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 very much for improving your manuscript.
Your manuscript should be modified according to the suggestions given.
The overall presentation of this manuscript is very good in written. the paper provide sufficient rationale to address the hypothesis and objective of the study.
the experimental design clearly defined the research question and hypothesis. Data collection were well controlled and the methods were well described. However some minor revision are required as suggested in the text
The data of this manuscript was statistically sound and well controlled. The authors have developed a good interpretation on the parameters measured in this study and thus the conclusions are convincing.
This manuscript presents an important research addressing one of the issues challenging aquatic feed production when plant ingredients are used to replace fishmeal. The overall presentation is very good in quality. The data collection shows good support to the conclusions. There are some minor comments and suggestions need to be considered for a correction.
This is a well written manuscript representing a tremendous amount of work. I understand the concept of presenting the two trials in one paper, but the format of mixing each study into the same sections was a little confusing. The authors have a firm control of the literature and presented the case for the trials well.
This research adds important information to the literature for the development of alternative feeds for salmon. The explanation of why to evaluate vitamins, amino acids and cholesterol is understood, but would a better approach have been to evaluate these nutrient classes separately? The methods are well described. It was stated that dwarf males were eliminated from the samples, but was an analysis of the effect of diet on the number of dwarf males done before the elimination?
The regression curves for the vitamins are very clear. Why was a multiple range test used for the performance data instead of regression curves? With the approach of changing so many nutrients at the same time, a discussion of changing levels of one nutrient and its effect on fish growth or metabolism is highly confounded. The authors did appear to be careful to not to overstate cause and effect with language like “might have contributed to lower growth…..”, but I think acknowledging this confounding factor in the experimental design would be beneficial for the readers.
Line 90; NRC 2011?
Line 141; Font change
Line 151; Skretting ARC, is this a diet formula or a location?
Line 398; histidin
Figure 2; Tiamine = Thiamin?
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.