Microbiological Assessment of Broiler Compound Feed Production as Part of the Food Chain—A Case Study in a Romanian Feed Mill
, Daniel Simeanu, Cristina-Gabriela Radu-Rusu, Roxana Zaharia and Ioan Mircea Pop *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. There are many similar expressions in the article, like “151.09×101” and “0.1× 105”, Why not use “1.5×103” and “1.0×104” instead .
2. Line 45: “impairment” should be corrected to “impairing”.
3. Line 72: “ Avian colibacillosisis” should be corrected to “Avian colibacillosis is”.
4. Line 103, line 120 and line 137: The format of the subtitle should be consistent with the following chapters.
5. Table 1: The number of significant digits involved in the table should be uniform, some are one significant digit, some are two significant digits, for example “6.4×102” and “74.28×101”.
In general, this is a huge and meaningful study. The monitoring and analysis of microbial pollutants in feed factory raw materials and broiler compound feed will help to control and prevent pollution and have a direct impact on food safety, animal and human health. The discussion is in-depth and comprehensive, but there are still some details in the article that need to be modified.
Author Response
Point 1: There are many similar expressions in the article, like “151.09×101” and “0.1× 105”, Why not use “1.5×103” and “1.0×104” instead .
Response 1: Honorable reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking time in analysing our manuscript and providing useful recommendations to improve it. Hereby there are the answers to your suggestions, some of them marked in the manuscript and commented on whenever necessary. Thank you for your suggestion to modify expressions like “151.09×101” and “0.1×105”; we adjusted as recommended.
Point 2: Line 45: “impairment” should be corrected to “impairing”.
Response 2: Solved. Thank you!
Point 3: Line 72: “Avian colibacillosisis” should be corrected to “Avian colibacillosis is”.
Response 3: Solved, thank you!
Point 4: Line 103, line 120 and line 137: The format of the subtitle should be consistent with the following chapters.
Response 4: Honorable reviewer, following your suggestion, we have made a more detailed subtitles for “2. Materials and Methods” chapter as foollow: “2.1. Feed samples”, “2.2. Yeasts and molds analysis”, “2.3. Salmonella spp. analysis”, “2.4. Escherichia coli analysis” and “2.5. Clostridium perfringens analysis”. Thank you!
Point 5: Table 1: The number of significant digits involved in the table should be uniform, some are one significant digit, some are two significant digits, for example “6.4×102” and “74.28×101”.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We proceeded to the uniform writing with one significant digit. Thank you!
Honorable reviewer! Thank you very much for all the suggestions, which the improvement of the manuscript would not have been possible!
King regards,
The team of authors of the manuscript!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The study is limited to a few analysis. However, it has some useful information that might be useful for the local livestock industry. The study was done about 3 years ago, is the data usable for the industry now?
1- Line 17. Please remove the following statement "Analyses were performed following specific 17 international standards". Leave space for more important statements.
2-Line 19-25. The obtained results should be a bit detailed in the abstract. Also conclusion is unclear. Please revise the lines.
3- Despite the introduction is bit wordy but it provides sufficient information for readers. I would to shorten the introduction if its possible.
4- Line 108-119. Please make them one paragraph, not broken. Also how the samples were selected? I believe the samples selected from a big portion of feed.
There should be a statement/ short paragraph to provide the information.
5- Section 2.2. Used method must be added briefly to the section for all analyzed parameters. Citation alone is insufficient.
6- Lines 185-201. Mostly results than discussion, please avoid repeating the results here except its necessary.
7- Line 214. Why the current results are different from other studies? this needs to be discussed.
8- 4.1. The discussion section is mostly limited to citations and comparing the current results to others rather than discussing them. All differences should be discussed.
9- Please refer to comment 8 for section 4.2. Please revise it accordingly.
Best regards,
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
The study is limited to a few analysis. However, it has some useful information that might be useful for the local livestock industry. The study was done about 3 years ago, is the data usable for the industry now?
Honorable reviewer
Thank you very much for taking time in analyzing our manuscript and providing useful recommendations to improve it. Hereby there are the answers to your suggestions, some of them marked in the manuscript and commented on whenever necessary. Step by step, we tried to respond to all your suggestions and we want to thank you for each one suggestions without which it would not have been possible to improve the manuscript. We consider that even if the study was done about 3 years ago, the data is still usable now because there are organizations from industry who collect data in order to carry out studies and reports on the incidence of hazards in feed in order to undertake strategies to minimize hazards at the beginning of the food chain.
Point 1: Line 17. Please remove the following statement "Analyses were performed following specific 17 international standards". Leave space for more important statements.
Response 1: Thank you... we proceed to comply your recommendations!
Point 2: Line 19-25. The obtained results should be a bit detailed in the abstract. Also conclusion is unclear. Please revise the lines.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion, honorable reviewer. We added a more detailed obtained results and reformulated conclusion in the abstract: "Among the tested samples of raw materials, the mean of yeasts and molds for maize, wheat, soybean and sunflower meal were 1.3×103, 9.5×102, 6.4×102 and 7.4×102 cfu/g in 2019 and 1.5×103, 1.0×103, 5.2×102 and 7.1×102 cfu/g in 2020. In the analyzed compound feed samples, the mean amount for starter, grower and finisher were 5.9×102, 4.2×102 and 4.2×102 cfu/g in 2019 and 5.3×102, 6.5×102 and 5.8×102 cfu/g in 2020. Potentially toxigenic fungi from Aspergillus, Penicillium and Fusarium genera have been identified as the most common in all samples. In raw materials, in both years was recorded the highest number of Aspergillus positive samples, 66.6% in 2019 and 100% in 2020 of the maize samples, 50% in 2019 and 75% in 2020 of the wheat samples, 76% in 2019 and 87.5% in 2020 of the soybean meal samples and 71.4% in 2019 and 100% in 2020 of the sunflower meal. In starter compound feed, Aspergillus genera was prevailing in 2019 (46.6%), while in 2020 year, the species of the Penicillium and Cladosporium genera were identified in the majority of samples (50%); for grower and finisher compound feed, Aspergillus genera was predominantly identified in 2019 (60% respectively 72.2% of samples) and 2020 (61.5% and 46.6%). All results of bacteriological analysis for determining the contamination with Salmonella spp., E. coli and Clostridium perfringens were negative. Based on the obtained results of the study , monitoring and analysis of microbiological hazards in a feed mill will help to control and prevent contamination and have a direct impact on food safety."
Point 3: Despite the introduction is bit wordy but it provides sufficient information for readers. I would to shorten the introduction if its possible.
Response 3: We have shortened the introduction, in accordance with your recommendation. Thank you very much for your suggestion.
Point 4: Line 108-119. Please make them one paragraph, not broken. Also how the samples were selected? I believe the samples selected from a big portion of feed.
There should be a statement/ short paragraph to provide the information.
Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion! We have added a short paragraph about how the samples were selected: "For raw materials analysis were collected elementary samples from 25 points with a manual probe inserted perpendicular to the base of the silo; for compound feed analysis were sampled manually with a trowel 7 elementary samples from batches of 24 tons. All the elementary samples taken constituted the global sample which was divided and homogenized with the centrifugal mechanical divider and resulted the laboratory sample."
Point 5: Section 2.2. Used method must be added briefly to the section for all analyzed parameters. Citation alone is insufficient.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion! We added a used methods briefly.
Point 6: Lines 185-201. Mostly results than discussion, please avoid repeating the results here except its necessary.
Response 6: We have removed the results that were repeated. Thank you!
Point 7: Line 214. Why the current results are different from other studies? this needs to be discussed.
Response 7: We have added a discussion about why our results are different: "Negative results of microbiological analysis (Salmonella spp., E. coli, C. perfringens) both for raw materials and compound feed, maybe it's because feed mill studied has implemented HACCP (Hazard analysis and critical control points) system, which, as specified in Regulation (EC) number 183 of 2005 [43], can facilitate the achievement of a high level of feed safety; this may be a reason why our results are different from other studies." Thank you for your suggestion.
Point 8: 4.1. The discussion section is mostly limited to citations and comparing the current results to others rather than discussing them. All differences should be discussed.
Response 8: We have discussed the difference between our results and others. Thank you!
Point 9: Please refer to comment 8 for section 4.2. Please revise it accordingly.
Response 9: Honorable reviewer, at your recommendation, we discussed the difference between our results and others. Thank you for the suggestion.
Honorable reviewer! Thank you very much for all the suggestions, which the improvement of the manuscript would not have been possible!
King regards,
The team of authors of the manuscript!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be accepted in the current version.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thanks for the revised version. All comments have been addressed.
