Review Reports
- Jan Plut1,
- Tomaž Snoj2 and
- Irena Golinar Oven1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Renata Relic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I find the idea of this research interesting and potentially useful. However, it would be good if you found a way to correlate the resulting welfare scores with the measured cortisol levels. When the conclusion is taken into account, the title of the paper is not adequate because it points to something else.
In several places, there are very long sentences whose segments are separated by commas or semicolons. This makes them difficult to read and understand and should be revised. In addition, several methodological details need to be better explained or revised. It is especially important to explain how blood and oral fluid samples were taken and compared in the same animal (without the existence of a control group).
The attached document contains suggestions on how to improve the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript looks better now, thank you for accepting suggestions.