Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Male Layer-Type Birds (Lohmann Brown Classic Hybrid) as a meat source for Chicken Pté s" mainly studied the feasibility of using Lohmann Brown Classic Hybrid as meat source for chicken sauce production, and compared the effects of commercial broilers, 5-week-old and 9-week-old male layers on product quality. The results showed that the meat paste made by 5-week-old laying hens had better emulsion stability (lowest precipitation and highest water retention), lower degree of fat oxidation (lowest TBARS value), more stable color change, and softer and more elastic texture. This study provides a sustainable solution to reduce the culling of male laying hens, conforms to the EU animal welfare regulations, and expands the commercial application potential of laying hens by-products, which is helpful to promote the development of poultry industry in the direction of efficient use of resources and ethics. Nevertheless, there are still some problems in this manuscript:

1. In the "Introduction" part, it is said that traditional meat sauce is mainly minced meat and fat, while modern products have two main ingredients: meat and liver. So what is the difference between the three? What are the characteristics of male layers that can be used to produce meat sauce?
2. The data in this paper should be explained. For example, the emulsion stability of chicken will change with different sources of broilers, so what characteristics are suitable or not suitable for chicken during processing? Please give an example.

3.In the manuscript, the physical and chemical properties of the meat quality of male layers are mainly analyzed by instruments, and there is no sensory test by consumers. It is suggested to supplement relevant data.

4. In the "Conclusion" part, it should be explained what problems exist in the application of male layers in meat sauce processing and production at present, and what the future research direction should be.
5. It is suggested that the author point out in the article what are the characteristics of the technology and flavor of meat sauce at present, and what unique advantages can be brought by using male layers?

Author Response

Reviewer: The manuscript titled "Male Layer-Type Birds (Lohmann Brown Classic Hybrid) as a meat source for Chicken Pté s" mainly studied the feasibility of using Lohmann Brown Classic Hybrid as meat source for chicken sauce production, and compared the effects of commercial broilers, 5-week-old and 9-week-old male layers on product quality. The results showed that the meat paste made by 5-week-old laying hens had better emulsion stability (lowest precipitation and highest water retention), lower degree of fat oxidation (lowest TBARS value), more stable color change, and softer and more elastic texture. This study provides a sustainable solution to reduce the culling of male laying hens, conforms to the EU animal welfare regulations, and expands the commercial application potential of laying hens by-products, which is helpful to promote the development of poultry industry in the direction of efficient use of resources and ethics. Nevertheless, there are still some problems in this manuscript:

 

Authors: Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and effort. We are happy to hear your feedback about our work. Below you will find detailed answers to all of your comments as well as a reviewed version of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1: In the "Introduction" part, it is said that traditional meat sauce is mainly minced meat and fat, while modern products have two main ingredients: meat and liver. So what is the difference between the three? What are the characteristics of male layers that can be used to produce meat sauce?

Response 1: Thank you for your remark. Apologies for the misunderstanding. The text “The origins of pâté date back to the Middle Ages, when it was traditionally made from minced meat and fat, suitable for spreading on bread and for direct consumption. Nowadays, despite the variety of recipes, the pâtés are divided into two categories depending on the primary raw material – meat or liver pâtés.” Serves the purpose to introduce the reader to the origin of pate and what it is nowadays. We found information that it was prepared from meat and fat, finely minced and spread on bread, but no recipes. As to the modern pates, they are separated into two groups, both of which consist of meat, fat and liver. Meat pates are predominantly made from meat, while liver pates – from liver. In our experiment, we selected the model of meat pate because the aim was to evaluate the quality of pates produced with meat from male layer-type chickens. It was not suitable to manufacture a liver pate because the meat part in their recipe is around 10-15% (meat is not the main ingredient). Also, the whole “problem” is the utilisation of those male layer-type chickens in a sustainable and cheap way.

Comment 2: The data in this paper should be explained. For example, the emulsion stability of chicken will change with different sources of broilers, so what characteristics are suitable or not suitable for chicken during processing? Please give an example.

Response 2: Thank you for your remark. Yes, there is clear evidence that the emulsion stability of pates was influenced by the meat source. Our results showed that the pastes produced with meat from 5-week-old male layer-type chickens had the greatest emulsion stability. In the discussion section, we hypothesised that this can be due to the variations in the expression of myosin heavy chain isoforms during muscle development, and the fatty acid composition of the meat. According to Doherty et al. [48], the soluble protein composition of chicken skeletal muscle undergoes dynamic changes throughout muscle development, when broilers initiate the expression of adult myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoforms earlier than male layer chickens [49]. We found that the younger chickens are a potential meat source for the production of emulsion-based meat products.

Comment 3: In the manuscript, the physical and chemical properties of the meat quality of male layers are mainly analyzed by instruments, and there is no sensory test by consumers. It is suggested to supplement relevant data.

Response 3: Thank you for your remark. Yes, the manuscript discusses texture, colour, and spreadability as proxies for sensory acceptability, and yes, there is no sensory analysis. We preferred not to perform a subjective analysis, but rather to purely instrumentally investigate the potential of the meat from male layer-type chickens as a viable and high-quality raw material for producing value-added poultry pâtés.

 

Comment 4: In the "Conclusion" part, it should be explained what problems exist in the application of male layers in meat sauce processing and production at present, and what the future research direction should be.

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. There is no problem in the application of male layer type chickens in pate production. In commercial poultry production, male chicks from egg-laying breeds are not utilized for meat production due to their slow growth rates and lack of desirable carcass traits That there was no study that used male layer-type chicken for the production of meat pates, and also, such young individuals. Another thing is that they (the chickens) have become a problem in the recent past with all of the changes in regulation and the ban on culling. Therefore, we study their potential as a meat source and compare them to conventional meat sources.

Comment 5: It is suggested that the author point out in the article what are the characteristics of the technology and flavor of meat sauce at present, and what unique advantages can be brought by using male layers?

Response 5: Thank you for your remark. As I previously mentioned, we did not perform a sensory analysis. I can share with you two of our other studies that evaluate the sensory profile and consumers' acceptance of poultry products from male layer-type chickens.

As to the unique advantage. Products from male laying hens are similar to or better than their conventional counterparts, as well as having added value in terms of ethical standards and humane treatment.

 

1. Dragoev, S.; Balev, D.; Vlahova-Vangelova, D.; Kolev, N.; Popova, T.; Ignatova, M.; Petkov, E. A comparative analysis of cooked smoked cockerel products derived from male layer-type chickens (Lohmann Brown Classic hybrid) and dual-purpose cocks (based on Bresse Gauloise). In BIO Web Conf. 2024, 102, 01001.

https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202410201001

 

2. Petkov, E.; Dimov, K.; Popova, T.; Ignatova, M. Attitude of consumers towards the possibility of avoiding the culling of male layer-type chickens: A survey on the acceptability of the derived meat products. Bulgarian J. Agric. Sci. 2024, 30(1), 101–106. https://www.agrojournal.org/30/01-14.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript investigates the feasibility of utilizing meat from male layer-type chickens for the production of chicken pâtés. The authors compare pâtés formulated with meat from 5- and 9-week-old male layer chickens to those made from CP. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, evaluating emulsion stability, proximate composition, pH, instrumental color, texture profile, lipid oxidation, and fatty acid composition over a 7-day refrigerated storage period. The findings indicate that 5wP pâtés demonstrate superior emulsion stability, lower TBARS, favorable texture attributes, and oxidative resistance, positioning them as a promising alternative for value-added poultry products.

 

The study uses different numbers of carcasses to prepare 10 kg batches each. This disparity could impact statistical validity. Provide justification for the sample size distribution and discuss how biological variation was accounted for.

 

The recipe (section 2.2) lacks detailed description regarding the standardization of fat/protein/moisture across formulations. Include proximate content of raw materials (especially fat/liver) or describe how equivalence was ensured to attribute results solely to meat source.

 

The manuscript mentions one-way and two-way ANOVA, but post-hoc test details (e.g., Tukey’s HSD) are missing.

 

Statements such as “CP exhibited the lowest TBARS” may mislead if differences are not statistically significant. Clearly indicate when differences are significant or non-significant with corresponding p-values.

 

The discussion infers oxidative stability from fatty acid shifts (e.g., PUFA increase in 5wP), which could result from measurement variation rather than real biological trends.

 

Statements such as “resilience and MUFA (r > 1.00)” are not statistically possible (Pearson’s r ≤ 1).

 

The manuscript discusses texture, color, and spreadability as proxies for acceptability without sensory panel validation.

 

The current discussion repeats results rather than integrating them with mechanisms or broader implications. Focus on interpreting why 5wP outperformed other samples—connect with myofibrillar properties, pH impact on protein solubility, or muscle maturity.

 

Reference citations in the introduction and discussion are not formatted uniformly (e.g., [3] vs. “Popova et al. [20]”).

Author Response

Reviewer: The submitted manuscript investigates the feasibility of utilizing meat from male layer-type chickens for the production of chicken pâtés. The authors compare pâtés formulated with meat from 5- and 9-week-old male layer chickens to those made from CP. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, evaluating emulsion stability, proximate composition, pH, instrumental color, texture profile, lipid oxidation, and fatty acid composition over a 7-day refrigerated storage period. The findings indicate that 5wP pâtés demonstrate superior emulsion stability, lower TBARS, favorable texture attributes, and oxidative resistance, positioning them as a promising alternative for value-added poultry products.

Authors: Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and effort. We are happy to hear your feedback about our work. Below you will find detailed answers to all of your comments as well as a reviewed version of the manuscript.

Comment 1: The study uses different numbers of carcasses to prepare 10 kg batches each. This disparity could impact statistical validity. Provide justification for the sample size distribution and discuss how biological variation was accounted for.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We respectfully clarify that the use of different numbers of carcasses to prepare uniform 10 kg batches was intentional and based on the inherent differences in body weight among the three poultry models employed in the study: conventional broilers (control), 5-week-old male layer-type chickens, and 9-week-old male layer-type chickens. These variations in individual carcass weights are biologically expected and reflect the natural growth characteristics of each model.

To ensure comparability across groups, we standardized the final batch weight to 10 kg for each treatment. As described in the manuscript, “the three different poultry meat sources were obtained from whole thawed poultry carcasses, including skin, after undergoing boiling for 1 hour, subsequent cooling, and deboning.” The resulting meat was then processed into pâtés using a consistent formulation across all groups.

This approach allowed us to account for biological variation while maintaining a controlled and uniform basis for comparison. The statistical analyses were conducted on replicated batches to capture within-group variability and ensure the robustness of our findings.

Comment 2: The recipe (section 2.2) lacks detailed description regarding the standardization of fat/protein/moisture across formulations. Include proximate content of raw materials (especially fat/liver) or describe how equivalence was ensured to attribute results solely to meat source.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. All ingredient proportions used in the pâté formulations were based on previously published research and open-access data, ensuring that the recipes were grounded in established scientific knowledge rather than arbitrary selection. As demonstrated by the cited references, the three pâté formulations exhibited comparable proximate compositions, particularly in terms of protein, fat, and moisture content, supporting the consistency of the recipes across the different poultry sources.

We acknowledge that the proximate composition of the raw materials was not individually assessed in this study. However, the final formulations were designed to achieve similar nutritional profiles, thereby minimizing variability attributable to compositional differences among the raw meat sources.

standardization was made based on previous research

33. Guerrero-Legarreta, I. Handbook of Poultry Science and Technology, Volume 2: Secondary Processing; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
34. Kabdylzhar, B. K.; Kakimov, A. K.; Gurinovich, G. V.; Suychinov, A. K. Research of compositions of amino acids, fatty acids, and minerals in meat pate with addition of meat-and-bone paste. Teoriya i Praktika Pererabotki Myasa 2022, 7(1), 66–72.

 

Comment 3: The manuscript mentions one-way and two-way ANOVA, but post-hoc test details (e.g., Tukey’s HSD) are missing.

Response 3: Thank you for your remark. The initial statistical analyses were performed using the Analysis ToolPak of Microsoft Excel Office Professional Plus 2016. To satisfy your suggestion, we did all the statistical analyses from scratch using the PROC GLМ procedure in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Least Square Means were compared using the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test, and differences were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Comment 4: Statements such as “CP exhibited the lowest TBARS” may mislead if differences are not statistically significant. Clearly indicate when differences are significant or non-significant with corresponding p-values.

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. Yes, the TBARS was the lowest in sample CP at the 7^th day of storage, 1.34 ± 0.25, compared to 2.44 ± 0.17 in 5wP and 5.08 ± 0.13 in 9wP, with p-values <0.0001. The difference is significant.

Comment 5: The discussion infers oxidative stability from fatty acid shifts (e.g., PUFA increase in 5wP), which could result from measurement variation rather than real biological trends.

Response 5: Thank you for your remark. We found a mistake. The names of columns in Table 5 were wrong. They were CP 1^st day, CP 7^th day, 5wP 1^st day, 5wP 7^th day, 9wP 1^st day, 9wP 7 day but the results were as follows CP 1^st day, 5wP 1^st day, 9wP 1^st day, CP 7^th day, 5wP 7^th day, 9wP 7^th day. Therefore, all the comments had to be changed. Please check the new table and comments. Thank you! 

Comment 6: Statements such as “resilience and MUFA (r > 1.00)” are not statistically possible (Pearson’s r ≤ 1).

Response 6: Thank you for your remark. The added symbol is a typo. We had it corrected.

Comment 7: The manuscript discusses texture, color, and spreadability as proxies for acceptability without sensory panel validation.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. As correctly noted, the manuscript discusses texture, color, and spreadability as instrumental proxies for sensory acceptability. We acknowledge that no formal sensory analysis was conducted in this study.

Our intention was to objectively assess the technological and quality parameters of meat from male layer-type chickens through instrumental analysis, rather than perform a subjective sensory evaluation. This approach was chosen to ensure reproducibility and to focus on the measurable potential of this underutilized raw material for producing value-added poultry pâtés. Future studies may incorporate sensory panels to further validate consumer acceptability.

Comment 8: The current discussion repeats results rather than integrating them with mechanisms or broader implications. Focus on interpreting why 5wP outperformed other samples—connect with myofibrillar properties, pH impact on protein solubility, or muscle maturity.

Response 8: Thank you for your remark. All of this information is already in the discussion. “Myofibrillar proteins, such as myosin and actin, are the most abundant in poultry muscles and evolve with animal age, influencing protein extractability [47]. According to Doherty et al. [48], the soluble protein composition of chicken skeletal muscle undergoes dynamic changes throughout muscle development, when broilers initiate the expression of adult myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoforms earlier than male layer chickens [49].”

“The observed differences in emulsion stability could be explained by a combination of factors, including the degree of protein denaturation caused by precooking [45,46], variations in the expression of myosin heavy chain isoforms during muscle development [47], and the fatty acid composition of the meat [28].”

“Heat-induced protein denaturation likely impaired the extractability of myofibrillar proteins, while differences in muscle maturation between broilers and male layer chickens influenced the initial functional properties of the tissue. Additionally, a high proportion of saturated fatty acids favours the emulsion formation, whereas high levels of unsaturated fatty acids is associated with reduced emulsion stability, as evidenced by the strong correlations found between TEF and the fatty acid profile: TEF and SFA (r > 0.88), TEF and USFA (r > -0.88), and TEF and PUFA (r > -0.99) [45,46].”

“Meat protein solubility is closely associated with pH, a relationship that is particularly important in processed products such as pâtés, where pH directly influences emulsion stability [26, 50].”

Comment 9: Reference citations in the introduction and discussion are not formatted uniformly (e.g., [3] vs. “Popova et al. [20]”).

Response 9: Thank you for your remark. We checked every citation in the text and all of them correspond to the guidelines of the journal.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting but there are certain issues that need correction.

Why did you use carcasses from 2 different age periods? Please explain. 

Materials and methods: Please write in detail all the methods. Some methods are inadequately described and also you must differentiate the analyses conducted in the emulsion. Information on packaging conditions should also be presented. The storage period should be also explained.

The analysis should be presented in a logical order i.e. nutritional value (proximate composition and fatty acid composition) and physicochemical sensory characteristics also related to eating quality (pH, colour, texture, lipid oxidation, etc).

The examination of the emulsion is a secondary experiment and it should be described in the aim of the study and the title.

Figure 2: Please change to table.The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and  fat.  Please check your data.  What is residue? This could be carbohydrate. But still the total content is approximately 95%. This is very low. According to Greenfield and Southgate the acceptable percentage is within the range 97-103. You cannot use the word residue.

Colour please calculate chroma values.

Please check again Figure 3. What is nan in the horizontal axis?

Please elaborate the discussion and write again the conclusions based on the comments. Please focus on parameters related to consumer related characteristis such as texture, colour, nutritional value and not to pH.

Author Response

Reviewer: The study is interesting but there are certain issues that need correction.

Authors: Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and effort. We are happy to hear your feedback about our work. Below you will find detailed answers to all of your comments as well as a reviewed version of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1: Why did you use carcasses from 2 different age periods? Please explain. 

Response 1: Thank you for your remark. The present study represents a specific component of a broader research project aimed at evaluating the growth performance, meat quality, and potential for incorporation of male layer-type chickens into conventional poultry products.

Regarding the specific slaughter ages of the birds used in this study, these were selected in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, ensuring alignment with current European animal welfare legislation.

For your reference, we have included citations related to the overarching project that contextualize the present study within its broader scientific and regulatory framework. We appreciate your attention to this aspect and welcome any further suggestions.

Petkov, E.; Dimov, K.; Popova, T.; Ignatova, M. Attitude of consumers towards the possibility of avoiding the culling of male layer-type chickens: A survey on the acceptability of the derived meat products. Bulgarian J. Agric. Sci. 2024, 30(1), 101–106.

Popova, T.; Petkov, E.; Ignatova, M.; Vlahova-Vangelova, D.; Balev, D.; Dragoev, S.; ...; Dimov, K. Meat quality of male layer-type chickens slaughtered at different ages. Agriculture 2023a, 13(3), 624.

Popova, T.; Petkov, E.; Ignatova, M.; Dragoev, S.; Vlahova-Vangelova, D.; Balev, D.; Kolev, N. Growth performance, carcass composition, and tenderness of meat in male layer-type chickens slaughtered at different ages. In Proc. Bulgarian Acad. Sci. 2023b, 76(1), 156–164.

Dragoev, S.; Balev, D.; Vlahova-Vangelova, D.; Kolev, N.; Popova, T.; Ignatova, M.; Petkov, E. A comparative analysis of cooked smoked cockerel products derived from male layer-type chickens (Lohmann Brown Classic hybrid) and dual-purpose cocks (based on Bresse Gauloise). In BIO Web Conf. 2024, 102, 01001.

Popova, T.; Petkov, E.; Dimov, K.; Vlahova-Vangelova, D.; Kolev, N.; Balev, D.; ...; Ignatova, M. Performance, carcass composition, and meat quality during frozen storage in male layer-type chickens. Agriculture 2024, 14(2), 185.

 

Comment 2: Materials and methods: Please write in detail all the methods. Some methods are inadequately described and also you must differentiate the analyses conducted in the emulsion. Information on packaging conditions should also be presented. The storage period should be also explained.

Response 2: Thank you for your remark.  All methods except the proximate composition (PC) analyses are described in detail.  The performed PC analyses are referenced and widely used; we didn’t do any modifications, therefore, it is not necessary to describe them in detail. We corrected the titles of the subsections for clear differentiation of the analyses. All of the information about packing and storage is already in text “The emulsions were stuffed into polyamide casings and sealed with metal clips. The pâtés were steam-boiled at 80–85℃ until reaching an internal temperature of 72℃, then cooled with running water and stored under refrigeration at 0-4℃ for up to 7 days.”  The polyamide casings are enough packaging, and nothing more is required. Storage period and condition are well defined.

Comment 3: The analysis should be presented in a logical order i.e. nutritional value (proximate composition and fatty acid composition) and physicochemical sensory characteristics also related to eating quality (pH, colour, texture, lipid oxidation, etc).

Response 3: Thank you for your remark. A correction was made. Now the Results section begins with the emulsion stability and continues with proximate composition, pH, instrumental colour, TPA etc.  Also, the Discussion section has been rearranged to follow the same structure.

 

Comment 4: The examination of the emulsion is a secondary experiment and it should be described in the aim of the study and the title.

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that this is not a secondary or ancillary experiment; rather, it is a primary part of the study. The analysis was conducted using the raw batter prior to stuffing and cooking of the pâtés, as an integral step in evaluating the processing characteristics of the formulations.

While we acknowledge the relevance of emulsion stability in pâté production, it was not the central focus of the current study. Therefore, it is not highlighted in the title, nor do we intend to include it there. Our primary objective was to assess the feasibility of using meat from male layer-type chickens in value-added poultry pâtés through comprehensive physicochemical and instrumental analyses.

Comment 5: Figure 2: Please change to table.The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and  fat.  Please check your data.  What is residue? This could be carbohydrate. But still the total content is approximately 95%. This is very low. According to Greenfield and Southgate the acceptable percentage is within the range 97-103. You cannot use the word residue.

Response 5: Thank you for your remark. We would like to keep the results presented as a Figure. Everything is clear and well presented. “The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and fat.“ is there any written rule about the order of presentation? Residue could be carbohydrates, but we cannot state that as we have not evaluated them. It is calculated to 100%. We got to know the Greenfield and Southgate paper as we understand that the whole proximate composition, including carbohydrates, should be in the range of 97-103%. We evaluated a sum from 95.30 to 96.64% but this is without measuring the carbohydrates. Therefore, it is completely normal to be slightly below the proposed minimum, as we did not include one parameter that is expected to be around 1-6%, depending on the recipe. Here are some references:

Guerrero-Legarreta, I. Handbook of Poultry Science and Technology, Volume 2: Secondary Processing; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

Kabdylzhar, B. K.; Kakimov, A. K.; Gurinovich, G. V.; Suychinov, A. K. Research of compositions of amino acids, fatty acids, and minerals in meat pate with addition of meat-and-bone paste. Teoriya i Praktika Pererabotki Myasa 2022, 7(1), 66–72.

Tonchev, M.; Atanasov, T.; Todorova, A.; Atanasova, T.; Shtrankova, N.; Momchilova, M.; Zsivanovits, G. Sensory and instrumental texture analysis of Bulgarian commercial pates. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 9(3), 251–256.

 

Comment 6: Colour please calculate chroma values.

Response 6: Thank you for your remark. Chroma values are mainly used for raw meat, not for a processed product. We do not think it will give us any additional information.

Comment 7: Please check again Figure 3. What is nan in the horizontal axis?

Response 7: Thank you for your remark. There was an empty row with no data in the initial set of data used to generate the heat map. We removed it and recreated the heat map.

 

Comment 8: Please elaborate the discussion and write again the conclusions based on the comments. Please focus on parameters related to consumer related characteristis such as texture, colour, nutritional value and not to pH.

Response 8: Thank you for your remark. Our conclusion is based on the results and discussion. pH value is a crucial parameter for emulsion-based products such as poultry pates. It can influence the emulsion stability as well as the colour and texture of the products. As you can see, there is no sensory analysis in the study, because it is not consumer-oriented. It is rather purely scientific, try to evaluate the potential of male layer-type chickens as a meat source as well as to highlight the occurring development changes in poultry muscles at different ages.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article  title:

Male Layer-Type Birds (Lohmann Brown Classic Hybrid) as a Meat Source for Chicken Pâtés 

This work effectively highlights a relevant and sustainable issue in the poultry industry. The study is well-structured, presenting a clear comparison between different meat sources for chicken pâtés. It provides specific, statistically supported findings showing that pâtés made from 5-week-old male layer-type chickens (5wP) exhibited superior technological and sensory qualities. The writing is mostly clear. Overall, the work demonstrates practical significance and scientific merit, making a strong case for the commercial use of 5wP meat in value-added products.

   

Abstract:
Only issue is missing the statistical sentence before stating the result. Please add it.

Introduction

The necessity and originality are well explained, however, the Introduction lacks hypothesis. Please add the hypothesis to your introduction before ending the Introduction with the objective. Thank you

 

Results and Discussion

No comments to be given since the outcome are detailed and well-discussed except one point:

- Please remove p values from the discussion section. You already gave the p values in Tables and Results section

 

Conclusion

Well-drawn and ended with a good direction and suggestion.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer: This work effectively highlights a relevant and sustainable issue in the poultry industry. The study is well-structured, presenting a clear comparison between different meat sources for chicken pâtés. It provides specific, statistically supported findings showing that pâtés made from 5-week-old male layer-type chickens (5wP) exhibited superior technological and sensory qualities. The writing is mostly clear. Overall, the work demonstrates practical significance and scientific merit, making a strong case for the commercial use of 5wP meat in value-added products.

Authors: Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and effort. We are happy to hear your feedback about our work. Below you will find detailed answers to all of your comments as well as a reviewed version of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1:  Abstract:
Only issue is missing the statistical sentence before stating the result. Please add it.

Response 1: We accept your remark. Corrections and additions were made.

Comment 2: Introduction

The necessity and originality are well explained, however, the Introduction lacks hypothesis. Please add the hypothesis to your introduction before ending the Introduction with the objective. Thank you

Response 2: We accept your remark. We include the initial hypothesis as a new sentence.

 

Comment 3: Results and Discussion

No comments to be given since the outcome are detailed and well-discussed except one point:

- Please remove p values from the discussion section. You already gave the p values in Tables and Results section

Response 3: Thank you for the remark. All P values are removed from the discussion section.

 

Comment 4: Conclusion

Well-drawn and ended with a good direction and suggestion.

Response 4: Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript can be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Comment 1: The revised manuscript can be accepted in the present form.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your insightful comments and recommendations. We are glad that the revised version meets your expectations. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Comment 1: accept

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your insightful comments and recommendations. We are glad that the revised version meets your expectations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please consider the following.

Comment 1. Why did you use carcasses from 2 different age periods? Please explain. 

You must provide this explanation to the readers of the manuscript and not to the reviewer. Please justify the fact that you used broiler carcasses from 2 different age periods in the text. Do not just add references.

"Regarding the specific slaughter ages of the birds used in this study, these were selected in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, ensuring alignment with current European animal welfare legislation."

Comment 4: The examination of the emulsion is a secondary experiment and it should be described in the aim of the study and the title.

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that this is not a secondary or ancillary experiment; rather, it is a primary part of the study. The analysis was conducted using the raw batter prior to stuffing and cooking of the pâtés, as an integral step in evaluating the processing characteristics of the formulations.

I disagree with this response. I understand that the analyses were conducted in the raw batter but the manuscript is focusing on the quality characteristics of broiler pates and not on the quality characteristics of the emulsions. 

Comment 5: Figure 2: Please change to table.The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and  fat.  Please check your data.  What is residue? This could be carbohydrate. But still the total content is approximately 95%. This is very low. According to Greenfield and Southgate the acceptable percentage is within the range 97-103. You cannot use the word residue.

Response 5: Thank you for your remark. We would like to keep the results presented as a Figure. Everything is clear and well presented. “The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and fat.“ is there any written rule about the order of presentation? Residue could be carbohydrates, but we cannot state that as we have not evaluated them. It is calculated to 100%. We got to know the Greenfield and Southgate paper as we understand that the whole proximate composition, including carbohydrates, should be in the range of 97-103%. We evaluated a sum from 95.30 to 96.64% but this is without measuring the carbohydrates. Therefore, it is completely normal to be slightly below the proposed minimum, as we did not include one parameter that is expected to be around 1-6%, depending on the recipe. 

Even the references you provide present the proximate composition in a table on not in figure. The vast majority of the scientific paper and even information for food composition (USDA food data) present the information in tables and not  figures.  

 "Everything is clear and well presented." The standard errors overlap and thus they are not clear.

"as we did not include one parameter that is expected to be around 1-6%, depending on the recipe."  with all the respect according to product formulation you cannot have 5% carbohydrates. This is the reason that the sum for moisture, ash, protein and fat is very low. 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/2706154/nutrients

is there any written rule about the order of presentation? There may not be a written rule but information from food composition tables, the manuscripts you suggested, many published manuscripts present the data in the order I am suggesting with minor changes regarding ash.

Comment 6: Colour please calculate chroma values.

Response 6: Thank you for your remark. Chroma values are mainly used for raw meat, not for a processed product. We do not think it will give us any additional information.

Chroma values is used in many published manuscripts. Please see below

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=liver+pate+chroma+values&btnG=

The recent guidelines of the American Meat Institute do not differientate between raw and cooked meat.

American Meat Science Association Guidelines for  Meat Color Measurement

doi:10.22175/mmb.12473

Comment 8: Please elaborate the discussion and write again the conclusions based on the comments. Please focus on parameters related to consumer related characteristis such as texture, colour, nutritional value and not to pH.

Response 8: Thank you for your remark. Our conclusion is based on the results and discussion. pH value is a crucial parameter for emulsion-based products such as poultry pates. It can influence the emulsion stability as well as the colour and texture of the products. As you can see, there is no sensory analysis in the study, because it is not consumer-oriented. It is rather purely scientific, try to evaluate the potential of male layer-type chickens as a meat source as well as to highlight the occurring development changes in poultry muscles at different ages.

The fact that there is no sensory analysis does not prohibit elaborated discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language corrections that do improve readability are needed.

Author Response

Reviewer: Dear authors,

Please consider the following.

Comment 1. Why did you use carcasses from 2 different age periods? Please explain. 

You must provide this explanation to the readers of the manuscript and not to the reviewer. Please justify the fact that you used broiler carcasses from 2 different age periods in the text. Do not just add references.

"Regarding the specific slaughter ages of the birds used in this study, these were selected in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, ensuring alignment with current European animal welfare legislation."

New Response 1: Dear reviewer, once again thank you for your comment. First of all, the conventional broilers used in the study serve as a control sample. The two age differentiate male layer-type chickens are the experimental samples. In the beginning of the introduction there is an information about the typical age of broilers on the market “This growth is primarily due to the broilers' rapid growth cycle, allowing them to reach market weight within 5 to 6 weeks, thereby optimizing production efficiency and reducing costs [4].” Following the text, the reader is introduced to the news in EU regulation, ban of culling and alternatives. This gives an idea why the male layer-type chickens are raised. As well as referring to all ready published paper that specifically explain how the rearing is done and discuss on the age-related difference and propose optimal rearing age.

We think that this information is sufficient enough for the readers to understand the concept of the study.

 

Comment 4: The examination of the emulsion is a secondary experiment and it should be described in the aim of the study and the title.

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that this is not a secondary or ancillary experiment; rather, it is a primary part of the study. The analysis was conducted using the raw batter prior to stuffing and cooking of the pâtés, as an integral step in evaluating the processing characteristics of the formulations.

I disagree with this response. I understand that the analyses were conducted in the raw batter but the manuscript is focusing on the quality characteristics of broiler pates and not on the quality characteristics of the emulsions. 

New Response 4: Thank you for your comment. First of all, the emulsion stability is not in the title nor in the aim of the study. On the other hand, we include results in the abstract. Yet we still state that it is a crucial step for poultry products such as pate. Almost all of the properties of pates are majorly influenced by the formed emulsion. If the emulsion is not stable the color will be influence due to release of water of fat, coalescence of droplets, in the same time texture will change and last but not least the speed of oxidative processes can be influenced. Lastly, if you check the methodology for emulsion stability evaluation you will see that there is step of cooking the raw batter to 72℃ for 30min. Therefore, the sample is more similar to the final cooked pate.

Comment 5: Figure 2: Please change to table.The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and  fat.  Please check your data.  What is residue? This could be carbohydrate. But still the total content is approximately 95%. This is very low. According to Greenfield and Southgate the acceptable percentage is within the range 97-103. You cannot use the word residue.

Response 5: Thank you for your remark. We would like to keep the results presented as a Figure. Everything is clear and well presented. “The results should be presented in the following order moisture, ash (not minerals - you use the word ash in materials and methods), protein and fat.“ is there any written rule about the order of presentation? Residue could be carbohydrates, but we cannot state that as we have not evaluated them. It is calculated to 100%. We got to know the Greenfield and Southgate paper as we understand that the whole proximate composition, including carbohydrates, should be in the range of 97-103%. We evaluated a sum from 95.30 to 96.64% but this is without measuring the carbohydrates. Therefore, it is completely normal to be slightly below the proposed minimum, as we did not include one parameter that is expected to be around 1-6%, depending on the recipe. 

Even the references you provide present the proximate composition in a table on not in figure. The vast majority of the scientific paper and even information for food composition (USDA food data) present the information in tables and not  figures.  

 "Everything is clear and well presented." The standard errors overlap and thus they are not clear.

"as we did not include one parameter that is expected to be around 1-6%, depending on the recipe."  with all the respect according to product formulation you cannot have 5% carbohydrates.  This is the reason that the sum for moisture, ash, protein and fat is very low. 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/2706154/nutrients

is there any written rule about the order of presentation? There may not be a written rule but information from food composition tables, the manuscripts you suggested, many published manuscripts present the data in the order I am suggesting with minor changes regarding ash.

New Response 5: Thank you for your insightful remark. As you suggested we swap the figure with table. The proximate composition is presented as you suggest. We see that you are suggesting minor changes in ash content but this mean either fabricating the results or repeating the whole experiment, neither of which is an option. We absolutely refuse the first option, as to the second is not possible, because experiment was done 2 years ago and we do not have any more male layer type chickens. They cannot be both from market, meaning we need to raise them as we did in the initial experiment.

 

Comment 6: Colour please calculate chroma values.

Response 6: Thank you for your remark. Chroma values are mainly used for raw meat, not for a processed product. We do not think it will give us any additional information.

Chroma values is used in many published manuscripts. Please see below

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=liver+pate+chroma+values&btnG=

The recent guidelines of the American Meat Institute do not differientate between raw and cooked meat.

American Meat Science Association Guidelines for  Meat Color Measurement

doi:10.22175/mmb.12473

New Response 6: Dear reviewer thank you for your remark. The papers you’re refereeing to are evaluating the color of liver pates. Our study is on meat pates. There is a huge difference in all characteristics of both types of pates. That’s why we stated it in the title, later on in the introduction we differentiate them and the papers that we are referring to are on meat pates.

The Choma value or Saturation of color is appropriate for liver pates due to the higher concentration of pigments such as hemoglobin and myoglobin.

In the same time “calculated color traits like chroma (saturation index) = (a*² + b*²)^1/2 and hue angle = [arctangent (b*/a*)] are commonly used to evaluate meat color (MacDougall, 1982).” King et al., 2023.  In the same time, almost of the recommendations in the “American Meat Science Association Guidelines for Meat Color Measurement” are for raw meat. 

No Chroma values in papers of:

Kambarova et al., 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.00720

Trindade et al., 2023 - https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12183486

Comment 8: Please elaborate the discussion and write again the conclusions based on the comments. Please focus on parameters related to consumer related characteristis such as texture, colour, nutritional value and not to pH.

Response 8: Thank you for your remark. Our conclusion is based on the results and discussion. pH value is a crucial parameter for emulsion-based products such as poultry pates. It can influence the emulsion stability as well as the colour and texture of the products. As you can see, there is no sensory analysis in the study, because it is not consumer-oriented. It is rather purely scientific, try to evaluate the potential of male layer-type chickens as a meat source as well as to highlight the occurring development changes in poultry muscles at different ages.

The fact that there is no sensory analysis does not prohibit elaborated discussion.

New Response 8: Dear reviewer once again thank you for the comment. Please, carefully read the discussion and conclusion. Both of which are far from what you are stating. They are not based on single parameter such as pH. Each and every results is discussed and serve its place in the final conclusion.