Optimized Live Feed Regime Significantly Improves Growth Performance and Survival Rate for Early Life History Stages of Pangasius Catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall a well written paper. English is quite good!
In section 2.3 it could be more clearly stated that there are 3 replications for each treatment.
For all of the bar charts with error bars, make the bars hollow so that both the +/- error bars are visible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
You should explain more the experimental design of the experiment.
The data seem interesting but bad presentation. It is too much empirical and not statistical. You should describe better the experimental design.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
The text is clear but I doubt if all sentences are correctly written (language, grammar and style). Please, have the text reviewed by a native-born English speaker who’s has expertise in fisheries.
Please express the SR in full % only. You have less then 100 individuals per treatment, and decimals are only justified if you would have several hundreds of individuals.
In general, the precision of your results should be function of the precision of your measurement unit, and used more decimals is claiming false precision. In particular in the tables you should remove most decimals to improve readability; remove all decimals that are irrelevant to the proof of your results. Advise to use only full mm, mg and %, unless 1 decimal is relevant, also in the abstract, this will make your excellent results come better to the fore.
All three Figures are superfluous as the numbers are in the Tables.
The discussion is too long and not in an appropriate style: partly written as text for a course. Discussion is to compare your results with literature and to explain the results, not to review literature.
Conclusion can be formulated much stronger.
See the pdf for more suggestions, and success with the revisions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please find specific comments from the file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
You respected the requirement of the first revision.
