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.
Thank you for clarifying my doubts. I can now recommend publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Before making a final decision on this manuscript, I need to have the statistical procedure clarified. You write on lines 249 to 256 that you have verified the normal distribution of the variables as a prerequisite of the ANOVA. However, this is wrong,... you should be checking the normal distribution of the residuals or errors as assumed in equation 5. Please clarify.
The revised manuscript has been sufficiently improved and is acceptable for publication.
Good
Good
The authors made the suggested corrections, which significantly improved the paper. Therefore, following this review, I believe that the paper is ready for publication.
The authors made the suggested corrections. I agree with them. I have nothing further to add since the last review.
The authors made the suggested corrections. I agree with them. I have nothing further to add since the last review.
The article has been revised as necessary. The quality of the article has improved. It may be accepted for publication in your journal.
A mathematical model was written for ANOVA. Necessary improvements were made to Tables 1 and 2 in the findings section.
Adequate
Manucript may be accepted for publication in your journal.
Dear authors,
The reviewers have now commented your manuscript. Please carefully read their comments and address every issue in a response letter.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Fernando Mata
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
This is a valuable preliminary study for establishing appropriate dosage levels of pistachio hull in layer quail production. The authors argue that, given the rising cost of feed, incorporating byproducts like PH can support the egg production industry. In such cases, it is essential to use isoenergetic diets and substitute crude protein and energy relative to a control diet. The authors sourced the base feed from a commercial feed mill and then supplemented it with PH (2%, 4%, 6%), which has a high energy content. I recommend that the authors include a table detailing the feed ingredients for all four treatments, as they differ in both crude protein and metabolizable energy levels. Additionally, they should clarify that the diets were formulated based on the surplus inclusion of PH.
A solid and scientifically valid experimental design. However, I do have several comments for consideration.
Line 64-65: Rewrite to a more academic aspect “Despite these advantages, feed expenses remain the predominant cost driver in quail 65 production, accounting for approximately 70 % of total operational outlays“.
Line 85: “We hypothesize that moderate PH levels enhance egg yield”. At first appearance in the introduction, the author needs to explain that “PH” stands for Pistachio Hulls.
Line 156: explain and reference “AVMA.”
Line 203: delete “systematically”
Line 220-225: Add citation :
Rafieian‐Naeini, H. R., Zhandi, M., Sadeghi, M., Yousefi, A. R., Marzban, H., & Benson, A. P. (2023). The effect of dietary coenzyme Q10 supplementation on egg quality and liver histopathology of layer quails under cadmium challenge. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 107(2), 631-642.
Line 244-249: can be moved to line 119
Line 263: “ All statistical analyses were executed using SPSS version 22.0, with significance defined at an alpha level of 5% (p < 0.05)”. can be moved to line 254.
Line 269: delete “systematically”
Line 277-280: Repeated and need to move to the statistical analysis section
Line 285: No need to mention “ with values 285 ranging from 315.2 g (control) to 332.8 g (PH 6%)” as on allocation day, the treatment had almost the same BW.
Table1: The exact p-values for the ANOVA should be reported. Superscripts indicating significance should be removed if there are no significant differences between treatments.
Table 1: change “Lineer” to linear.
Table 1: The FCR unit should be deleted.
Table 1: Report Egg mass and add to the methodology as well.
Line 341: Egg mass data discussed, but there is no data in the tables!
Table2: The exact p-values for the ANOVA should be reported. Superscripts indicating significance should be removed if there are no significant differences between treatments.
Table 2: Insert the unit for all of the parameters.
Line 397: SEM or standard deviation?
Table 2: change “Lineer” to linear.
The paper presented is about the use of by-products for feeding quails. It is an interesting and well-structured work with an adequate introduction
It is a original research within the journal scope. The methodology, in my opinion, needs some clarification that I believe has gone unnoticed by the authors, see lines 168 and 204 in the Additional comments
The presentation and discussion of the results are interesting and clear.
The conclusion is in agreement with what is described, but I believe it should be revised to be shorter
I leave the following comments for the authors
Line 47: To validate this statement, the authors should indicate the percentage of consumption or production of meat and egss of this specie compared to other species.
Line 168: The authors should indicate how the feed was presented. Were the pistachio shells mixed with the commercial feed and ground together, or were they separated? Could the birds choose what they ate?
Line 204: The authors should indicate how they calculated intake, because if it was ad libitum, the percentage of waste should be indicated to ensure that the birds ate without restriction.
Line 330: Correct the feed intake value for PH 4%.
Line 405: The authors state that there was no significant effect on this characteristic. Furthermore, it should be explained how 4% exceeds digestive capacity relative to 2% and 6%.
Line 410: The authors should explain why the cubic dose, rather than the quadratic or linear dose, is in accordance with physiological adaptation thresholds.
Line 427: The authors refer to growth, but they did not calculate growth, they only compared weights. Growth is also non-linear, however, we should talk about heavier or lighter birds, perhaps with more or less fat.
Line 471: The authors should discuss the results obtained, in addition to presenting other studies. It would be interesting to know if the increase in food intake compensates for the results obtained in egg weight and quality.
Line 557: The authors present two definitions of egg weight; it would be advisable to distinguish between the names to avoid confusion.
Line 566: In my opinion, the paper could benefit from a shorter conclusion, with part of the content being moved to the discussion. This is a suggestion for the authors.
It would be useful to make the following revision suggestions.
Line 253-264: Write the mathematical model of the ANOVA method. Provide a few sentences on orthogonal comparisons and contrasts for polynomial regression models (linear, quadratic, and cubic) to characterize dose-response relationships.
Line 329-330: It would be more explanatory if p values were given in parentheses for those that were not significant (ns) for L, Q and C in Table 1.
Line 395: It would be more explanatory if p values were given in parentheses for those that were not significant (ns) for L, Q and C in Table 2.
Please show the Shapiro Wilk and Levene test results in the results section.
A mathematical model should be written for ANOVA.
Give a few sentences about the Shapiro Wilk and Levene tests.
p values should be written in the relevant places in Table 1 and Table 2.
Necessary revisions should be made. It should be re-evaluated after revision.
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.