Review Reports - Assessment of the Physiological Values and the Reference Histological Profile Related to Sex Steroids in Veal Calves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to manuscript title: Assessment of the physiological values and the reference histo-2 logical profile related to sex steroids in veal calves

Abstract. The main aim requires major description. Did authors propose to confirm physiological and histology of sex parameters without treatment, isn´t? but the main method citied in methodology section was not described here but it was described into the keywords, I think that it should be included

General:

- Review references and include doi

- Review abbreviation, this point is too important

Methodology

Line 152. Line 152. Following the time line. Eight blood and tissue samples were collected, but were they analysed from each calve or per group? Was the linearity? Sorry I misunderstood

Line 161. MRM meaning was reaction meaning? Table 1 should include major description of abbreviation

Lines 168-169. Has the capital letter “B” a meaning? Linearity?

Line 170. Authors mentioned followed the Commission 2002 to validate the present method, but I wonder if there is a web-link that can be included, or reference, etc., some important MS details could be included if authors are performance a validation

Results:

Lines 216 - 219. Important information, but data/result was missing. Authors could include data indicating were suitable measures to determine sex hormone. This section seems part of discussion. My suggestion is adding relevant results (data) and also, authors can include this information in discussion section.

Table 2. Some data were in the limit, but suddenly they decreased, interesting. Perhaps the host genetic or husbandry procedure?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for your helpful comments and the careful review of our paper.

We answered to all comments are addressed point–by-point, bolded and tracked in the text.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention. 

Best regards

The corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

I consider that this is a valuable document because it contributes to detect changes in meat quality, growth promoting practices, and in the application of current standards for this country. The article is well structured, and it is quite understandable. In order to improve it, I have written some suggestions below, that I hope that could be useful for the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf