Outbreak of Acute Clinical Mastitis in Primigravidae Ewes in the Immediately Pre-Partum Period

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript described for the first time an outbreak of acute clinical mastitis in primigravidae ewes. However, some aspects should be improved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lines 50-51: Specify the number of primigravidae ewes. 

Line 59: Specify the number of acute clinical cases among 98 primigravidae ewes and how many days before lambing the outbreak occurred, as it is not clear.

Line 60: Did you mean 2 acute clinical cases in primigravidae ewes? Specify as it is not clear

Line 61: Did you mean the two similar cases? Specify as it is not clear.

Lines 63-66: What about the remaining primigravidae ewes? Specify as it is not clear.

Lines 76-77: Can it be considered as a result? Or should be included in farm description?

Lines 91-92: SCC should have been performed to have a better view of the udder condition.

RESULTS

Line 121: Do you consider the details on "autopsy findings" as essential to understand your results?

Lines 140-143: Write bacterial species in italics here and check it in the rest of the manuscript. Specify the Streptococcus species you found. Did you isolate Streptococcus spp. from one acute clinical case and E. coli from the other one? Revise the sentence as it is not clear.

Line 145: Do you consider the details on the "outcomes" as essential to understand your findings?

DISCUSSION: You did not discuss the results related to antimicrobial resistance.

Line 157: Move "internationally" after "sheep" at line 160.

Lines 160-161: Revise the verb tense of this sentence.

Lines 162-163: Revise the verb tense of this sentence.

Lines 164-166: Revise this sentence.

Line 170: Could you exclude that Streptococcus isolate detected could be classified as agalactiae?

Lines 172-184: Do you consider this kid of finding as new and deserving to be mentioned?

Line 173: Replace "can" with "could".

Line 179: Specify the acronym SCC only the first time you used it.

Line 180: Replace "has been" with "was".

Line 181: Replace "can" with "could".

Lines 185-187: Describe better what you meant, as it is not clear.

Line 189: Delete "has further".

Line 190: Delete "with".

Line 198: Replace "have been" with "can be".

Lines 202-204: This kind of information seems to be too general; add more details.

Lines 205-206: The method used to measure SCC seems to be not so accurate to come to such conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Line 214: How did you calculate the incidence risk? Specify the percentage before in the manuscript.

Line 215: Did you mentioned the conditions of lactating animals above? Add more details in the manuscript (e.g., farm description in materials and methods).

Line 216: Delete "have". Did you mean high-yielding animals or primigravidae ewes?

Lines 220-221: These conclusions seem to be too general.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

See the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First case report of clinical mastitis of nulliparous ewes is indeed of scientific value, furthermore the importance of environmental conditions in animal health is highly valuable. Unfortunately this case report needs thorough review and editing before publishing.  Firstly english language and style requires extensive editing. For example authors perform "farm autopsy" meaning inspection of the environmental conditions The part Autopsy findings (line 121) don't describe autopsy of the two euthanized ewes, but environmental conditions. Secondly the article describes in detail the condition of the two ewes with acute mastitis. It is somewhat unclear how the prevalence 8.2% (line 17) and the incidence risk of problem 8.2% (line 155) are calculated. I believe that article would benefit greatly if Materials and Methods section would be more precise in describing the outbreak and the two cases separately. 
Lines 58-67. Please clarify how many cases of acute mastitis there were in total and how they were diagnosed.
Lines 71-74. When mammary secretion samples were taken with aseptic techniques, is there need to specify how this was done.
Line 76 Please clarify the meaning of bulk tank milk measurement in this 900 ewes farm. Was the milk from diseased ewes milked to the tank? Has bulk milk quality changed? 
Line 79 Please clarify autopsy of the farm
Line 121 Autopsy findings of ewes are missing?
Line 137-139 Clarify the sentence about lentivirus 
Lines 163-167 Was leaking of the teats somehow documented in the farms nulliparous ewes?
Line 171 reference missing
Lines 205-206 Was bulk tank milk cell count increased in this farm
Lines 215 How increased prevalence of mastitis in lactating animals in this farm was documented?
Line 216 Ewes were from high yielding breed, but not yet high-yielding - before lambing?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

See the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been appropriately improved. You can find only some minor suggestions below.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 58: Delete "another".

RESULTS

Lines 125 - 127: If you consider this kind of information as essential to understand your results, add more objective details. 

Line 144: What do you mean with "heavy growth"? Try to be more precise.

Lines 148 - 150: If you don't have SCC results, I am not sure that SCC in the bulk tank milk may make sense. I might suggest to delete this result.

Lines 157 - 160: I suggest to move this recommendations to the "discussion" section.

Lines 161 - 162: I suggest to move this part to "clinical findings" section.

DISCUSSION

Lines 177 - 178: I cannot clearly understand the meaning of this sentence. I may suggest to delete it.

Lines 192 - 194: Specify the role of teat in udder defence during lactation to understand better what you mean.

Line 205: Replace "been" with "be".

Lines 211 - 213: Revise the grammar of this sentence.

Lines 215 - 216: Did you specify this information in "Housing conditions" section? Add some details.

Lines 217 - 223: I suggest to think about deleting SCC results.

CONCLUSIONS

Lines 231 - 233: Did you mentioned the subclinical mastitis prevalence in lactating animals above?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are grateful for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of my work. Please find our responses to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It was very nice to read this article and see how it was improved. I'm very pleased with the work authors have done. Unfortunately I find that there is still some english language correction to be done for example line 23, line 78-80 and line 123.
One scientific detail does bother me. Line 217-218. The authors write that prevalence of subclinical mastitis in the lactating animals in the flock is the range of 15%. I would think that prevalence could be based on milk samples of individual animals instead of bulk tank milk figures. Article will benefit is this detail is clarified. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are grateful for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of my work. Please find our responses to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been appropriately improved. You ca find only some minor suggestions below.

ABSTRACT

Line 21: Write the bacteria species in Italics here and check it in the rest of the text.

RESULTS

Line 124: Add a dot after "dividers".

Line 125: Delete "of the indicator".

Line 148: Delete dot.

Line 164: Replace "Bothe" with "Both".

DISCUSSION

Line 182: Delete dot.

Line 223: Delete "was".

Line 224: Replace "which indicates" with "may have indicated".

CONCLUSIONS

Lines 242-243: Did you mentioned the subclinical mastitis prevalence in lactating animals above?

Reviewer 2 Report

Corrections and clarifications dds improve the article, thank you.