The Influence of Colostrum and WPC Preparations on the Quality Physicochemical, Functional and Sensory Parameters of Milk Fermented Drinks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reading the manuscript "The influence of Colostrum and WPC preparations on physico-
chemical, functional and sensory parameters of milk fermented drinks", I realized that the manuscript showed in some parts the scientific rigour wanted, but in other parts I have missed it.
The authors have presented critical evaluation only in some paragraphs. Title, abstract, objective, Material and Methods, results have to be reviewed.
Thats why I have written some suggestions below in an attempt to improve the paper.
L.29- Please, avoid using words that are in your title, same keywords are not helpful for other reserachers.
L.36- The authors mention "European studies" , but the authors are from China, please double check.
L.52- It seems to me very important to insert more details about colostrum consumption in the world. Scientific evidence as bioactive compounds ? Increased consumption ? Health Regulations? Raw/Unpasteurized, Processed ? Ethical Concerns? Safety Advice, i mean allergies and etc.
L.68- "Systematic reviews " but you juts quoted [21], please double check your references.
L.70-The authors bring consumers mentioning the nutritional and functional appeal, but I did not realize the sensory aspect being addressed in the Introduction, which I consider very important as well.
L.80- Again, sensory is not mentioned in your objective, and you have twice funcional. " functional properties and the technological stability of fermented milk beverages,
offering a strategy for developing innovative functional dairy products."
Besides, the objective is not aligned with your title.
L.85- Are you sure this whey protein is just WPC?
L.94- Where were these percentages taken?Why is there no treatment with only colostrum + yogurt and WPC+ yogurt?
L.109 - 127- I missed the authors you followed to perform these analyses.
L.128- Do you really consider that storage and the microbiological part is covered in the title?
Reading the work, I notice that you did more than promised in the title... Authors, please reevaluate.
Another point, only "stability" in the objective includes storage and micro?
L.146- "Re et al. (1999)". Please, follow Journals' rules.
L.148- "Benzie & Strain (1996)". Please, follow Journals' rules.
L.150- For a sensory test a lot of relevant information was not included, I suggest reading papers and improving your article.
Which sensory test was performed? If they were trained, How many sessions were conducted ? What was the profile of the assessors ? How many men/women ? age of the assessors ? Are the assessors usually consumers of this product ? Were the analyses performed in sensory booths ? Did the assessors receive water to rinse the taste buds ? L.152- "in" Check Capital letter. L.158- What about sensory? Please, review. "All experiments were conducted in triplicate (n = 3)" L.164- What about zero day ? Did you consider day 1?I don’t understand. Can it be a bias the work not to have the zero moment ?
L.165- Change commas to periods in Table 1
L.165, L.194 - The tables were misconfigured, I mean the means and standard deviations
L.194- Authors, I am used to working with 2-way analyses, BUT some tables of your paper were polluted and not didactic.
Table 1- You have: Groups x Samples x pH (for e.g) x Time - This is me thinking and trying to help you.
Where can I see the differences of Groups? Figure 1 and 2, right ?
I get the feeling that they don’t show everything they could. Sometimes, less is more. Think about it.
L.221, L.228, L299 , L305- The inner lines of all the figures, at least to me, appear shaky, causing confusion in vision.
L.274- "w" Check capital letter
L.407- Authors, follow American English throughout the work instead of using "colour".
The spider graphics lines are very thick, make them thinner.
Smell (L.151 as well) or odor, check, please.
L.409- Why were the groups chosen for sensory and not the samples?
I found it confusing. Be clear about why this choice was made, but for me it didn’t make sense IF the title is about colostrum and WPC ...
L.414 - Check this sentence. There are so many dots in it. "Sensory evaluation of yogurt samples. as illustrated in Figure 4. revealed notable discrepancies in the sensory attributes. including color. texture. appearance. taste. and overall acceptability. "
L.427- " in studies " You jus quoted 28. You need to review results presentation, discussion and conclusion about sensory. Very confused.
L.437- Several dots in this section as well.
By the way, check the whole paper. I saw many other dots in more paragraphs.
You have many typos in the text. Please correct them.
L.458- How can you conclude this ? Look at the caption in Figure 4.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your insightful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work. Your suggestions have helped us to improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point by point responses to all of your comments. All revisions have been made using the track changes mode and are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. In our responses to the comments below, we also indicate the exact line numbers where the corresponding revisions can be found in the revised manuscript.Początek formularza
Comment 1: L.29- Please, avoid using words that are in your title, same keywords are not helpful for other reserachers.
Response 1: We agree with the reviewer. The keywords have been revised to avoid unnecessary repetition of terms from the title and to improve their scientific relevance and searchability. L29
Comment 2: L.36- The authors mention "European studies" , but the authors are from China, please double check.
Response 2: We have carefully re-checked the cited references. To avoid potential ambiguity regarding the geographic origin of the studies, the term “European studies” has been replaced with “previous studies” in the revised manuscript. L37
Comment 3: L.52- It seems to me very important to insert more details about colostrum consumption in the world. Scientific evidence as bioactive compounds? Increased consumption? Health Regulations? Raw/Unpasteurized, Processed ? Ethical Concerns? Safety Advice, i mean allergies and etc.
Response 3: The manuscript has been revised accordingly. The Introduction has been expanded to include additional information on global colostrum consumption trends, its bioactive composition and functional properties, processing and microbiological safety considerations, and the applicable European Union regulatory framework. Safety aspects related to potential allergic reactions, particularly in infants with cow’s milk allergy, have also been addressed. L52-70
Comment 4: L.68- "Systematic reviews " but you juts quoted [21], please double check your references.
Response 4: The wording has been revised to ensure consistency with the cited reference. L89
Comment 5: L.70-The authors bring consumers mentioning the nutritional and functional appeal, but I did not realize the sensory aspect being addressed in the Introduction, which I consider very important as well.
Response 5: The manuscript has been revised accordingly to include the sensory dimension of functional dairy products. The Introduction now highlights that, alongside nutritional and functional attributes, sensory properties such as flavour, texture, aroma, and overall acceptability are critical determinants of consumer perception and market success. L95-99
Comment 6: L.80- Again, sensory is not mentioned in your objective, and you have twice funcional. " functional properties and the technological stability of fermented milk beverages, offering a strategy for developing innovative functional dairy products." Besides, the objective is not aligned with your title.
Response 6: We agree that the objective section did not fully reflect the scope indicated in the title, particularly regarding the sensory evaluation. Therefore, the objective has been revised to explicitly include the sensory aspect and to ensure full alignment with the title. Additionally, the wording has been refined to eliminate repetition and improve clarity. L107-110
Comment 7: L.85- Are you sure this whey protein is just WPC?
Response 7: The whey protein used in this study was a commercial whey protein concentrate (WPC 80), containing approximately 80% protein, with the remaining fraction consisting of naturally occurring lactose, milk fat, and minerals typical for whey concentrates.
Comment 8: L.94- Where were these percentages taken?Why is there no treatment with only colostrum + yogurt and WPC+ yogurt?
Response 8: The selected percentages were determined based on preliminary trials and previously published studies investigating the use of colostrum or whey protein concentrate individually in fermented dairy products. Since the individual effects of colostrum enriched and WPC enriched yogurts have already been addressed in earlier research, the present study was specifically designed to evaluate their combined application and potential synergistic impact on the quality characteristics of fermented milk beverages.
Comment 9: L.109 - 127- I missed the authors you followed to perform these analyses.
Response 9: Appropriate references supporting the analytical procedures used for pH, titratable acidity, colour, viscosity and syneresis measurements have now been added to the materials and methods section. L142-176
Comment 10: L.128- Do you really consider that storage and the microbiological part is covered in the title? Reading the work, I notice that you did more than promised in the title... Authors, please reevaluate. Another point, only "stability" in the objective includes storage and micro?
Response 10: We respectfully consider that the storage study and microbiological evaluation fall within the scope of product quality and technological stability assessment, which are inherent aspects of fermented milk beverages. In fermented dairy products, microbiological viability and changes during storage are fundamental components of overall product stability and quality. To improve clarity and ensure full consistency between the scope of the study and its presentation, the term “quality” has been added to both the title and the objective. This modification better reflects the comprehensive assessment performed, including physicochemical, microbiological, functional, and sensory parameters during storage. L2, L107-110
Comment 11: L.146- "Re et al. (1999)". Please, follow Journals' rules.
Response 11: The citation format has been revised in accordance with the journal’s referencing style. L179
Comment 12: L.148- "Benzie & Strain (1996)". Please, follow Journals' rules.
Response 12: The citation format has been revised in accordance with the journal’s referencing style. L182
Comment 13: Which sensory test was performed? If they were trained, How many sessions were conducted ? What was the profile of the assessors ? How many men/women ? age of the assessors ? Are the assessors usually consumers of this product ? Were the analyses performed in sensory booths ? Did the assessors receive water to rinse the taste buds ? L.152- "in" Check Capital letter.
Response 13: The materials and methods section has been expanded to provide detailed information about the sensory evaluation. A 5-point hedonic acceptance test was conducted by 10 trained assessors (aged 23–45 years, both male and female), who were regular consumers of fermented dairy products. The evaluation was performed in individual sensory booths under controlled lighting conditions, in accordance with ISO 13299:2016 guidelines. Samples were coded and randomized, and water was provided for palate cleansing between samples. The sentence on L.152 was corrected. L185-194
Comment 14: L.158- What about sensory? Please, review. "All experiments were conducted in triplicate (n = 3)" L.164- What about zero day ? Did you consider day 1? I don’t understand. Can it be a bias the work not to have the zero moment ?
Response 14: The statement “All experiments were conducted in triplicate (n = 3)” was corrected to "Physicochemical, antioxidant activity and microbiological analyses were con-ducted in triplicate (n = 3)". Regarding the absence of day 0 measurements, analyses were initiated on day 1 of storage, corresponding to the first day after fermentation and cooling, when the products reached technological stabilization and were considered ready for evaluation. Therefore, day 1 represents the initial quality stage of the fermented milk products and does not introduce bias in the interpretation of storage-related changes. L199
Comment 15: L.165- Change commas to periods in Table 1
Response 15: The commas have been replaced with periods in Table 1. L213
Comment 16: L.165, L.194 - The tables were misconfigured, I mean the means and standard deviations
Response 16: The tables have been leveled, and the columns have been properly aligned to improve readability. We hope that the revised layout is now clearer and more visually consistent. L113, L247, L358, L454
Comment 17: L.194- Authors, I am used to working with 2-way analyses, BUT some tables of your paper were polluted and not didactic.
Response 17: We acknowledge that the tables may have appeared dense due to the large amount of data generated in this study, particularly in the color analysis, which included multiple formulations, starter culture variants, and storage time points. Our intention was to provide the complete set of results in order to ensure transparency and robustness of the findings. This comprehensive presentation allows readers to observe differences both between starter culture groups and between formulations differing in colostrum and WPC composition, and to compare results systematically across storage time. In response to the Reviewer’s comment, we carefully revised the table formatting and tested alternative layouts. However, in our assessment, some of these alternative formats reduced the clarity of direct comparisons between groups and formulations. Therefore, the revised horizontal arrangement has been retained, as it most clearly facilitates structured comparison and traceability of the data.
Comment 18: Table 1- You have: Groups x Samples x pH (for e.g) x Time - This is me thinking and trying to help you. Where can I see the differences of Groups? Figure 1 and 2, right ? I get the feeling that they don’t show everything they could. Sometimes, less is more. Think about it.
Response 18: The differences between groups (A–D) are presented in Figures 1 and 2, where each group is displayed in a separate panel to facilitate comparison across formulations and storage time. Given the number of variants and time points included in the study, this layout was selected to ensure that all relevant data could be presented clearly and consistently.
Comment 19: L.221, L.228, L299 , L305- The inner lines of all the figures, at least to me, appear shaky, causing confusion in vision.
Response 19: The figures have been carefully reviewed and regenerated to improve graphical quality and visual clarity. L280, L287, L384, L396
Comment 20: L.274- "w" Check capital letter
Response 20: The sentence was intended to be a single statement; therefore, the unnecessary full stop has been corrected and replaced with a comma.
Comment 22: L.407- Authors, follow American English throughout the work instead of using "colour".
Response 22: The manuscript has been carefully revised to ensure consistent use of American English throughout the text
Comment 23: The spider graphics lines are very thick, make them thinner. Smell (L.151 as well) or leveled, check, please.
Response 23: The spider plot lines have been adjusted to improve clarity. Additionally, the terminology has been revised for consistency with American English, and the term has been standardised throughout the manuscript (term “smell” has been replaced with “odor”). L523
Comment 24: L.409- Why were the groups chosen for sensory and not the samples? I found it confusing. Be clear about why this choice was made, but for me it didn’t make sense IF the title is about colostrum and WPC ...
Response 24: The sensory results were intentionally presented separately for each starter culture group (A–D), in line with the graphical presentation adopted for the remaining parameters (e.g., antioxidant activity), to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. Within each group, all four formulations (Samples 1–4), differing in colostrum and WPC content, are shown simultaneously. This structure reflects the experimental design, in which both formulation and starter culture were independent factors. Presenting the data in this way allows a clearer interpretation of the effects of formulation within each microbial variant, while maintaining a structured and coherent comparison across groups.
Comment 25: L.414 - Check this sentence. There are so many dots in it. "Sensory evaluation of yogurt samples. as illustrated in Figure 4. revealed notable discrepancies in the sensory attributes. including color. texture. appearance. taste. and overall acceptability. "
Response 25: The sentence has been corrected, and the punctuation has been revised to ensure proper grammatical structure and clarity.
Comment 26: L.427- " in studies " You jus quoted 28. You need to review results presentation, discussion and conclusion about sensory. Very confused.
Response 26: The phrasing “in studies” has been corrected to accurately reflect the cited reference. In addition, the presentation of sensory results, discussion, and conclusions has been carefully reviewed and revised to improve consistency and clarity. L545
Comment 27: L.437- Several dots in this section as well. By the way, check the whole paper. I saw many other dots in more paragraphs. You have many typos in the text. Please correct them.
Response 27: The manuscript has been checked and edited to remove typographical errors, including the unnecessary dots.
Comment 28: L.458- How can you conclude this? Look at the caption in Figure 4.
Response 28: The sensory conclusion has been revised to better reflect the data presented in Figure 4 and to improve the accuracy of interpretation. The text has been modified to provide a more balanced and precise discussion of the influence of formulation and starter culture on consumer acceptance. L576-589
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: foods-4168514
Type of manuscript: Article
Manuscript Title: The influence of Colostrum and WPC preparations on physico-chemical, functional and sensory parameters of milk fermented drinks.
Comments, suggestions, and recommendations
The authors address a very interesting study with the aim of improving the functional properties of fermented milks, highly appreciated and in demand by consumers in recent years. However, although the topic and data set are valuable, some recommendations should be considered in order to improve the accuracy and validity of the main outcomes obtained.
1) In the Title and in the Abstract section the term ‘fermented milk drinks’ are used to refer the experimental dairy products under study. However, throughout the manuscript the word ‘yoghurt’ is employed to refer them. Strictly, the word yoghurt should only be used in the case of milk fermented by Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus. In this sense, only dairy products in-group C could be called yoghurt. When other microbial strains are included, the term fermented milk could be more appropriate. This should be standardised throughout the manuscript.
2) Materials and Methods section
- Information about the companies that supplied the different ingredients used in the production of the different fermented milk drinks (lines 84-90) should be included in the manuscript, as has been done with the companies providing culture media for microbiological analysis (lines 131-138). The same suggestion applies to the software used in the statistical analysis of the experimental data.
- Statistical analysis: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of including colostrum and WPC, as well as the use of different microbial strains, on the quality characteristics of yogurts and other fermented milk drinks along 14 days of cold storage. However, a two-way ANOVA was applied for statistical analysis. If the evaluation of the quality characteristics of fermented milk drinks over time is important to the authors, as seems to be the case from the way of the results are presented in both tables and figures, the time factor should have been included in the statistical model. The nested effect of trial replicate used as a random factor should also have been included for greater accuracy in assessing the effects of different formulations and strains on the final quality of related dairy products.
Performing an independent ANOVA for each time point (1, 7 or 14 days of cold storage) has some disadvantages, such as the loss of interaction, and the fact that the dependence between samples is ignored. Therefore, a statistical analysis taking into account the three factors considered (formulation: 1, 2, 3, 4; starter: A, B, C, D; and storage time: 1, 7, 14 days) would be more appropriate for achieving the objectives set out in this study.
- Results and Discussion section
-The chemical composition of the four formulations used in this study should be included in the manuscript. The quality characteristics of the experimental yoghurts could be significantly affected by the different concentrations of the main milk components used in the different formulations. In fact, references to the effect of the composition of the formulations to explain changes in colour, rheological properties, syneresis and antioxidant activity of the experimental yoghurts are recurrent throughout the manuscript.
-The text describes the results in detail; however, the discussion could be improved by including some references supporting the main findings and trying to better explain changes in quality characteristics after 7 and 14 days of cold storage. Some behaviours are not sufficiently explained, such as those related to the viscosity and the antioxidant activity of the experimental yoghurts.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your insightful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work. Your suggestions have helped us to improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point by point responses to all of your comments. All revisions have been made using the track changes mode and are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. In our responses to the comments below, we also indicate the exact line numbers where the corresponding revisions can be found in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1: In the Title and in the Abstract section the term ‘fermented milk drinks’ are used to refer the experimental dairy products under study. However, throughout the manuscript the word ‘yoghurt’ is employed to refer them. Strictly, the word yoghurt should only be used in the case of milk fermented by Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus. In this sense, only dairy products in-group C could be called yoghurt. When other microbial strains are included, the term fermented milk could be more appropriate. This should be standardised throughout the manuscript.
Response 1: We agree with the reviewer. Only group C corresponds to yoghurt, while the other groups include additional probiotic strains. The terminology has been standardised throughout the manuscript. The term “fermented milk” is now used consistently for all experimental products, and “yoghurt” is used only where appropriate. The changes have been implemented in the main text.
Comment 2: Information about the companies that supplied the different ingredients used in the production of the different fermented milk drinks (lines 84-90) should be included in the manuscript, as has been done with the companies providing culture media for microbiological analysis (lines 131-138). The same suggestion applies to the software used in the statistical analysis of the experimental data.
Response 2: We agree with the reviewer. The information regarding the companies supplying the ingredients used in the production of fermented milk samples has been completed in the materials and methods section. Additionally, detailed information about the statistical software (R version 4.5.2 and RStudio) as well as Microsoft Excel 365, including manufacturer details, has been specified. L114-122, L202-204
Comment 3: Statistical analysis: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of including colostrum and WPC, as well as the use of different microbial strains, on the quality characteristics of yogurts and other fermented milk drinks along 14 days of cold storage. However, a two-way ANOVA was applied for statistical analysis. If the evaluation of the quality characteristics of fermented milk drinks over time is important to the authors, as seems to be the case from the way of the results are presented in both tables and figures, the time factor should have been included in the statistical model. The nested effect of trial replicate used as a random factor should also have been included for greater accuracy in assessing the effects of different formulations and strains on the final quality of related dairy products. Performing an independent ANOVA for each time point (1, 7 or 14 days of cold storage) has some disadvantages, such as the loss of interaction, and the fact that the dependence between samples is ignored. Therefore, a statistical analysis taking into account the three factors considered (formulation: 1, 2, 3, 4; starter: A, B, C, D; and storage time: 1, 7, 14 days) would be more appropriate for achieving the objectives set out in this study.
Response 3: We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for this detailed and constructive comment. It is acknowledged that incorporating storage time as a factor within a multi factorial model may provide additional information regarding interaction effects. However, the primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the impact of colostrum and whey protein concentrate supplementation, as well as starter culture composition, on quality characteristics at defined stages of refrigerated storage, rather than to model time dependent kinetic interactions. In the context of fermented dairy systems, the evaluation of samples at specific storage points (i.e. Days 1, 7 and 14) is technologically relevant, as these time points correspond to the practical stages of product shelf life and consumer exposure. Consequently, the analytical approach adopted focused on the comparison of formulations and microbial variants within each storage stage, with the objective of determining whether the incorporation of colostrum introduced significant differences in physicochemical and functional quality parameters. This was particularly important in assessing whether the addition of colostrum altered structural stability or product performance under typical storage conditions. Whilst storage stability is an important aspect of fermented milk beverages, in the present study, time was primarily employed as a monitoring parameter to assess product consistency over the declared storage period, rather than as an independent experimental factor aimed at modelling interaction effects. Consequently, separate ANOVA models were employed for each storage day to facilitate clear and technologically meaningful interpretation of the differences between formulations and starter variants. The rationale has now been clarified in the Statistical Analysis section of the revised manuscript. L202-204
Comment 4: The chemical composition of the four formulations used in this study should be included in the manuscript. The quality characteristics of the experimental yoghurts could be significantly affected by the different concentrations of the main milk components used in the different formulations. In fact, references to the effect of the composition of the formulations to explain changes in colour, rheological properties, syneresis and antioxidant activity of the experimental yoghurts are recurrent throughout the manuscript.
Response 4: The four formulations differed in the controlled proportion of skimmed milk powder (SMP), bovine colostrum powder, and whey protein concentrate (WPC 80%), while the base milk composition and fermentation parameters were kept constant.
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the technological, functional, microbiological and sensory effects of substituting different protein sources at defined percentage levels. A detailed proximate chemical analysis of the final fermented beverages (e.g. total protein, fat, total solids) was not within the scope of the present investigation. Instead, the experimental design utilised a controlled variation of ingredient proportions to assess their relative impact on product quality characteristics. In future studies, a comprehensive chemical characterisation of the final products may be conducted to clarify the relationship between nutrient composition and the observed properties.
Comment 5: The text describes the results in detail; however, the discussion could be improved by including some references supporting the main findings and trying to better explain changes in quality characteristics after 7 and 14 days of cold storage. Some behaviours are not sufficiently explained, such as those related to the viscosity and the antioxidant activity of the experimental yoghurts.
Response 5: The discussion section has been expanded with additional text and references to better explain changes observed after 7 and 14 days of storage. Further mechanistic clarification has been added for both rheological behaviour and antioxidant activity, including the role of protein interactions, post-acidification, and colostrum derived bioactive compounds during storage. These additions have strengthened the interpretation of the results. L336-357, L444-453
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors, After another evaluation of the manuscript " The influence of Colostrum and WPC preparations on the quality physicochemical, functional and sensory parameters of milk fermented drinks", I realized some improvement in the quality of the paper. The authors have accepted some of my requests, but you still have room for improvement in the final quality of the article.I did not receive a version that would allow me to evaluate the changes made to the text. Unfortunately, I am unable to see exactly what has been improved, as I detected in the previous version. It is quite a pity.
Title - Why Colostrum with C ?
L.13 - "Physicochemical, functional, microbiological, and sensory properties of fermented milk beverages" - I prefer with the microbiological , which does not appear in the title nor in your objective.
keywords - You still have same words in the title. Eg. Colostrum- Check, authors.
L.102- Why comma after quality ? "quality, physicochemical,"
L.118 - " The selected percentages were determined based on preliminary trials and previously published studies investigating the use of colostrum or whey protein concentrate individually in fermented dairy products." - I consider it important to mention the preliminary tests in the Materials and Methods section and perhaps cite the published article.
L.176- Author(s) for 5-point hedonic scale, please.
L.177- If they were trained, How many sessions were conducted ? More details about this step, please.
L.480- You still have "colour" in Figure 4
L.481- So, choosing only the groups and not the samples did not seem like the right decision to me. I think it would be interesting to explain why this was done in the article and not just in the Response letter.
English is always useful to ask a native speaker for a final appreciation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We appreciate the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our work. Your suggestions have helped us improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide responses to all comments. All revisions have been introduced using track changes and are highlighted in red in the revised version. The corresponding line numbers are indicated in our responses.
Comment 1: Title - Why Colostrum with C ?
Response 1: The title has been corrected. “Colostrum” has been changed to lowercase as suggested. L2
Comment 2: L.13 - "Physicochemical, functional, microbiological, and sensory properties of fermented milk beverages" - I prefer with the microbiological , which does not appear in the title nor in your objective.
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. In the context of fermented milk beverages, microbiological stability and probiotic viability are considered by us as integral components of overall product quality; therefore, this aspect is implicitly included under the term “quality” used in the title. However, to ensure full clarity and consistency with the objectives of the study, we have additionally specified the microbiological aspect in the stated objective of the manuscript. L107-108
Comment 3: keywords - You still have same words in the title. Eg. Colostrum- Check, authors.
Reponse 3: The keywords have been revised to avoid repetition of terms already included in the title. Redundant expressions have been removed and replaced with more specific terms reflecting the scope of the study. L29-30
Comment 4: L.102- Why comma after quality ? "quality, physicochemical,"
Response 4: The sentence has been revised to correct the punctuation and improve clarity. L102
Comment 5: L.118 - " The selected percentages were determined based on preliminary trials and previously published studies investigating the use of colostrum or whey protein concentrate individually in fermented dairy products." - I consider it important to mention the preliminary tests in the Materials and Methods section and perhaps cite the published article.
Response 5: The Materials and Methods section has been revised to clarify that the selected percentages were determined based on preliminary trials and previously published studies investigating the use of colostrum or whey protein concentrate individually in fermented dairy products. Relevant literature references have also been added to support this methodological justification. L129-131
Comment 6: L.176- Author(s) for 5-point hedonic scale, please.
Response 6: The sensory evaluation procedure was conducted in accordance with PN-ISO 4121:1998 Sensory analysis—Methodology—Evaluation of food products using scaling methods (Analiza Sensoryczna. Metodologia. Ocena Produktów Żywnościowych Przy Użyciu Metod Skalowania). This standard has now been explicitly added as a reference in the revised manuscript.
Comment 7: L.177- If they were trained, How many sessions were conducted ? More details about this step, please.
Response 7: Additional information regarding the sensory panel training and the number of sessions has now been included in the Materials and Methods section to improve methodological clarity and transparency. L185-188
Comment 8: L.480- You still have "colour" in Figure 4
Response 8: The spelling has been corrected from “colour” to “color” in Figure 4. L522
Comment 9: L.481- So, choosing only the groups and not the samples did not seem like the right decision to me. I think it would be interesting to explain why this was done in the article and not just in the Response letter.
Response 9: Thank you for this valuable comment. Both the starter culture groups (A–D) and the formulation variants (1–4) are explicitly presented and discussed in the sensory evaluation section. The group-level comparison highlights the influence of microbial composition, while the variant-level analysis allows assessment of the effect of formulation differences on specific sensory attributes. To further improve clarity, an additional statement has been incorporated into the discussion to more explicitly refer to differences between formulation variants (1–4). L588-591
Comment 10: English is always useful to ask a native speaker for a final appreciation.
Response 10: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and proofread by a fluent English speaker to improve clarity and linguistic accuracy.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
