The Effects of Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls on Reproductive Performance of Yearly Ewes Fed with Pelleted Complete Diets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled – " The Effects of Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls on Reproductive Performance of Yearley Ewes Fed with Pelleted complete Diets " is fairly prepared.

Generally, the English need to be improved. There is a major concern in data presentation and some missing information that raise the question of the manuscript that it should be published in the present form. Only if this major concern can be resolved convincingly, a revision could be accepted for reconsideration.

The primary concern arose for the composition of the diet. In Table 1. The composition of the TMR ingredients is missing. From this table, it is impossible to understand that which component of the diet is replaced for the sunflower hulls. Thus, the difference among the Hemicellulose% is way low in S20 among all of the diets (6.96% ). However, the Total fiber% difference is not prominent (21.81%). Please mention the TMR ingredient composition and explain the feed composition in the discussion section properly.

The result and discussion sections need to be rearranged as diet composition, feed intake, body weight, and then reproductive performance. Table 3 needs to be as Table 2 and vice versa.

The details revision needs to be done as follows:

In “Title”:  “The Effects of Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls on Reproductive Performance of Yearley Ewes Fed with Pelleted complete Deits”. The word “Diet” is misspelled.

In "Abstract":

It needs to be rearranged as feed intake, body weight, and then reproductive performance. When I read the abstract, I found so many cursory sentences instead of the final findings. i.e., lines 16 – 18, “Treatment had a significant effect on the daily feed intake (DFI) of the ewes during the late gestation (30 d prepartum) and parturition day, with the S12 and S20 groups having lower feed intakes than the C and S28 groups.” Instead of these superficial words – higher or lower, more or less - the specific results would be a great fit in this regard. How much more or less is the parameter (as %)? What is the highest or lowest content of glucose or NEFA? It would be great to mention the P values when mention significantly differs. In line 19 – “DFI was significantly low during late gestations in comparison with other period.” Please elaborate on the word “DFI” and put “DFI” in the bracket.

An abstract needs to be presented clearly and concisely, which will reveal the most important finding with specific information.

In "Materials & Method":

Line 91-96; Please elaborate on the TMR ingredient composition.

Line 121-128: It would be great to have two references with a brief description for the analyses of glucose and NEFA.

In "Result":

Results are presented in detail; however, it needs to be well organized as mentioned above.

Results should be presented chronologically as diet composition, feed intake, body weight, blood parameters, and then reproductive performance. Blood parameters (glucose and NEFA) results are missing as “Table” or “Figure” form in the manuscript.

In Line 176-178: “Figure 2 shows the effect of feeding different levels of SFH as a source of fiber on Awassi ewe's non-esterified fatty acid (NEFA) level (mg/dl) at late gestation and parturition.” Is Figure 2 shows this result? A Table form of the blood parameters might be a good option.

Please check the superscripts in Table 3.

Line 194-195: [a, b means within a row with different superscript letters significantly differ (group effect); A, B, C Means within a column with different superscript letters significantly differ)]. It looks like that it has some misleading presentation. In “C” row “1.29” and “1.91” both are “A” and “1.46” is “AB”. Is it correct?  

All Tables and Figures would be more assertive with the addition of "n."

In "Discussion":

TMR composition needs to be described properly. It needs to be focused on the differences in the chemical composition due to the TMR ingredient differences.

Some of the citations in the first paragraph of the discussion section are redundant. i.e. Alhidary et al., 2016; Allen and Oba, 1996. Please elaborate on “ peNDF”.  Line 217-219” -“the positive effects of dietary peNDF on DMI and BW, as well as physical filling, but low peNDF content in the diet increased the feed intake and BW of ruminants.” How does it relate to the composition? Bonawitz (2010) citation should go with the effect of lignin (if any in the result of performance).

Please explain this statement clearly –“ Lignin content in the diet of the C, S12, S20, and S28 group (7.37, 6.99, 224 8.88, and 9.07 respectively) this result is explains no significant effect of lignin in S28 group 225 on performance for B.W and F.I, these results are consistent with a report, Simeng Li, 226 (2018), But it does not correspond to the effect of lignin has been reported as an important 227 factor in reducing the digestibility of forage fiber (Jung et al., 1997).”

This statement also so contradictory and unclear –“Moreover, previous 228 studies have reported that the rate of NDF degradation increases with a decrease in the 229 lignin content of the forage (Oliver et al., 2004; Vargas et al., 2008). This result supports 230 that effect of lignin limited on rate of NDF degradation due to the high percentage of 231 hemicelluloses (NDF) about 10.87 for S28. The results revealed that BW at late gestation 232 was significantly higher than the BW at 60-days postpartum and during mating period. 233 This increase in BW during late gestation period is considered logic because of additional 234 weight of fetus, fetal membranes and fetal fluid during late gestation period.”

The citation needs to be focused on the support of the findings of the scientific work.  The scientific work focused on the performances of the ewe in this article. Please discuss the findings of this scientific work with proper citation.   

Line 243-245: “There was no significant effect of different levels of sunflower hulls in total mixed ration on all reproductive parameters except S/C, which was significantly higher in S20 than other groups.” However, the result showed that it was higher in the S28 group (2.00 -in Table 5). Please carefully check the manuscript.

In the discussion, a considerable number of citations were presented. However, the arrangement of the discussion needs to be rephrased according to the results chronicle.

All citations need to be checked carefully in this regard. 

Specific comments:

Please correct the manuscript as follows :

Abstract

Line 16: “…the mating…”

Line 19: “..in comparison with another periods….. “

Line 22: “…in the S20…”

Line 27: “…in the S12…”

Line 27: “…the total…”

Line 28: “…in the late…”

Line 29: “The increasing…”

Line 30: “…of the number of services…”

Introduction

Line  49: “……increase……”

Line 49: “…oilseeds…”

Line 59: “…partial …”

Line 61: “…potentials …”

Line 66: “…reducing feed costs …”

Materials and Methods

Line 86: “…dry matter …”

Line 88: “…at a rate …”

Line 91: “…At the start …”

Line 91: “…, every three replicates …”

Line  110: “…rams at a rate of….”

Line 115: “The number of fetuses was……”

Line 122: “…of the experiment ……..”

Line 124: Is it “vacationer tubes” or  “vacutainer tubes”

Line 132: “.. were..”

Line 136: “…on reproduction performance…”

Line 137: “…every…”

Line 150: “…the mating…”

Results

Line 150: “…the mating…”

Line 155: “…in comparison…”

Line 156: “…to other…”

Line 160: “…except for…”

Line 172: “…significant stages…”

Line 173: “…the glucose…”

Author Response

thanks for your reviewer and comments please find attached a copy of revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The above work is an excellent element to fill the substantive gaps in this subject. The way of presenting the topic together with the described results is an interesting compilation of knowledge on this topic and can be treated as a model for this type of work. the authors' research Abdualrahman H. Alharthi1, Mohsen Alobre1, Mutassim M. Abdelrahman1, Hani H. Al-Baadani1 and Ibrahim A. 5 Alhidary1*and Rifat Ullah Khan2 significantly points to In this study, 84 pregnant ewes were used and randomly and equally distributed to one 12 of the four treatments as follows: C (control), TMR including 0% SFH; S12, total mixed ration (TMR) 13 including 12% SFH; S20, TMR including 20% SFH; and S28, TMR including 28% SFH. The results 14 revealed that body weight (BW) at late gestation was significantly higher than the BW at 60-days 15 postpartum and during mating period. Treatment had a significant effect on the daily feed intake 16 (DFI) of the ewes during the late gestation (30 d prepartum) and parturition day, with the S12 and 17 S20 groups having lower feed intakes than the C and S28 groups. DFI was significantly low during 18 late gestation in comparable with other period. BCS was significantly higher during late gestation 19 comparable other stages. There was no significant effect of different levels of sunflower hulls in 20 TMR on all reproductive parameters except S/C, which was significantly higher in S20 than other 21 groups. The blood serum glucose level was significantly higher in S20 group than C, S12 and S28 22 groups during 30 days postpartum. S20 and S28 groups showed a significant increase in glucose 23 level at parturition in comparison with other reproductive stages. At late gestation, a significantly 24 (P < 0.01) higher concentration of blood NEFA was reported for ewes from the C group compared 25 with other groups. Furthermore, significantly lower (P < 0.05) NEFA levels at parturition were re-26 ported for ewes from the S20 group compared with S12 group. In conclusion, total mixed ration is 27 not preferable to be used alone in late gestation period. Sunflower hull can be used as a cheap source 28 of fiber in TMR without adverse effect on health and reproductive trait of ewes. Increasing level of 29 sunflower hull to 28% can affect fertility and increase of number of service per conception because 30 of its high content of lignin (phytoestrogen). That is why they have my highest appreciation and therefore I am requesting that a given work be allowed to be published in the present form as it is presented

Author Response

thanks for your reviewer and comments please find attached a copy of revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “The Effects of Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls on Reproductive Performance of Yearley Ewes Fed with Pelleted complete Deits”   describe the effects of a diet enriched with increasing doses of sunflower to a pelleted complete deits. The animals used in thi experiment were ewes divided into four groups.  

The results of this study are intriguing and highlight how sunflower can be used as a source of fiber a san alternative to other more expensive foods without negative effects on the reproductive system of animals. 

However sunflower cannot be added in percentages higher than 28% since it can affect the fertility of the animals. 

Minor points 

-I suggest to review english language because many sentences are not clear. For example: 

page 4, lines 131-132; pag 4, line 136; pag 8, lines 224-228 

-pag 3 line 59: "post-partal" correct with "post-partum" 

-pag 3, line 93: please insert the round bracket after "S12" and before"TMR" 

-the reference to "table 1" is missing in the text 

-tables 4 and 6 are missing 

-pag 8 line 238: please correct "in comparable" with "not comparable" 

The references in the text must be indicated by a number between squre brackets. The number of each references indicates the order of appearance. 

Please, pay attention to how references are written. 

Author Response

thanks for your reviewer and comments please find attached a copy of revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please add the references [23; 24] in an appropriate form (Name & year instead of the serial number) at the end of line 131 (Section 2.5 Blood Samples Collection and Analysis). Please check the references serial and correct according to the format of the journal. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

Thanks for your comments and we have corrected the manuscript as per your request 

Please add the references [23; 24] in an appropriate form (Name & year instead of the serial number) at the end of line 131 (Section 2.5 Blood Samples Collection and Analysis). Please check the references serial and correct according to the format of the journal. 

responses:

the references 23 and 24 have been modified