All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all the comments and concerns raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors
Please address the comments raised by the reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The manuscript entitled “Use of soybean as an alternative protein source for welfare-orientated production of American alligators” provides fundamental knowledge for future development of artificial diet for American alligators. However, the writing and presentation of data against publication in its current form. More details and considering comments are listed below.
Comments
1. Provide scientific name of this alligator in the title
2. “Soybean” or “soybean meal”?
3. Abstract should be merged into only one paragraph. Experimental design comprising dietary treatments, replication, and number of animals should be given. Detailed information such as proportion of soybean, type of animal-derived feedstuff, and proximate composition of the prepared diets, is essential and should be given in this part. Authors should specify “P-value” for any significant figures.
4. Introduction part did not make enough references to the latest literature on the subject. Background referring nutrient requirement, recent diet development for alligator, nutritional information of soybean, and the limitation to use in diet should be mentioned.
5. L64, clarify “soybean feed”
6. The amount of information given about the materials and methods is variable, with insufficient details being given about some of the methods and protocols, and there are a few points that need clarification: e.g. references for the methods on L124-128, methods for euthanasia and how to sacrifice and prepare the alligators before collecting the samples?
7. Ingredient proportion and proximate chemical composition of the two prepared diets should be summarized in Table. These details are very important since there was no any information about the levels of each feedstuff in diet formulation.
8. Number of alligators for each assessment (morphometrics, health, and behavior) should be given.
9. Since no significant differences were observed between ABP and SBP, the statement on L164-165 (“grew the more than”) was not supported by statistical analysis.
10. L167-169, grades 2 and 3 were not mentioned.
11. Table 1 was not mentioned on L176-181.
12. L184-198, correct capital/lowercase for subfigures in text, as well as on Figures 3 and 4
13. Discussion part did not make enough references to the latest literature on the subject. Remove headings in this part and separate the results by paragraph. The dietary levels of soybean in diets, and the benefits and limitation of using soybean in aquatic feed should be discussed.
14. Conclusion part should be able to stand alone, so that replace abbreviated term by full word. In addition, since the proportion of soybean in diet and type of animal-derived feedstuff are essential and may have significant effects on obtained results, these information should be included in Conclusion.
15. Table 1, replace treatment names from “Animal” and “Soybean” by “Soy-based protein diet or SBP” and “Animal-based protein diet or ABP”
16. Figures, each table should be able to stand alone, so that number of animals per assessment and y-axis legend should be given.
-
Basic reporting
Generally well written, clear and concise. Note a few minor typographical errors or grammatical errors as listed below. These should be corrected prior to publication
14 typo diets “have” not “has”
115 “were” identified
119 no hyphen between manufacturer and maintained
153 “trial” not “trail” typo
156 “with APB animals growing” not “grew” typo
209 “the size of the weight of the animal” is not clear. Size or weight perhaps?
Accepted. No further comment
No comment
No comment- article provides a great foundation for exploring alternative ethical food sources
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
Introduction
- I suggest that the authors include a paragraph on American Alligator natural diets and what possible adjustments have been made for captive alligators.
Results
- 1728 alligators were recruited into the study but 1682 and 1677 were used for morphometric measures. The authors will need to account for the other crocodiles. If they were mortalities, which treatment groups did they come from?
Discussion
- Health (histopathology): The author should add pictures of the histology slides of the intestines. Although the difference was not statistically significant, what is the author's opinion of the SBP group having a higher score of 2 in the small intestines, and lung tissues on histopathology?
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.