Influence of Deliverable Form of Dietary Vitamin D3 on the Immune Response in Late-Lactating Dairy Goats
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting subject and paper, however somethings need to be clarified.
Title: I suggest to reduce the title, as suggestion: Immune response of late-lactating dairy goat supplemented with encapsulated vitamin D3
L15-18: Your aim description is a little bit confusing to me. Was your aim to evaluate the immune response or to study if the encapsulation method works? If were both, please focus firts in the animal immune response.
L19: Balancing wieght, however you didn't mention the weight.
L23-25: Ok. This was expected. However, which treatment showed greater average, or only the offer (without effect of encapsulation) influenced in the Vit. D3 serum concentration. Describe this better.
L25-27: This is result? To me seems like material and methods.
L27-28: You conclusion here, is not embased by your results describe before.
Keywords: One of then is too big; please keywords must be in alphabetical order
Introduction: I suggest that you rewrite parts of the introduction letting more clear the importance of the compounds used in the encapsulation process. Also, clarifing the possibles impacts that this material could do on the vit. D3 absortion.
Material and methods: Where all this methodology from? Did you created all by yourself?
L118: How much was the average/animal milk production? This animals were managed stabulated or in pasture? There was some solar luminosity control?
L172-173: Delete the sentence: which has been detail elsewhere.
L182: "are" Is the tense correct?
Results and discussion: Need to be improved on the results discrition. In the discussion is necessary to focus a little bit more on how vit D3 affects the immune system and how it works with the other metabolites.
L187-192: This is results?
L213-219: You start and finish this whole sentence saying the samething. Rewrite.
Table 1: Just a comment. It is interesting to notece that the control and unencapsulated treatments were allmost similar. I know that this is not the aim of the work, however, I think you could, breafly, discuss that.
L236-240: This is discussion? To me seems like justification, which should be in introduction.
Conclusion: This section must be direct. This is not the place to still describe results and make discussion. Shoul have no more then two or three small sentences.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn interesting manuscript, please consider the points below:
Line 8: The "1" should be superscript
Line 14: humoral-->hormonal?
line 223: p-Value -->p-value
line 83: methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) should be renamed to Dimethyl sulfone (DMSO2), CAS no. 67-71-0
line 84: Sulfur Saturation: What happens chemically here, what is the speciation of the sulfur? what is meant by "unbound" Sulfur Ions?
Why is the "Sulfur Saturation" needed? What would be the effect if the Sulfur is left out?
You can consider adding and dicussing this reference: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13061
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved the manuscript; however, there are still some points that need to be addressed.
L213-220: This is justification, not results and discussion. L221-224: This is material and methods. L311-314: In the present form, this is justification not conclusion. L314-316: This is aim, conclusion is not the place for it. L316-319: This is a conclusion!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
