactating cows from different breeds? It may be worth mentioning Cow 3’s diet
L252 – change “a dry cow” to “two Red Danish cows, one dry” as this compares the same breed at two different stages of lactation
L265 – put in vivo in italics
L266 – put “and” between function and health and add comma after health
L269 – remove “the”
References – only half of these show DOI and there are differences in “volume: pages” or “volume, pages”
Reference 2 – remove “New York State College Of, A., Life, S. & Department of M.” and move “Ithaca, NY” to the end
L298 – put 1984 in brackets
Reference 6 appears to be in a different format from the rest
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Animals 1837302
A non invasive sound technology to monitor rumen contractions
This is a well-written technical note, only a few recommendations are made.
The biggest concern is the lack of sample size (3) with no replication which is noted as a limiting factor. It is noted that the Curo MkII was used only once per cow for 20 min (L111-112), is this correct? Was there a reason why this was not extrapolated out for a longer period?
Authors: this time frame allowed us to record rumen movements and probe that the system works and can detect sounds and frequencies. Future work should have longer periods to assess other type of activities from the animal.
I also understand that this is potentially commercially sensitive data (L289-291) and there was no funding provided (L280).
Authors: yes, we have sent a letter to the Editorial explaining this conflict of interest
This manuscript can be recommended for publication as it is a technical note and is novel enough for consideration in spite of the lack of sample size.
Authors: thank you for your suggestions, all were considered
L250 states that the authors aim to move to an entire herd over a complete lactating period – this is a big jump from the present study which is only 3 cows for a total of 20 minutes
Authors: yes, after this technical note we are planning to apply for some funding – let us hope for the best outcomes…
A bit confused also of the range – it says 40 metres for Bluetooth but then “anywhere around the world”, what is the remote link and how does it work?
ANSWER: With regards to the range, the CURO units can both work as Bluetooth, and SIM card linked, where using Bluetooth the range is approx. 40 meters, but when coupled to a smart phone with a SIM card, the data can be sent anywhere around the globe.
CHANGE: None made, as we feel that lines 125-128 explain this.
Minor comments:
L61-62 – a bit confused by this, the technology has the objective of automation and provide clues on ruminal movement dynamics but there is a challenge of monitoring systems? The monitoring systems should be an advantage, what is the challenge to obtain this real-time data?
Authors: for clarity, this has been re written, see line 61
L79 – change “To this end” to “In the present technical note,”
Authors: changed as suggested, see lines 80-81
L90 – how old was cow #1, was she a heifer?
Authors: this was changed to heifer, see line 92
L97 – change “dry” to “dry and pregnant” as per L225. Add “These two” before animals
Authors: this was changed as suggested, see lines 98
L100 – put grass silage before maize silage and put space between % and DM
Authors: this was changed as suggested, see lines 101
L101 – put space between % and DM
Authors: this was changed as suggested, see lines 102
L103 – after “kg of DM”, add “, and for dry cows based on 9.1 kg,”
Authors: this was changed as suggested, see lines 104-105
L104 – remove the final sentence
Authors: sentence was deleted as suggested
L106 – add “the” before solid black
Authors: due to copyrights, this figure was deleted, and some text was added instead, see lines 76-80
L128 – no need for capital w for world
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 125
Figure 3 – put the right panel in the middle as it flows better
Authors: changed as suggested
L155 – change “subject” to “animal”
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 150
L157 – were these licks and tail movements observed during the 20 minutes of experimentation?
Authors: yes, they were occasional during those 20 min
L170 – put comma after (234-239 Hz)
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 165
L173 – change “with-it” to “with it,”
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 167
L177-180 – these sentences starting from “Note that” can be removed as they were mentioned in the text
Authors: deleted as suggested
L184 - change “trace” to “panel”
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 176
L188 - change “trace” to “panel”
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 180
Figure 5 – it may benefit to label the two panels as “Cow #2” (Left 1) and “Cow #3” (Right 1), the left and right names are a bit confusing
Authors: changed as suggested, see lines 183-184
L222 – change “Co.” to “County”
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 214
L224 – is this paragraph comparing two non-lactating cows from different breeds? It may be worth mentioning Cow 3’s diet
Authors: changed as suggested, see lines 217-218
L252 – change “a dry cow” to “two Red Danish cows, one dry” as this compares the same breed at two different stages of lactation
Authors: changed as suggested, see lines 244-245
L265 – put in vivo in italics
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 258
L266 – put “and” between function and health and add comma after health
Authors: changed as suggested, see line 259
L269 – remove “the”
Authors: removed as suggested
References – only half of these show DOI and there are differences in “volume: pages” or “volume, pages”
Authors: all references were revised and changed to the journal’s format
Reference 2 – remove “New York State College Of, A., Life, S. & Department of M.” and move “Ithaca, NY” to the end
Authors: changed as suggested
L298 – put 1984 in brackets
Authors: according to the journal’s format, publication year does not have brackets
Reference 6 appears to be in a different format from the rest
Authors: changed as suggested
Additionally:
Authors: Regarding figure 1.
This figure has been removed and the following text added to the manuscript “Earlier, Wynn and colleagues [7] were able to record sound waves of ruminal contractions by standing in person alongside a ruminant with a stethoscope connected to a sound recorder. Wynn and colleagues [7] indicated ruminal contractions with solid black diamond symbols, from a recording made most likely soon after feeding, if not whilst the animal was being fed”.
The remaining figures have now been re-numbered such that Figure 2 is now Figure 1 etc.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The technical report showed that high-quality rumen sound waves were recorded by wireless devices to distinguish the rumen contraction of cows in different production states and physiological stages. This method has the advantages of lossless and real-time, and is more advanced than traditional methods. In terms of structure, the article is relatively complete and the discussion is substantial, but the results are not very significant. It is more a prospect for the future, and does not reflect obvious laws, such as how the acoustic signal corresponds to the physiological state or health state. In the conclusion part, the author points out that machine learning method can be used to process data, which is correct. You can refer to this literature: Zhang, M., Feng, H., Tomka, J., Polovka, M., Ma, R., & Zhang, X. (2021). Predicting of mutton sheep stress coupled with multi-environment sensing and supervised learning network in the transportation process. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190, 106422. Finally, please improve the clarity of the picture, at least 300dpi
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The technical report showed that high-quality rumen sound waves were recorded by wireless devices to distinguish the rumen contraction of cows in different production states and physiological stages. This method has the advantages of lossless and real-time, and is more advanced than traditional methods. In terms of structure, the article is relatively complete and the discussion is substantial, but the results are not very significant. It is more a prospect for the future, and does not reflect obvious laws, such as how the acoustic signal corresponds to the physiological state or health state. In the conclusion part, the author points out that machine learning method can be used to process data, which is correct. You can refer to this literature: Zhang, M., Feng, H., Tomka, J., Polovka, M., Ma, R., & Zhang, X. (2021). Predicting of mutton sheep stress coupled with multi-environment sensing and supervised learning network in the transportation process. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190, 106422. Finally, please improve the clarity of the picture, at least 300dpi
Authors: reference was added, and pictures were revised for definition
Additionally:
Authors: Regarding figure 1.
This figure has been removed and the following text added to the manuscript “Earlier, Wynn and colleagues [7] were able to record sound waves of ruminal contractions by standing in person alongside a ruminant with a stethoscope connected to a sound recorder. Wynn and colleagues [7] indicated ruminal contractions with solid black diamond symbols, from a recording made most likely soon after feeding, if not whilst the animal was being fed”.
The remaining figures have now been re-numbered such that Figure 2 is now Figure 1 etc.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is much improved. The minor comments below, once addressed, will mean that the manuscript is ready for publication.
Some very minor comments:
L79 – remove “with solid black diamond symbols,”
L80 – Wynn et al. [7] says that the recording was generally made before feeding
L103 – put space between % and DM
L144 – swap “middle” and “right”
L150 – change “subject” to “animal”
L152 – remove “indeed”
L158 – this should be Figure 1 (not Figure 3)
L167 – put comma after “with it”
L289 – remove “1984”
L291 – make 1984 bold
L307 – remove brackets from around 1984
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript is much improved. The minor comments below, once addressed, will mean that the manuscript is ready for publication.
Some very minor comments:
L79 – remove “with solid black diamond symbols,”
AUTHORS: removed as suggested, see line 79
L80 – Wynn et al. [7] says that the recording was generally made before feeding
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 79
L103 – put space between % and DM
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 103
L144 – swap “middle” and “right”
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 144
L150 – change “subject” to “animal”
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 150
L152 – remove “indeed”
AUTHORS: removed as suggested, see line 152
L158 – this should be Figure 1 (not Figure 3)
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 158
L167 – put comma after “with it”
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 167
L289 – remove “1984”
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 289
L291 – make 1984 bold
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 291
L307 – remove brackets from around 1984
AUTHORS: changed as suggested, see line 307
Author Response File: Author Response.docx