Next Article in Journal
Molecular Characterization of the Liver-Expressed Antimicrobial Peptide 2 (LEAP2) from Amphiprion ocellaris and Its Role in Antibacterial Immunity
Previous Article in Journal
Soy Protein Isolate-Stachyose Emulsion Gel for the Delivery of Vitamin D3: Effect on the Humoral Immune Response in Dairy Goats Under Heat Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/ani15172589
Review Report
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Non-Specific Effects of Prepartum Vaccination on Uterine Health and Fertility: A Retrospective Study on Periparturient Dairy Cows

Animals 2025, 15(17), 2589; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15172589
by Caroline Kuhn 1,*, Holm Zerbe 1, Hans-Joachim Schuberth 2, Anke Römer 3, Debby Kraatz-van Egmond 4, Claudia Wesenauer 4, Martina Resch 5, Alexander Stoll 5 and Yury Zablotski 1
Reviewer 1:
Patricio Retamal
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Animals 2025, 15(17), 2589; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15172589
Submission received: 15 August 2025 / Revised: 29 August 2025 / Accepted: 2 September 2025 / Published: 3 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Cattle)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is well written and addresses an interesting topic on cattle vaccination, specifically the non-specific effects (NSE) of vaccination during the prepartum period on uterine health and fertility. The study analyzes thousands of records from 20 farms in Germany. The retrospective analysis compares farms that use non-live vaccines against neonatal calf diarrhea with those that do not vaccinate. The statistical methods suggest potential negative NSE associated with non-live vaccines, which is consistent with previous reports.

I have some minor comments that should be considered:

  • Line 62: The first time the acronym NCD appears, its meaning should be included.

  • Lines 86–87: Please revise the wording for clarity.

  • Line 109: Please clarify whether the on-farm survey was applied to all farms.

  • Line 156: E. coli should be italicized. Please correct throughout the text.

  • Line 185: The acronym ECM FTD is not explained anywhere in the text. Please provide clarification.

  

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reviewer accepted the MS after a minor revision. The authors are encouraged to address the comments and concerns made in the attached comments to the authors. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop