Influence of Supplemental Feeding on Body Condition Score and Reproductive Performance Dynamics in Botosani Karakul Sheep
and Constantin Pascal 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In figure 3. the linear model provided litter information between BSC and female's rate, because the R2 was much too low. That is, the linear model can not support the author's conclusion directly.
2. the conclusion must be improved
Author Response
Honorable reviewer, thank you for taking time in evaluating our contribution. Hereby we attached the punctual answers/improvement, based upon your recommendations:
Recommendation 1: In figure 3. the linear model provided litter information between BSC and female's rate, because the R2 was much too low. That is, the linear model can not support the author's conclusion directly.
Answer: We have better reflect about the way we used the litter information and the females proportion to depict the Body Condition Scores in the chart and indeed, it was not so appropriate to built-up a regression model. Therefore, we switched to the simplified representation of the frequencies in every group, as stacked bars, whose segments represent the proportion of each BCS value in every group and physiological situation (mating - weaning). Thank you indeed!
Recommendation 2: the conclusion must be improved
Answer: we reformulated the conclusions
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There are previous work on the literature regarding the effects of supplementation and reproduction. Authors should acknowledge and clear state the novelty of the present work.
THe manuscript is very difficult to read as the english language need heavy editing.
the experimental design and statistical methods needs to be revised and these would lead to very different results.
I have the main comments in the file, however, due to the deficiencies in the methodologies I have stop reviewing in the results sections.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Honorable reviewer, thank you for taking time in evaluating our contribution. Hereby we attached the punctual answers/improvement, based upon your recommendations:
Recommendation 1: There are previous work on the literature regarding the effects of supplementation and reproduction. Authors should acknowledge and clear state the novelty of the present work.
Answer: We put an explanatory paragraph by the end of Introducing stating the need to run studies on flushing within the peculiar conditions of the regions that was challenged by climatic changes and degradation of natural feed sources, such as meadows, pastures etc.
Recommendation 2: The manuscript is very difficult to read as the english language need heavy editing.
Answer: we checked again the language editing and style, thank you!
Reccommendation 3: the experimental design and statistical methods needs to be revised and these would lead to very different results. I have the main comments in the file, however, due to the deficiencies in the methodologies I have stop reviewing in the results sections.
Answer: we have downloaded the PDF with your comments and addressed them punctually and inserted our own comments in the paper docx sections you indicated. Thank you indeed for your help in advising us to improve the paper!
Concerning the NEM computation: We did not indicate the calculation method to reach the Net Energy for Milk production starting from the Gross energy of diet and following all metabolic outputs because we used the Hybrimin Futter software to formulate the diet versions. The software returns the nutritional value of each diet basing on its feedstuffs proportion of inclusion and on the proximate composition of the ingredients
Concerning data analysis: we detailed the sub-chapter in material and methods. Also, we renounced to compare the reproduction traits that had not replicated standalone values (fecundity, prolificacy etc.). Initially we triplicated the unique value in order to let the software to run the analysis of variance, which was not totally accurate. Thank you for the recommendations!
Concerning Table 2 data: BCS and Live Weight values were improved in L2 vs. L1. For BCS, the ANOVA testing did not discover statistical significance, however, in L2 BCS was improved by 12% to 16% due to supplemental feeding. LW values were found different enough for p<0.01.
Concerning Figure 3: Chart changed in accordance with Reviewer 1 & 2 recommendations, due to the fact that presenting data as regression was not quite accurate, while this new manner depicts the repartition of females to each BCS class. Thank you indeed!
Concerning Table 3 anovas: ANOVA testing was performed just for those BCS classes that comprised enough individual values in both experimental groups (BCS 2.0; BCS 2.5.; BCS 3) and in both assessment moments (mating, weaning) with pregnancy diagnosed positive after 1st mating service. In the other classes, there were not sufficient females to meet the minimal comparison base. Thank you!
Thank you for all recommendations!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to review Body Condition and Reproductive Performances Dynamics in Botosani Karakul Sheep, under the Influence of Supplemental Feeding. The study is interesting in few aspects although limited data has been given. I encourage to add few more tables to provide broader view of the study. English needs to be improved in some place such as ....the amount of lambs in abstract.......and throught the manuscript. Authors have shown the economic effects in the abstract but the results are not there. Most of the statement in the introduction have not been supported by suitable references. Morevoer, the introduction section is over lengthy and should be concise just to mention only related information. The gap in the previous research and the information to fill to this gap. add the following referenece to improve your introducton. The Effects of different levels of sunflower hulls on reproductive performance of yearly ewes fed with pelleted complete diets. Agriculture 11, 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100959
In materials and methods, lngthy weather conditions have been presented, I think they are not needed. Please just give the environmental condition only where the experiment was done.
throughout the paper the authors have written body condition and body condition score. Are these two different words?
The results presented are unnecessirily lengthy.
In discussion part, the results have been rewritten again. They should be short. discussion should be supplmented with suitable references.
Conclusion
is also ambiguous, it should be based on the results and no extra detail should be given
Author Response
Honorable reviewer, thank you for taking time in evaluating our contribution. Hereby we attached the punctual answers/improvement, based upon your recommendations:
Recommendation 1: English needs to be improved in some place such as ....the amount of lambs in abstract.......and throughout the manuscript.
Answer: We run a thorough check of the manuscript and replaced the term amount of by number of… or by something more appropriate as phrasing, in specific contexts.
Recommendation 2: I encourage to add few more tables to provide broader view of the study. Authors have shown the economic effects in the abstract but the results are not there.
Answer: Table 6 was added in results section proving the difference of economic efficacy increasing (more income due to better live weight of lambs in group with supplemental feeding)
Recommendation 3: Moreover, the introduction section is over lengthy and should be concise just to mention only related information. The gap in the previous research and the information to fill to this gap. add the following reference to improve your introduction. The Effects of different levels of sunflower hulls on reproductive performance of yearly ewes fed with pelleted complete diets. Agriculture 11, 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100959
Answer: The introduction has been shortened and the suggested reference was introduced. Thank you indeed!
Recommendation 4: In materials and methods, lngthy weather conditions have been presented, I think they are not needed. Please just give the environmental condition only where the experiment was done.
Answer: some of the phrases were eliminated or shortened
Recommendation 5: throughout the paper the authors have written body condition and body condition score. Are these two different words?
Answer: “Body condition” is the apparent, visible state of body development while the “body condition score” is the numerical value generated from body condition assessment. Throughout the whole paper, we replaced “corporal condition” by “body condition”, to avoid confusion
Recommendation 6: The results presented are unnecessirily lengthy.
Answer: The paraghraphs in results section have been shortened and most of the content have been moved to Discussions.
Recommendation 7: In discussion part, the results have been rewritten again. They should be short. discussion should be supplmented with suitable references.
Answer: we have moved many paragraphs from Results to Discussion chapter, in order to avoid redundancy.
Recommendation 8: Conclusion. Is also ambiguous, it should be based on the results and no extra detail should be given
Answer: we reformulated the conclusions
Thank you indeed for all your valuable suggestions!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Body Condition and Reproductive Performances Dynamics in Botosani Karakul Sheep, under the Influence of Supplemental Feeding
The authors have made a significant effort to improve the manuscript.
However, there are several aspects related to the statistical analysis which remain to be clarified in methodology and accordingly in results and discussion.
In addition, I recommend the discussion be shortened, it must be clear, sharp, and to the point, as the current work is mainly validation of supplementary feeding in sheep (although a different breed).
Also, the standard/quality of the writing style remains to be greatly improved. I recommend again using a professional service to help with improving the overall style of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Honorable reviewer, thank you again for the professional manner applied in evaluating our contribution.
We have complied with your recommendations and removed the p values and significance superscripts from tables and from body text for those traits that were calculated without replications (such as ratios of live weight/mother ewe or reproductive traits). Indeed, the manner in which the statistics were computed created some biases. Thank you!
We shortened the discussions and improved the English language as spelling, vocabulary and style.
Thank you indeed for your help!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
