Growth Performance of French Guinea Fowl Broilers Fed the Probiotics Lactobacillus reuteri and Streptomyces coelicolor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses-Reviewer #1
The manuscript evaluated the effect of probiotics Lactobacillus Reuteri and Streptomyces
Coelicolor or their mixture on the growth performance of French guinea fowl broilers.
The manuscript needs certain improvements according to the specific comments below:
Abstract
Comment #1:
The aim of the study is missing and the results obtained are not clearly presented. Line 23-26:
„The FGFs fed diets containing L. reuteri showed improved body weight gain and feed
consumption. The guineas fed S. coelicolor showed lower feed conversion ratios when
compared with other dietary treatments. This research suggests that L. reuteri and S.
coelicolor can constitute probiotics in GFs when used in combination or separately depending
on the preferred selection of performance index.”
According to the results presented the mixture of L. reuteri and S. Coelicolor significantly
decreases the total body weight gain! The conclusion does not reflect the study results.
I recommend rewriting the abstract to improve readability and clarity.
Response:
The abstract was revised with modified aim, results, discussions and conclusions.
Material and Methods
Comment #2:
2.2. Birds and Dietary Treatments
Please specify if the diets contain coccidiostat.
Response:
Statement was included to indicate that no coccidiostats were added into the experimental diets.
Comment #3:
2.3. Management of Experimental Birds and Data Collection
Line 167: „Each pen served as a treatment replicate and housed 20 birds.” In the 2.2. Birds
and Dietary Treatments section, Line 153-154: „All the dietary treatments were replicated
three times with 18 birds per replicate ...” Did you use 20 or 18 birds/replicate?
Response:
Each replicate comprised 18 birds and this has been corrected.
Results
Comment #4:
Table 5: It is not necessary to add superscript letters if the differences between groups are not
statistically significant.
Response:
All superscripts were removed
Comment #5:
Line 245-246: a,b Means within columns with no common superscript differ significantly (p <
0.05). Where is a, b in Table 5?
Response:
This footnote was changed to reflect the presentation of data on the Table 5.
Conclusion
Comment #6:
Line 295-297: „Inclusion of L. reuteri and S. coelicolor in French guinea fowl diets as
probiotic bacteria revealed their effects in enhancing guinea fowl growth performance and
lowered feed conversion ratios, respectively.”
I recommend rewriting the conclusion. Based on the results obtained, authors should specify
what probiotics are recommended in the French guinea fowl diet and why. Give the reason
Response:
The conclusion was revised to accurately present the data and interpretation of the same.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, authors analyzed the effects of probiotics, specifically L. reuteri and S. coelicolor on French Guinea Fowl’s (FGF) growth performances. The birds were split into 4 groups: a control group fed with a standard diet, and three groups fed with the same diet supplemented with L. reuteri (108 cfu/g), S. coelicolor (108 cfu/g), or a combination of L. reuteri (104 cfu/g) + S. coelicolor (104 cfu/g). This feeding regime lasted for 8 weeks, then the bodyweight gains and the feed conversion ratio were calculated. Moreover, 48 birds were slaughtered to calculate the carcass yield percentage.
The results proved that the supplementation with L. reuteri and S. coelicolor can result in an increase in growth performance and a decrease in feed conversion ratio.
The topic of the paper is innovative and well exposed. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed before publication:
- In the text you refer sometimes to Guinea Fowls (GF, e.g. lines 14, 33, 41, …) and sometimes to French Guinea Fowl (FGF, e.g. lines 18, 23, 135, …). Please, choose only one way (and its respective abbreviation) to refer to the birds and use only that one throughout the text
- Line 81: please, specify where was L. reuteri found in guinea pigs, rats, pigs, and broilers. IN the digestive tract? In milk?
- Line 84: please replace “A potent antimicrobial agent Reuterin, produced by L. reuteri…” with “A potent antimicrobial agent produced by L. reuteri, Reuterin, ...”
- Lines 93-94: this sentence is not so clear. Please, rephrase it more clearly or modify the punctuation
- Line 95: please replace “Streptomyces’s…” with “Moreover, its…”
- Line 113: since “Act” stands for “actinorhodin”, “Mmy” for “methylenomycin”, and “CDA” for “calcium dependent antibiotic”, the significance of “Red” next to “undecylprodigiosin” is not so clear. It doesn’t seem like an acronym for that molecule, but rather its color
- Lines 19 and 144: please replace “216-day-old guinea keets” with “216 one-day-old guinea keets”.
- Lines 149-150: the sentence “The SDG supplemented with the probiotics in phases” is not so clear. Please, rephrase i
- Line 151: since it’s the first time you talk about ME, please write also its complete name
- Table 1. Please replace “Avail Phosphorus” with “Available Phosphorus”
- Line 167: at line 153 you write that each replicate included 18 birds, then at line 167 it is stated that “each pen served as a treatment replicate and housed 20 birds”. Please, verify this data
- Line 188: please, remove one between “thighs” and “drumsticks”
- Line 196: please, replace “Yijkl” with “Yijkl.
- Line 198: please, remove the spave between “(PT)” and “ij”
- Table 2: please remove the italic format in the last “P<0.001”
- Lines 219-220: please note that the total bodyweight gain reported in table 3 is similar between the control group and the group that received the L. reuteri supplementation
- Lines 225-226: please replace with “At 1 WOA, there was a similar FCRs between the birds fed with the control diet and the ones fed with the diet supplemented with L. reuteri or S. coelicolor.”
- Line 226: please replace “birds fed” with “the birds fed”
- Line 230: please format “S. coelicolor” and “L. reuteri” in italics
- Line 239: please replace “in birds” with “the birds”
- Line 240: please remove “observed”
- Line 256: please replace “… birds fed with L. reuteri have shown a…” with “…feeding the birds with L. reuteri exerts…”
- Lines 257-258: please, replace “Habibu et al., [41]. They observed” with “Habibu et al. [41], who observed…”
- Line 266: please replace “agrees” with “agree”
- Line 267: please replace “…Sadaghi [47]. Their studies…” with “…Sadaghi [47], which…”
- Line 271: what did Fajardo et al. report?
- Line 272: please replace “The observed results on feed conversion ratios of GF agree with those of chickens.” with “Concerning the feed conversion ratios of GF, our results agree with those of chickens.”
- Line 274: please replace “agrees” with “agree”
- Line 284: please replace “… day 42 …” with “… on day 42 …”
- Lines 284-288: please replace “Unlike chickens in GF, less fat was recorded in the birds fed…” with “Unlike chickens, less fat was recorded in GF fed…”
- Line 289: please replace “…Mohan et al., [70]; Jin 289 et al., [71-73]…” with “…Mohan et al., [70], and Jin 289 et al., [71-73]…”
- Line 290: please replace “And…” with “However, …”
- Line 299: please replace “…further investigation is needed…” with “…further investigations are needed…”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Language revisions are reported above.
Author Response
Responses-Reviewer #2
Comment #1:
In the text you refer sometimes to Guinea Fowls (GF, e.g. lines 14, 33, 41, …) and sometimes to French Guinea Fowl (FGF, e.g. lines 18, 23, 135, …). Please, choose only one way (and its respective abbreviation) to refer to the birds and use only that one throughout the text.
Response:
French Guinea Fowl are a type of breed of guinea fowl that were used in this study, which is why we specified in the beginning of the manuscript- French Guinea Fowl (FGF) and guinea fowl (GF)
Comment #2
Line 81: please, specify where was L. reuteri found in guinea pigs, rats, pigs, and broilers. IN the digestive tract? In milk?
Response:
This has been corrected, and locations have been stated.
Comment #3
Line 84: please replace “A potent antimicrobial agent Reuterin, produced by L. reuteri…” with “A potent antimicrobial agent produced by L. reuteri, Reuterin, ...”
Response:
This has been corrected
Comment #4
Lines 93-94: this sentence is not so clear. Please, rephrase it more clearly or modify the punctuation
Response:
This has been corrected
Comment # 5
Line 95: please replace “Streptomyces’s…” with “Moreover, its…”
Response:
This has been corrected
Comment #6:
Line 113: since “Act” stands for “actinorhodin”, “Mmy” for “methylenomycin”, and “CDA” for “calcium dependent antibiotic”, the significance of “Red” next to “undecylprodigiosin” is not so clear. It doesn’t seem like an acronym for that molecule, but rather its color-
Response:
This is has been corrected
Comment#7
Lines 19 and 144: please replace “216-day-old guinea keets” with “216 one-day-old guinea keets”.
Response: This has been corrected
Comment #8:
Lines 149-150: the sentence “The SDG supplemented with the probiotics in phases” is not so clear. Please, rephrase it.
Response: This has been corrected
Comment #9:
Line 151: since it’s the first time you talk about ME, please write also its complete name
Table 1. Please replace “Avail Phosphorus” with “Available Phosphorus”
Response: This has been corrected
Comment #10:
Line 167: at line 153 you write that each replicate included 18 birds, then at line 167 it is stated that “each pen served as a treatment replicate and housed 20 birds”. Please, verify this data
Response: This has been corrected
Comment # 11:
Line 188: please, remove one between “thighs” and “drumsticks”
Line 196: please, replace “Yijkl” with “Yijkl.
Line 198: please, remove the space between “(PT)” and “ij”
Response: All suggested changes were effected
Comment # 12:
Table 2: please remove the italic format in the last “P<0.001”
Response:
This has been corrected
Comment#13:
Lines 219-220: please note that the total bodyweight gain reported in table 3 is similar between the control group and the group that received the L. reuteri supplementation
Lines 225-226: please replace with “At 1 WOA, there was a similar FCRs between the birds fed with the control diet and the ones fed with the diet supplemented with L. reuteri or S. coelicolor.”
Line 226: please replace “birds fed” with “the birds fed”
Line 230: please format “S. coelicolor” and “L. reuteri” in italics
Line 239: please replace “in birds” with “the birds”
Line 240: please remove “observed”
Response:
Corrections were made as suggested from line 219-240
Comment #14
Line 256: please replace “… birds fed with L. reuteri have shown a…” with “…feeding the birds with L. reuteri exerts…”
Lines 257-258: please, replace “Habibu et al., [41]. They observed” with “Habibu et al. [41], who observed…”
Line 266: please replace “agrees” with “agree”
Line 267: please replace “…Sadaghi [47]. Their studies…” with “…Sadaghi [47], which…”
Line 271: what did Fajardo et al. report?
Line 272: please replace “The observed results on feed conversion ratios of GF agree with those of chickens.” with “Concerning the feed conversion ratios of GF, our results agree with those of chickens.”
Line 274: please replace “agrees” with “agree”
Line 284: please replace “… day 42 …” with “… on day 42 …”
Lines 284-288: please replace “Unlike chickens in GF, less fat was recorded in the birds fed…” with “Unlike chickens, less fat was recorded in GF fed…”
Line 289: please replace “…Mohan et al., [70]; Jin 289 et al., [71-73]…” with “…Mohan et al., [70], and Jin 289 et al., [71-73]…”
Line 290: please replace “And…” with “However, …”
Line 299: please replace “…further investigation is needed…” with “…further investigations are needed…”
Response:
Suggested changes from line 256-299 were effected in the revised manuscript
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript ID: bacteria-3396519 authors have made the corrections following the suggestions, and the revised version has been improved.
