The Beneficial Dietary Effect of Dried Olive Pulp on Some Nutritional Characteristics of Eggs Produced by Mid- and Late-Laying Hens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research was presented well however, it needs some modifications, including standardizing the writing of a significant level throughout the manuscript.

- The abstract must be reformulated to include the problem, objects, methods, and most important results.

- It must be clarified at what age the hens were fed OP and how long they were fed OP and took egg samples. Is there a pre-trial period?

 

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Figures can be appropriately cited to reflect the problem, which can be more engaging and enhance the reader's understanding.

2.      There is a large discussion of the influence of chicken age on egg quality in the conclusion and discussion, but it is not highlighted in the title and introduction, and is only mentioned in passing.

3.      The logic of the whole text is confusing, and it should be discussed gradually around the core point of the article.

4.      The amount of data is small, while the data form is single. There are too many words, but the organization is unclear.

5.      Some of the literature cited is not very relevant to the content of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) I would like to offer a suggestion regarding the author's title, which seems somewhat disjointed. Might I propose inserting the term "supplementation" between "olive pulp" and "on" to enhance the logical flow of the title?

(2) it would be beneficial for the author to elucidate the rationale behind selecting two specific periods, namely 39 weeks and 59 weeks, as this choice somewhat obscures the central focus of the paper. Additionally, the data presented later suggest an interaction effect between the introduction of olive pulp and the time periods. Could the author provide an explanation for this observed interaction?

(3) I recommend expanding the introduction to include the experimental hypothesis, which would provide a clearer framework for understanding the study's objectives and methodology.

(4) In the literature cited at line 102, column 40, where do the results specifically diverge from those of the current study?

(5) Regarding the determination of fatty acids, was the external standard method or the internal standard method used? If the latter method was employed, it is imperative to specify the internal standard used, as this detail is critical for the interpretation of the results.

(6) In Table 1, there are three P-values presented; underlining one of them would enhance clarity.

(7) In Table 2, the abbreviation "ND" should be clarified—does it indicate that the substance was undetected or that its content is zero?

(8) I recommend organizing the discussion in the fourth section into sub-sections, such as 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, to improve the logical flow and clarity of the discussion. Additionally, the conclusion section could benefit from brevity; a more concise description would be preferable.

(9) The final sentence of the conclusion requires further consideration. While the author's perspective on obtaining fat is valid, it is important to note that the primary reason for consuming eggs is often to acquire high-quality protein. The author may want to address this point to provide a more comprehensive conclusion.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thanks for this submission in Foods J. The concept of this manuscript is fine. Authors explained well to focus the background of uses olive pulp in egg quality. Please check my below comments...

Introduction part : well described 

L5-51: rewrite the statement

2.2: experimental design: Please provide the replication number in text, and how many birds were considered per replication, also flock size.

2.3: sample eggs were collected on weekly basis? Mention it clearly in text. If so, then how many eggs were selected weekly from each replication?

2.3.1: which part of egg was considered, either only yolk or albumin or mixed. Mention clearly the part of egg sample in text for section 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5

 How and what amount of sample was considered, mention in brief sothat the future researchers can follow your protocols.

 

2.3.5: for which sample? 

Result: 3.1: Please provide all information regarding the table 3.1 and place table just after text information.

 

Where is 3.2?

Make a sub heading for information table 2. From L 319.

 

Table 1: From the mean value of Cholesterol- delete the fraction, also delete fraction from SE value. (example: CON 2487 ±84), make similar for all means.

Consider for table 2 also.

 

Discussion : well discussed, can minimize the content.

Conclusion: A final statement regarding the uses of OP with recommended dosages is needed at end of conclusion.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided a reasonable explanation for my concerns, and I believe it can be accepted now. Good luck!