Zoonotic and Qualitative Aspects of Raw Meat-Based Diets for Dogs in The Netherlands: A Follow-Up Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to evaluate 8 brands of raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) marketed in the Netherlands, updating a work published in 2018. This is a relevant study, although it does not provide new information on the subject. Improvements should be made to the Introduction, in lines 35 and 36, when citing "Bacteria found in this study were...", does citation 4 refer to the study? If so, I suggest inserting the citation at the end of the sentence, to give the reader certainty. In item 2.1 - Sample selection and processing, it should be explained how the batches were chosen. Only results related to batches were inserted in line 123, but the batches are not explained in the Methodology. I understand a batch to be the product of the same brand, but produced at different times, and with different inputs. It is important to state in the methodology that different batches of the same product were used, even if it is stated in the methodology that they were on different production dates. I suggest stating that different batches were used, with different production dates of the chosen brands. Another piece of information of interest would be the composition of the product of the different brands, especially the % of beef, pork and chicken. Are they products with similar composition, or do they differ in some way? According to reference 4, there are differences, but in this study 7 brands were used and in the 2018 study there were eight different brands. It would be interesting to describe the composition again.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, which have improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

We have adjusted the manuscript accordingly. Changes are highlighted in green in the revision and answers are given in bold in the text of your comments below:

This paper aims to evaluate 8 brands of raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) marketed in the Netherlands, updating a work published in 2018. This is a relevant study, although it does not provide new information on the subject. Improvements should be made to the Introduction, in lines 35 and 36, when citing "Bacteria found in this study were...", does citation 4 refer to the study? If so, I suggest inserting the citation at the end of the sentence, to give the reader certainty. We have added the reference there for clarity, thank you for spotting this. In item 2.1 - Sample selection and processing, it should be explained how the batches were chosen. Only results related to batches were inserted in line 123, but the batches are not explained in the Methodology. I understand a batch to be the product of the same brand, but produced at different times, and with different inputs. It is important to state in the methodology that different batches of the same product were used, even if it is stated in the methodology that they were on different production dates. I suggest stating that different batches were used, with different production dates of the chosen brands. This has been added to improve clarity, thank you. Another piece of information of interest would be the composition of the product of the different brands, especially the % of beef, pork and chicken. Are they products with similar composition, or do they differ in some way? According to reference 4, there are differences, but in this study 7 brands were used and in the 2018 study there were eight different brands. It would be interesting to describe the composition again. We have added the composition as far as this is known/given. This is indeed helpful, so we also added some of this information to the discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the topic "Zoonotic and qualitative aspects of raw meat-based diets for dogs in the Netherlands, a follow-up study" (Manuscript ID pets-3409647) is written in a professional and scientific language.

I would like to suggest some thing to be improved:

1.       The keywords are too many- 11:

1.1. BARF and RMBD are same- leave RMBD because You are speaking for that in hall the text;

1.2. HPP and high pressure processing- leave “high pressure processing” in keywords and put the “HPP” in introduction where it was met for first.

2.       In INTRODUCTION is good to add what kind of internal organs are in side of RMBD portions and to make a list with the target antigens (bacteria and parasites) on those exact organs.

3.      MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1.  Point 2.2 BACTERIAL AND T4 EXAMINATION You were speaking for “Horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella species’ (ISO 6579:2002 +A1:2007” and “Horizontal method for the detection of E. coli (ISO 16654:2001”. It is good to be described the methods from ISO because the random reader or anyone who did not pay for the exact ISO would not understand the principles of work.

4.       “CFU” was firstly met in the text in 2.3 Statistical analysis. You had to say Colony forming Units and in brackets CFU. Which nutrient media were used in what conditions for what time?

5.      RESULTS:

5.1. Point 3.2. must be titled Genus Salmonella or Salmonella spp. The same is needed for row 127.

5.2. Point 3.3. in the title must be coli with small letter (row 130).

REFERENCES

14.3% of the references are for a period of the last 5 years. In that  % was not counted the Commission Regulation No 2073/2005 (row 251). It is mandatory to increase their number.

Self-Citations were 28.5% of all references.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions which have improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Changes are highlighted in green in the revision.

Below you will find our answers to your questions/comments/suggestions in bold

 

1. The keywords are too many- 11: we have deleted HPP (3-10 keywords are allowed, so now we have 10)

1.1. BARF and RMBD are same- leave RMBD because You are speaking for that in hall the text; we decided to keep both, as tey are both not in the title and both are used by people in the field. 

1.2. HPP and high pressure processing- leave “high pressure processing” in keywords and put the “HPP” in introduction where it was met for first. adjusted as requested

2. In INTRODUCTION is good to add what kind of internal organs are in side of RMBD portions and to make a list with the target antigens (bacteria and parasites) on those exact organs. we have added this information in the materials and methods section, as was also requested by the other reviewer, we also added some information to the discussion.
3.  MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1.  Point 2.2 BACTERIAL AND T4 EXAMINATION You were speaking for “Horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella species’ (ISO 6579:2002 +A1:2007” and “Horizontal method for the detection of E. coli (ISO 16654:2001”. It is good to be described the methods from ISO because the random reader or anyone who did not pay for the exact ISO would not understand the principles of work. We have added Supplementary files to give a detailed overview on what was done to improve clarity.

4. “CFU” was firstly met in the text in 2.3 Statistical analysis. You had to say Colony forming Units and in brackets CFU.  Adjusted as requested. Which nutrient media were used in what conditions for what time? This was now added in the supplementary files.
5.  RESULTS:

5.1. Point 3.2. must be titled Genus Salmonella or Salmonella spp. The same is needed for row 127. Adjusted as requested.

5.2. Point 3.3. in the title must be coli with small letter (row 130). Adjusted as requested.

REFERENCES

14.3% of the references are for a period of the last 5 years. In that  % was not counted the Commission Regulation No 2073/2005 (row 251). It is mandatory to increase their number. We have replaced references 2 and 3 by more recent ones. The others specifically refer to certain information that can not be found in more recent articles.  We could not find a minim7um % in the author guidelines, but hope that these replacements are sufficient.

Self-Citations were 28.5% of all references.

We have replaced 2 of these self-citations by more recent papers by others. The other self-citations are needed because they explain the Dutch situation, which was not reported by others.