Next Article in Journal
Presence of Anaplasma spp. and Their Associated Antibodies in the Swedish Goat Population
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Citrus Pellet on Extrusion Parameters, Kibble Macrostructure, Starch Cooking and In Vitro Digestibility of Dog Foods
Previous Article in Journal
Diet-Independent Positive Effects of a Multi-Species Probiotic on the Growth Performance and Resistance against Vibrio parahaemolyticus in White Leg Shrimp
Previous Article in Special Issue
Requirements and Metabolism for Calcium, Phosphorus and Vitamin D3 in the Growing–Furring Blue Foxes
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Diet Composition and Using Probiotics or Symbiotics Can Modify the Urinary and Faecal Nitrogen Ratio of Broiler Chicken’s Excreta and Also the Dynamics of In Vitro Ammonia Emission

Animals 2023, 13(3), 332; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030332
by Nikoletta Such 1, Ákos Mezőlaki 2, Mohamed Ali Rawash 1,3, Kesete Goitom Tewelde 1, László Pál 1, László Wágner 1, Kornél Schermann 1, Judit Poór 4 and Károly Dublecz 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Animals 2023, 13(3), 332; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030332
Submission received: 11 November 2022 / Revised: 7 January 2023 / Accepted: 12 January 2023 / Published: 17 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Impact of Feed Technologies in Animal Production)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aims to evaluate the effect of diet composition and probiotics or symbiotics on the urinary and faecal nitrogen ratio of broiler chicken’s excreta and also the dynamics of in vitro ammonia emission. Although the subject is interesting the data presented is very limited and does not allow solid conclusions.

My main concern is sample collection. It was exclusively done at the end of the experiment in a single day. At least a three-day collection should be desirable to guaranty the results are representative.

No data of mortality and productive parameters of the animals during the experiment is given. Performance data would be very useful to make a better discussion of the results.

The wheat based diet it is indicated to have a higher content of soluble fiber but no analysis have been provided

The discussion is very poor and in many aspects completely speculative. No conclusions are given.

Overall, this paper, as it is presented now, does not significantly contribute to the advance of knowledge

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors conducted interesting research. Unfortunately, there are some errors that need to be corrected. The experimental group as positive and negative control is missing. all noted in the publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It is acceptable now, with minor changes

Table 3.... At the top:  Feed intake Cum. instead of Feed intake cumulative. Variable; feed convertion ratio (FCR) should be described below with the unit, kg of feed/kg of meat??

The Reference section has format problems, some references (32-42) moved to the left.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors introduced a lot of corrections, which improved the readability of the publication. However, no explanation was obtained on what basis the measurement of ammonia in 1000 ml of air is estimated, how it was determined that it is such a value. Is this based on the manufacturer's data or did the authors install a flowmeter? It also proposes to update items 12 and additionally introduce the following more recent publication from 2016: Łukasz Wlazło et al . Removal of ammonia from poultry manure by aluminosilicates. J. Environ. Manag. 2016,Vol 183 , 722-725, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.028

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

thank you for all the explanations,

Back to TopTop