Supplementing dairy feed by dicalcium phosphate and effect on dry matter intake, digestibility, milk composition, and blood mineral balances in crossbred dairy cows

Wondewsen Bekele Wondater; Tilaye Demissie Ayanie

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282879

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 24, 2022
12 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor PONE-D-22-28223Effect of Dicalcium Phosphate Supplementation on Feed Intake, Milk Composition, and Mineral Balances in Crossbred Dairy CowsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bekele, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The authors received funding from Adis Abeba university, AGP-II (Agricultural Growth Program) through Debreziet Agricultural institute and Dilla university" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "No potential conflicts of interest to declare " Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 7. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Tilaye Demissie. 8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 9. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 10. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? � “Yes”, because all the procedure of data collection and analysis was followed the scientific paper procedure 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? � “Yes”, because the latine square ANOVA procedure was appropriate way for repeated measurement on a single animal, but it need re-writing because there are repeated words and sentences such as; ANOVA, GLM, SAS. On the model the parity was indicated but nothing was explained in the discussion and conclusion about the effect of parity on the indicated results.. 3. The authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? � “Yes”, because all the processed or analysed data underlying the findings described in the manuscript are presented in the Table. Otherwise, the raw data that was used for analysis may be with the author. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? � “Yes” but it need revision or re-writing because ; some of the sentences are not clear and palatable for readers Additional comments and question � Title should be modified as:- � Effect of Di-calcium Phosphate Supplementation on Feed Intake and digestibility, Milk Composition, and Mineral Balances in Crossbred of Holestien and Boran Dairy Cows � Abstract:- should be revised and part of the conclusion and recommendation should be included properly. � Objectives:- escaped from the manuscript; therefore, major and specific objectives should be indicated in the manuscript. � Experimental animals � Number of Animals for each Treatment ( T0, T1, T2 and T3) was not indicated, instead total number (8) was mentioned � Animals are clearly indicated but their parity was not clear and not indicated in the result b/s what was the effect of parity on the result ???? � You said initial body weight 469.0 ± 15.8 kg, and what was final body weight??? Why not average body weight ??? � Experimental design � Table 1, 2 and 3 are not important b/s they show the composition and or deficiency in the previous study of mineral not the level of supplementation for each treatment, instead referring the total deficiency of those minerals in the single sentence and indicating the source is enough. � Result and discussion:- � Need more discussion with good language consistently supported by the recent findings or reference � If you say significant (P<0.05) you have to show the highest and the lowest value of your finding. Becauase I have seen general explanation during your discussion � Conclusion � During conclusion some of the figure or number from the result appear or repeated. it is not correct and it should be concluded only based on the objective of the study in words. Reviewer #2: Endale etal., 2015 ..Missed from reference part Birla et.al.,2017—lack of consistency Section 2.1. last paragraph …Lemma et. al , 2016 -- lack of consistency The total experimental period was consisted of four periods; the length of each period was 30 days (15days for adaptation and 15 days for data measurement) throughout 120 days…..page 5….. There is contradiction with abstract part… DCP was supplemented for 120 days of feeding trial period classified into four periods, and each consisting of 30 days (16 days of adaptation and 14 days of data collection) and at different levels (0; 0.3; 0.6; 0.9 % DM/day of DCP) for T0, T1, T2, T3, respectively…….so which one is correct ….. (Taylor et al 2007)--------------Lack of Consistency –part 2.5.3. (Kolmer et al 1951)….part 2.5.5… lack of Consistency (Dias et al., 2012)….part ..3.1. Lack of Consistency (Taylor et al., 2009). …part..3.1. Lack of Consistency Generally, the abstract, conclusion, and recommendation are poorly stated, therefore, the author should be rewritten strongly ****** 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: Yes: Tsegaye Eshetu Sime 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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282879.r001
Revision 1
22 Feb 2023 Author Response Reviewer 1.First of all we would like to thank and appreciate the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions it will address very well and would significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We have accepted most of the suggestions forwarded by the Reviewer and corrected the manuscript accordingly. Where we had a different idea to the reviewers' comments we have kindly tried to explain our point. Specific responses for specific issues raised by the Reviewers are given below (in blue). Comments from the editors and reviewers: 1. Reviewer 1. � Most of the issue which raised by the first reviewer was comments about the modification of title, number of animals in each treatment, about the parity of animals, repeated words and sentences such as; Table 1, 2 and 3 are not important b/s they show the composition and or deficiency in the previous study of mineral not the level of supplementation for each treatment, instead referring the total deficiency of those minerals in the single sentence and indicating the source is enough. ANOVA, GLM, SAS � We have accepted and change comments in in the title, Abstract, title, methodology result and discussion part and conclusion A. About title we modified title:” Supplementing Dairy Feed by Dicalcium Phosphate and Effect on Dry Matter Intake, Digestibility, Milk Composition, and Blood Mineral Balances in Crossbred Dairy Cows “ B. About abstract, methodology, result and discussion as well as conclusion and recommendations we accepted the comment and we go through and modified, corrected which are found in manuscript of response to reviewers. � However, one of the comment raised by the first reviewer’s was about experimental animals: we were a total of eight mid- lactating cows 106.0 ± 5.0 day (mean ± SD) lactation stage, with one to four parities of cross breed of Holstein Friesian X F1 Boran cows were selected with an average initial body weight of 469.0 ± 15.8 kg (mean ± SD). In this case the number of cows in treatment was one (1) since the design was a 4 × 4 double “change-over design” set as Latin Squares in which individual animals can get each treatment. This all indicated in methodology except some modifications. 2. Table 1, 2, and 3 are my Ph.D result which was published in Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research 2020. This work is my original work that helps the base line information to carry out feeding trial on those deficient minerals which were identified as a deficient, which dominantly affect the milk yield of lactating cows. Therefore, my previous result specially identification of deficient minerals which affect our dairy cows were identified from on farm lactating dairy feeds, dairy blood(serum) and finally this makes to made feeding trial (mineral) to what level supplementation give optimum milk production in our context. That’s why I used this data as a preliminary information as a base for my feeding trial. 3. Another comment is about analysis: SAS is software, and the result is analyzed through analysis of variance (ANOVA), mean minerals concentrations of samples were compared with General Liner Model (GLM) procedure that why I used however, I made some rephrasing. NB: The rest are comments, we accept and incorporate all. Reveiwer 2. We have incorporated all of your suggestions into my revisions they were helpful. Thank you � The second reviewer has more focused on references: � The total experimental period was consisted of four periods; the length of each period was 30 days (15days for adaptation and 15 days for data measurement) throughout 120 days…..page 5….. There is contradiction with abstract part… DCP was supplemented for 120 days of feeding trial period classified into four periods, and each consisting of 30 days (16 days of adaptation and 14 days of data collection) and at different levels (0; 0.3; 0.6; 0.9 % DM/day of DCP) for T0, T1, T2, T3, respectively. � We accepted as a comment because there was different number in adaptation and data measurement the exact is 16 days for adaptation and 14 days for measurement period � Except Endale et al., 2015 & Lemma et. al , 2016, the rest sources which are mentioned by second reviewer are available in the document. We have accepted and change NB.Points made by the Editor thank you for your help here below we incorporate some of the responses for comments raised The case of proof reading and the sponsorship � We have accepted and made a change specially some redundant words, absence and presence as well as improper utilization of punctuations and rephrasing some phrases in result and discussion part � The question have raised about the funding source, when I performed this research I was working my Ph.D in Adis Abeba University almost all budget from Adis Abeba university my Dilla University through the thematic project of Dr Tilaye Demissie who is included in publication (Advisor). However, the AGP-II (Agricultural Growth Program) through Debreziet Agricultural research allowed for us the dairy cow farm to perform our feeding trial simply because the Debrezeit Agricultural research need the output of the research and we did that as recommendation. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: resopns to editors and reviewers comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282879.r002
27 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor Supplementing Dairy Feed by Dicalcium Phosphate and Effect on Dry Matter Intake, Digestibility, Milk Composition, and Blood Mineral Balances in Crossbred Dairy Cows PONE-D-22-28223R1 Dear Dr. Wondewsen Bekele Bekele, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282879.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor PONE-D-22-28223R1 Supplementing Dairy Feed by Dicalcium Phosphate and Effect on Dry Matter Intake, Digestibility, Milk Composition, and Blood Mineral Balances in Crossbred Dairy Cows Dear Dr. Wondater: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Ewa Tomaszewska Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282879.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .