PONE-D-19-17536

A reconnaissance survey of farmers’ awareness of hypomagnesaemic tetany in UK cattle and sheep farms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Kumssa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 26 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Russell Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1.  When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (grant numbers BB/N004280/1 [ELA], BB/N004302/1 [MRB], BB/N004272/1 [AL]) and the Natural Environment Research Council, through the jointly funded initiative Sustainable Agriculture Research and Innovation Club (SARIC). The project is entitled Magnesium Network (MAG‐NET): Integrating Soil-Crop‐Animal Pathways to Improve Ruminant Health. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=BB%2FN004302%2F1

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Livestock and Grassland Mineral Consultancy

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Additional Editor Comments:

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One

Your manuscript was reviewed by two reviewers (finding expert reviewers in this area is difficult, but we managed to find two).

One recommended to reject the manuscript and the other recommended a major revision.

As this is a clear gap in knowledge and current research, I have recommended a major revision

It would be most helpful if you could respond to each individual comment, and modify the manuscript appropriately.

Wishing you the best of luck with the manuscript modifications

Thanks

Simon

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting topic, but the survey presented is very high level and simplistic. The questions were not tested or validated prior to use. The sample is not described as being representative of any major industry and geographic region.

There is no discussion of how many surveys were distributed or the response rate.

The statistical analysis of the main study questions does not account for the potential for confounding by enterprise type.

Where associations are examined, only p values are reported. There are no measures of association or 95%CI.

In the results, the authors jump between reporting percentages with and without a decimal place. Please be consistent. There also needs to be a clear numerator and denominator in each case or reference to a table with that information.

The number of figures needs to be reduced dramatically as most do not add any information to the manuscript and could be captured adequately in the text or tables.

The discussion starts with some of the study limitations and does not make a convincing case for what this paper adds to the literature.

Sward composition is mentioned in the abstract but not in the main results of the paper.

Reviewer #2: The results of the current study about hypomagnesemia have been obtained by a questionnaire with the usual limitations of such an approach. There are some recommendations.

1. Please integrate previous data about this topic from UK: Whitaker and Kelly (1982) Vet. Rec. 110, 450-451 and Wards and Parker (1999) Br. Soc. Anim. Sci. 24, 21-26.

2. The data from farms without hypomagnesemia should be omitted. These results are without primary interest. It could be mentioned very briefly in the discussion. Please focus on the results with hypomagnesemia. It appears to me that hypomagnesemia in dairy cattle is not the major problem at the present time.

3. Please restrict the discussion on epidemiology. Possible causes of hypomagnesemia should be reduced, because no available results of the current study can be presented.

4. I am missing a conclusion and a perspective for future research. Does it make sense to initiate corresponding measurements to confirm the data?

5. Why so many authors for a questionnaire?

6. Page 3 – line 52: Reference 5: Related to hypocalcaemia? Correct?

7. Page 4 – line 78: Underwood (number?)

8. Page 8 – table 2: * is not clear for me. What does it mean?

9. Page 11 – Equation 1: The equation should be explained with corresponding values. Where are the risks?

10. Page 11 – line 289: Kuusela et al.: not in the list of references

11. I am missing a paragraph about a relation of the own data with data from the literature. What is really knew?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-19-17536R1

A reconnaissance survey of farmers’ awareness of hypomagnesaemic tetany in UK cattle and sheep farms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Kumssa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

It has been reviewed by one of same reviewers as previously, and a new reviewer who made some very minor suggestions, (mainly typos and grammatical errors). Both reviewers also suggest the addition of a small conclusion, and some advice for farmers.

If you could make the minor changes, and add in a small advice section and conclusion that will be great.

I would be grateful if you could make these small changes and resubmit it. Please do not worry about a rebuttal to the minor typo/ grammatical reviewers comments, they are so minor that just a line saying all comments were actions will be more than enough.

I will then recommend it for acceptance and publication without a need for re-review

Many thanks

Simon

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 03 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A very brief rebuttal letter that responds to the conclusion and advice section of the reviewer comments. The typos etc can just be a single line which says 'these were all actioned'. This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Russell Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I am still missing conclusions about future research according the present results. What should or can be done? Are there any advices for the farmers?

Reviewer #3: This is a very interesting manuscript regarding an issue which we do see on farms around the UK and further afield, but rarely. It is very nice to see some new research and literature in the area. As I have only been asked to review a revised version, I have a few comments but all are very minor (typos, grammatical etc), as I felt the manuscript was very good and well written. I commend you on that and wish you the best of luck with future research. I will keep an eye out for more work from your group.

Line 32- There was a highly significant

Line 55- although you define MypoMgT in the abstract, it would also be useful to define it early in the introduction as well, as some people (like me) don’t read the abstract until the end.

Line 61- same is true for defining PHT

Line 65- this is a little unclear, I do wonder if it is meant to read as hypomagnesaemia related conditions were seen in 1-4% of cows ….

Line 70-71- again unclear. I think it should read where magnesium, usually as part of a mineral premix, ….

Line 82- would the reference not be better written as Roderick et al., ?

Line 103- Should read- Prior to completing the survey, farmers were presented with an information sheet……

Line 108- Should read - English and Welsh, in both paper and digital form, and participants….

There is a stray ‘o’ in line 170- not sure what that should be

Line 174 – maybe should read as …’76% had used a similar range…’

Line 265 would the reference not be better written as Roderick et al., ?

Line 274. Sentence break needed …. In this survey. Further research ….

Line 278, comma after the reference may help flow

Line 288, a comma after ‘did not contain Mg,’ may aid flow

Line 307- systems may read better

I would also like to see a small paragraph as a bit of advice to farmers. As this is a relatively unresearched area, I think a bit of advice to farmers would be most beneficial

But overall it is a very well written manuscript, which I do not need to review again if all comments are addressed.

With very best wishes for the future

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

A reconnaissance survey of farmers’ awareness of hypomagnesaemic tetany in UK cattle and sheep farms

PONE-D-19-17536R2

Dear Dr. Kumssa

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Simon Russell Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One and making the changes which were suggested

I am very grateful for your efforts, and I have recommended your manuscript for publication

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts and wish you the best of luck for your future research

Many thanks

Simon

Reviewers' comments: