Review Reports
- Olinda Guerreiro1,2,*,
- David Soldado1,3 and
- Eliana Jerónimo1,2
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Octavio Alonso Castelan Ortega
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Nutritive value of Cistus ladanifer L. for ruminants: seasonal variation of chemical composition, digestibility, and antioxidant activity of its morphological fractions
A straightforward evaluation for a potential feed.
It has the value of presenting seasonal variation assessed with samples from 3 years.
Some clarifications are needed in the methodology description.
Statistical analysis must be better described.
Use of climatic data was not described in methodology
discussion must be shorthened
conclusion must be improved.
see detailed comments in the file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Ruminants-1600435
Nutritive value of Cistus ladanifer L. for ruminants: seasonal variation of chemical composition, digestibility, and antioxidant activity of its morphological fractions
Olinda Guerreiro, David Soldado, Maria T. P. Dentinho and Eliana Jerónimo
We revised the manuscript according to the recommendations of the reviewer and reply point by point the questions raised by the reviewers.
Reviewer 1
Nutritive value of Cistus ladanifer L. for ruminants: seasonal variation of chemical composition, digestibility, and antioxidant activity of its morphological fractions
A straightforward evaluation for a potential feed.
It has the value of presenting seasonal variation assessed with samples from 3 years.
Some clarifications are needed in the methodology description.
Statistical analysis must be better described.
Use of climatic data was not described in methodology
discussion must be shorthened
conclusion must be improved.
see detailed comments in the file
Ln 45. Probably it is better just call it low/poor quality feed. The use of term “unbalanced” can lead to confusion.
Author response: Thanks for the suggestion, “poor quality feed” was included instead “unbalanced”
Ln 83-86. It is not totally clear whether the authors are describing the climate in the region where samples were collected (Baixo Alentejo region) or it is a general description of Mediterranean climate. Also a brief description of soil characteristics would be appreciated.
Author response: Thanks for the advice. The sentence was rewritten and a brief description of soil characteristics was added.
Ln 109. If samples were pooled, then there are not duplicates. Maybe authors are referring to internal analysis duplicate to confirm/validate a result, but in such case only a TRUE replicate value would be obtained (usually the mean of the two determinations). Please clarify.
Author response: Yes, you are absolutely right. The analysis was performed in duplicate (not the samples) with the exception for CT and TP that the analyses were carried out in triplicate. The sentence was corrected.
Ln 139. Same comment as above.
Author response: The sentence was corrected.
Ln 192. Please clarify was MIXED option was used? Fixed and random factors?
Author response: The PROC MIXED was used as a linear model without random factors, just to verify the differences between seasons for each morphological fraction, considering three repetitions per season, corresponding to each month, namely the months of December, January and February are part of the winter season; March, April and May are part of the spring season; June, July and August are part of the summer season; and September, October and November are part of the autumn season. The statistical analysis section was rewritten in accordance.
Discussion. It seems rather long. Author should make an effort to summarize. Avoid discussion of topics not tested or providing too much background/general information for each variable.
Author response: The Discussion section was rewritten in accordance with the reviewer comments.
Ln 468. Not evaluated or tested. Delete
Author response: The sentence was deleted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript: Nutritive value of Cistus ladanifer L. for ruminants: seasonal variation of chemical composition, digestibility, and antioxidant activity of its morphological fractions
This manuscript aims to increase knowledge about the chemical composition and nutritional value of C. ladanifer and their seasonal variations. The manuscript is well written and presents interesting information for animal scientists from the Mediterranean region. However, there are some changes that the authors need to address before it is ready for publication in ruminants. Authors need to pay particular attention to the description of the analysis of results and the discussion.
Line 42: You may want to mention that phenolic compounds may benefit the animals at low inclusion doses.
Line 67: Authors may wish to use the word “additive” instead of component.
Line 85: Check the rainfall figure. It seems too low for one year.
Line 97: Provide the brand and model of the oven used to dry samples and the mill used.
Statistical analysis
-Insert the linear model used to facilitate the understanding of the analysis.
-Explain why a principal component analysis was used.
Results
-Sentence between lines 202 to 205 is redundant because it was already mentioned above. See the objective.
-The authors declared that they used a factorial experimental design, so they must provide the effect of the interaction in the Tables of results. I presume there is a significant effect associated with the interaction that may help to explain their results better.
-Figures for GE content in Table 2 are wrong; please check. The average content of GE in most plant materials is ~ 18 MJ/kg DM. Check also figures in lines 233 and 234.
Discussion
Lines 326-330: There is no need to repeat results in the discussion section. There is no need to present results throughout the discussion again because it makes reading more difficult.
Line 454: I do not believe that you have demonstrated the beneficial effect of C. ladanifer on the animal with your work. You may suggest that some beneficial effects may result in using it as a feed additive. However, you have to demonstrate it in experiments with animals.
The manuscript will benefit if the authors insert a paragraph describing the practical benefits of their results, e.g. how can C. ladanifer could be used as a feed additive. What will be a recommended dose? Etc.
Author Response
Ruminants-1600435
Nutritive value of Cistus ladanifer L. for ruminants: seasonal variation of chemical composition, digestibility, and antioxidant activity of its morphological fractions
Olinda Guerreiro, David Soldado, Maria T. P. Dentinho and Eliana Jerónimo
We revised the manuscript according to the recommendations of the reviewer and reply point by point the questions raised by the reviewers.
Reviewer 2
This manuscript aims to increase knowledge about the chemical composition and nutritional value of C. ladanifer and their seasonal variations. The manuscript is well written and presents interesting information for animal scientists from the Mediterranean region. However, there are some changes that the authors need to address before it is ready for publication in ruminants. Authors need to pay particular attention to the description of the analysis of results and the discussion.
Line 42: You may want to mention that phenolic compounds may benefit the animals at low inclusion doses.
Author response: Thanks for the suggestion. The sentence was completed.
Line 67: Authors may wish to use the word “additive” instead of component.
Author response: Thanks for the advice. The sentence was rewritten but we chose to use ruminant feed and not a component or an additive.
Line 85: Check the rainfall figure. It seems too low for one year.
Author response: You are right, we indicated the rainfall mean value, now we already corrected the cumulative rainfall value.
Line 97: Provide the brand and model of the oven used to dry samples and the mill used.
Author response: The brand and model were added to the manuscript.
Statistical analysis
-Insert the linear model used to facilitate the understanding of the analysis.
Author response: You are absolutely right because the information was incorrect. Now the statistical analysis section was corrected and rewritten, and the model was added.
-Explain why a principal component analysis was used.
Author response: We performed the principal component analysis (PCA) that allow discriminate the morphological fractions in function of their chemical composition, digestibility and antioxidant activity and we also applied the PCA only in the leaves that allow discriminate the seasons in function of the chemical composition, digestibility, and antioxidant activity. The PCA show the associations between morphological fractions or each season (for leaves) and their chemical composition and antioxidant activity, to try to understand their possible effects and the results obtained.
Results
-Sentence between lines 202 to 205 is redundant because it was already mentioned above. See the objective.
Author response: Thanks for advice. The sentence was deleted.
-The authors declared that they used a factorial experimental design, so they must provide the effect of the interaction in the Tables of results. I presume there is a significant effect associated with the interaction that may help to explain their results better.
Author response: It was a mistake of authors; a factorial experimental design was not used since we only want to compare the seasonal variation for each morphological fraction and not to make a comparison among the various fractions. The Statistical analysis section was rewritten in accordance.
-Figures for GE content in Table 2 are wrong; please check. The average content of GE in most plant materials is ~ 18 MJ/kg DM. Check also figures in lines 233 and 234.
Author response: Thanks for the advice. The values were corrected in Table 2 and in the text.
Discussion
Lines 326-330: There is no need to repeat results in the discussion section. There is no need to present results throughout the discussion again because it makes reading more difficult.
Author response: Thanks for the advice. The sentence was deleted.
Line 454: I do not believe that you have demonstrated the beneficial effect of C. ladanifer on the animal with your work. You may suggest that some beneficial effects may result in using it as a feed additive. However, you have to demonstrate it in experiments with animals.
Author response: It is true, in the present work, we did not test the beneficial effects in animals. But in line 454 the authors were referring to previous team work as described above on the Discussion section, and where we actually showed the beneficial effects with experimental animal trials.
The manuscript will benefit if the authors insert a paragraph describing the practical benefits of their results, e.g. how can C. ladanifer could be used as a feed additive. What will be a recommended dose? Etc.
Author response: The authors tried to address the reviewer suggestion on the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf