-->PONE-D-26-01344-->-->Integrated assessment of growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic efficiency of three broiler breeds raised under humid-tropical conditions-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. DENNIS OWUSU ACHEAMPONG, MPHIL.,

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.

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

Dear Dr. ACHEAMPONG,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision

Kind regards,

Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer1

The study provides an interesting comparison of three commercial broiler hybrids, Hubbard, Cobb 500, and Ross 308, specifically under the tropical conditions of Ghana. The manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and the results are supported by statistical analysis. The added value of the study is that the authors evaluate not only growth but also carcass traits, internal organ development, economic efficiency, and health status (mortality/morbidity).

Specific comments:

In the introduction and discussion, describe more about the tropical conditions and the differences between commercial farms in Ghana.

Lines 54-56: The citation is missing after the sentence. I recommend adding citations: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1517142 and https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-024-01777-2.

The ethics statement is general and does not provide a specific permission number for the study.

Methods: Only 5 birds per strain were used for carcass analysis, which is an insufficient number for statistical evaluation.

Results: The results or discussion do not explain why the final body weight of strain A was higher than the others.

Why are there different values between the final body weight in Table 5 and the live weight in Table 6?

I recommend dividing the discussion into individual subchapters based on the presented results to make it clearer.

In conclusion, it is not clear which broiler chicken hybrid is best suited to tropical conditions.

Reviewer2

Comments to the Author

General Assessment

The manuscript entitled “Integrated assessment of growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic efficiency of three broiler breeds raised under humid-tropical conditions” evaluates the performance of three commercial broiler strains (Hubbard, Cobb 500, and Ross 308) under humid tropical conditions in Ghana. The study integrates growth performance, carcass traits, physiological indicators, mortality, morbidity, and growth curve modeling using the Gompertz function. The topic is relevant to poultry production in tropical regions and contributes useful information regarding genotype performance and adaptability.

The manuscript is generally well structured and addresses an important issue for poultry production systems in tropical climates. However, several methodological clarifications, improvements in statistical description, language editing, and strengthening of the discussion are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major Comments

1. Experimental design clarification

Although the manuscript states that a completely randomized design (CRD) was used with 300 birds and 5 replicates per strain, further clarification is needed regarding:

Whether the pen or individual bird was used as the experimental unit for statistical analysis.

How sex distribution was handled across replicates, especially since carcass sampling included both males and females.

Clarifying the experimental unit is essential to ensure the validity of the statistical analysis.

2. Initial body weight differences

The study reports significant differences in initial body weight among strains. This could potentially influence later performance results. The authors should clarify:

Whether initial body weight was used as a covariate in the statistical analysis.

If not, discuss how these differences may have affected growth performance comparisons.

3. Sample size for carcass and organ evaluation

Only five birds per strain were used for carcass and organ measurements. This sample size appears relatively small compared with the total population (300 birds).

The authors should:

Provide justification for the sample size.

Discuss the potential limitations of small sampling on statistical power and reliability of carcass trait comparisons.

4. Growth curve modeling

The Gompertz growth model is appropriate; however, several aspects require clarification:

The manuscript does not specify whether separate models were fitted for each replicate or for pooled data per strain.

Model goodness-of-fit indicators (e.g., R², AIC, RMSE) are not reported.

Confidence intervals or statistical comparison of Gompertz parameters among strains should be considered.

Including model fit statistics would improve the reliability of the growth modeling results.

5. Mortality and morbidity analysis

The mortality results indicate significant strain differences, while morbidity differences were non-significant. However:

The statistical model used for mortality analysis should be clearly described.

Mortality data appear to be percentages but were analyzed using transformations. The authors should clarify the exact procedure used.

Since mortality occurred mostly during the brooding phase, the authors should provide a brief discussion of possible causes (e.g., brooding temperature fluctuations, chick quality, or management factors).

6. Physiological temperature measurements

Body temperature measurements were collected but not discussed sufficiently in the results or discussion sections. The authors should:

Explain how body temperature relates to heat stress adaptation among strains.

Integrate these findings into the discussion.

7. Discussion depth

The discussion is extensive but occasionally repetitive and sometimes relies heavily on comparisons with temperate studies.

The authors should:

Focus more specifically on tropical production systems.

Avoid repeating similar interpretations across sections.

Highlight practical implications for poultry farmers in tropical regions.

Minor Comments

Several grammatical and stylistic issues are present throughout the manuscript. Professional language editing is recommended.

Some formatting inconsistencies exist, such as:

commas used instead of decimals (e.g., “41,15” instead of “41.15”)

inconsistent unit formatting (kg, g, %, ℃).

The morbidity table (Table 11) appears to contain an error: the parameter heading states “Mortality (%)” instead of “Morbidity (%)”.

In the feed composition section, it would be useful to provide:

metabolizable energy for all diet phases

clearer feed formulation details.

Some references appear incomplete or inconsistently formatted and should be checked according to the journal style.

The authors should verify all figure captions and ensure that each figure is clearly referenced in the text.

Overall Recommendation to Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic and presents potentially valuable findings for broiler production in humid tropical environments. However, revisions are necessary to clarify the experimental design, strengthen the statistical analysis, and improve presentation and interpretation of results.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by 23 April 2024. 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 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,

Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"We wish to thank Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong for supporting with the funding. Appreciation is also extended to the technical staff and farm attendants at the Department of Animal Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), for their support during on field study. 6"

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Dr., DENNIS OWUSU ACHEAMPONG, MPHIL.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision.

Kind regards,

Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer1

The study provides an interesting comparison of three commercial broiler hybrids, Hubbard, Cobb 500, and Ross 308, specifically under the tropical conditions of Ghana. The manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and the results are supported by statistical analysis. The added value of the study is that the authors evaluate not only growth but also carcass traits, internal organ development, economic efficiency, and health status (mortality/morbidity).

Specific comments:

In the introduction and discussion, describe more about the tropical conditions and the differences between commercial farms in Ghana.

Lines 54-56: The citation is missing after the sentence. I recommend adding citations: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1517142 and https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-024-01777-2.

The ethics statement is general and does not provide a specific permission number for the study.

Methods: Only 5 birds per strain were used for carcass analysis, which is an insufficient number for statistical evaluation.

Results: The results or discussion do not explain why the final body weight of strain A was higher than the others.

Why are there different values between the final body weight in Table 5 and the live weight in Table 6?

I recommend dividing the discussion into individual subchapters based on the presented results to make it clearer.

In conclusion, it is not clear which broiler chicken hybrid is best suited to tropical conditions.

Reviewer2

Comments to the Author

General Assessment

The manuscript entitled “Integrated assessment of growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic efficiency of three broiler breeds raised under humid-tropical conditions” evaluates the performance of three commercial broiler strains (Hubbard, Cobb 500, and Ross 308) under humid tropical conditions in Ghana. The study integrates growth performance, carcass traits, physiological indicators, mortality, morbidity, and growth curve modeling using the Gompertz function. The topic is relevant to poultry production in tropical regions and contributes useful information regarding genotype performance and adaptability.

The manuscript is generally well structured and addresses an important issue for poultry production systems in tropical climates. However, several methodological clarifications, improvements in statistical description, language editing, and strengthening of the discussion are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major Comments

1. Experimental design clarification

Although the manuscript states that a completely randomized design (CRD) was used with 300 birds and 5 replicates per strain, further clarification is needed regarding:

Whether the pen or individual bird was used as the experimental unit for statistical analysis.

How sex distribution was handled across replicates, especially since carcass sampling included both males and females.

Clarifying the experimental unit is essential to ensure the validity of the statistical analysis.

2. Initial body weight differences

The study reports significant differences in initial body weight among strains. This could potentially influence later performance results. The authors should clarify:

Whether initial body weight was used as a covariate in the statistical analysis.

If not, discuss how these differences may have affected growth performance comparisons.

3. Sample size for carcass and organ evaluation

Only five birds per strain were used for carcass and organ measurements. This sample size appears relatively small compared with the total population (300 birds).

The authors should:

Provide justification for the sample size.

Discuss the potential limitations of small sampling on statistical power and reliability of carcass trait comparisons.

4. Growth curve modeling

The Gompertz growth model is appropriate; however, several aspects require clarification:

The manuscript does not specify whether separate models were fitted for each replicate or for pooled data per strain.

Model goodness-of-fit indicators (e.g., R², AIC, RMSE) are not reported.

Confidence intervals or statistical comparison of Gompertz parameters among strains should be considered.

Including model fit statistics would improve the reliability of the growth modeling results.

5. Mortality and morbidity analysis

The mortality results indicate significant strain differences, while morbidity differences were non-significant. However:

The statistical model used for mortality analysis should be clearly described.

Mortality data appear to be percentages but were analyzed using transformations. The authors should clarify the exact procedure used.

Since mortality occurred mostly during the brooding phase, the authors should provide a brief discussion of possible causes (e.g., brooding temperature fluctuations, chick quality, or management factors).

6. Physiological temperature measurements

Body temperature measurements were collected but not discussed sufficiently in the results or discussion sections. The authors should:

Explain how body temperature relates to heat stress adaptation among strains.

Integrate these findings into the discussion.

7. Discussion depth

The discussion is extensive but occasionally repetitive and sometimes relies heavily on comparisons with temperate studies.

The authors should:

Focus more specifically on tropical production systems.

Avoid repeating similar interpretations across sections.

Highlight practical implications for poultry farmers in tropical regions.

Minor Comments

Several grammatical and stylistic issues are present throughout the manuscript. Professional language editing is recommended.

Some formatting inconsistencies exist, such as:

commas used instead of decimals (e.g., “41,15” instead of “41.15”)

inconsistent unit formatting (kg, g, %, ℃).

The morbidity table (Table 11) appears to contain an error: the parameter heading states “Mortality (%)” instead of “Morbidity (%)”.

In the feed composition section, it would be useful to provide:

metabolizable energy for all diet phases

clearer feed formulation details.

Some references appear incomplete or inconsistently formatted and should be checked according to the journal style.

The authors should verify all figure captions and ensure that each figure is clearly referenced in the text.

Overall Recommendation to Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic and presents potentially valuable findings for broiler production in humid tropical environments. However, revisions are necessary to clarify the experimental design, strengthen the statistical analysis, and improve presentation and interpretation of results.

[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: No

**********

-->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: No

**********

-->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: The study provides an interesting comparison of three commercial broiler hybrids, Hubbard, Cobb 500, and Ross 308, specifically under the tropical conditions of Ghana. The manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and the results are supported by statistical analysis. The added value of the study is that the authors evaluate not only growth but also carcass traits, internal organ development, economic efficiency, and health status (mortality/morbidity).

Specific comments:

In the introduction and discussion, describe more about the tropical conditions and the differences between commercial farms in Ghana.

Lines 54-56: The citation is missing after the sentence. I recommend adding citations: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1517142 and https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-024-01777-2.

The ethics statement is general and does not provide a specific permission number for the study.

Methods: Only 5 birds per strain were used for carcass analysis, which is an insufficient number for statistical evaluation.

Results: The results or discussion do not explain why the final body weight of strain A was higher than the others.

Why are there different values between the final body weight in Table 5 and the live weight in Table 6?

I recommend dividing the discussion into individual subchapters based on the presented results to make it clearer.

In conclusion, it is not clear which broiler chicken hybrid is best suited to tropical conditions.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the Author

General Assessment

The manuscript entitled “Integrated assessment of growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic efficiency of three broiler breeds raised under humid-tropical conditions” evaluates the performance of three commercial broiler strains (Hubbard, Cobb 500, and Ross 308) under humid tropical conditions in Ghana. The study integrates growth performance, carcass traits, physiological indicators, mortality, morbidity, and growth curve modeling using the Gompertz function. The topic is relevant to poultry production in tropical regions and contributes useful information regarding genotype performance and adaptability.

The manuscript is generally well structured and addresses an important issue for poultry production systems in tropical climates. However, several methodological clarifications, improvements in statistical description, language editing, and strengthening of the discussion are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major Comments

1. Experimental design clarification

Although the manuscript states that a completely randomized design (CRD) was used with 300 birds and 5 replicates per strain, further clarification is needed regarding:

Whether the pen or individual bird was used as the experimental unit for statistical analysis.

How sex distribution was handled across replicates, especially since carcass sampling included both males and females.

Clarifying the experimental unit is essential to ensure the validity of the statistical analysis.

2. Initial body weight differences

The study reports significant differences in initial body weight among strains. This could potentially influence later performance results. The authors should clarify:

Whether initial body weight was used as a covariate in the statistical analysis.

If not, discuss how these differences may have affected growth performance comparisons.

3. Sample size for carcass and organ evaluation

Only five birds per strain were used for carcass and organ measurements. This sample size appears relatively small compared with the total population (300 birds).

The authors should:

Provide justification for the sample size.

Discuss the potential limitations of small sampling on statistical power and reliability of carcass trait comparisons.

4. Growth curve modeling

The Gompertz growth model is appropriate; however, several aspects require clarification:

The manuscript does not specify whether separate models were fitted for each replicate or for pooled data per strain.

Model goodness-of-fit indicators (e.g., R², AIC, RMSE) are not reported.

Confidence intervals or statistical comparison of Gompertz parameters among strains should be considered.

Including model fit statistics would improve the reliability of the growth modeling results.

5. Mortality and morbidity analysis

The mortality results indicate significant strain differences, while morbidity differences were non-significant. However:

The statistical model used for mortality analysis should be clearly described.

Mortality data appear to be percentages but were analyzed using transformations. The authors should clarify the exact procedure used.

Since mortality occurred mostly during the brooding phase, the authors should provide a brief discussion of possible causes (e.g., brooding temperature fluctuations, chick quality, or management factors).

6. Physiological temperature measurements

Body temperature measurements were collected but not discussed sufficiently in the results or discussion sections. The authors should:

Explain how body temperature relates to heat stress adaptation among strains.

Integrate these findings into the discussion.

7. Discussion depth

The discussion is extensive but occasionally repetitive and sometimes relies heavily on comparisons with temperate studies.

The authors should:

Focus more specifically on tropical production systems.

Avoid repeating similar interpretations across sections.

Highlight practical implications for poultry farmers in tropical regions.

Minor Comments

Several grammatical and stylistic issues are present throughout the manuscript. Professional language editing is recommended.

Some formatting inconsistencies exist, such as:

commas used instead of decimals (e.g., “41,15” instead of “41.15”)

inconsistent unit formatting (kg, g, %, ℃).

The morbidity table (Table 11) appears to contain an error: the parameter heading states “Mortality (%)” instead of “Morbidity (%)”.

In the feed composition section, it would be useful to provide:

metabolizable energy for all diet phases

clearer feed formulation details.

Some references appear incomplete or inconsistently formatted and should be checked according to the journal style.

The authors should verify all figure captions and ensure that each figure is clearly referenced in the text.

Overall Recommendation to Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic and presents potentially valuable findings for broiler production in humid tropical environments. However, revisions are necessary to clarify the experimental design, strengthen the statistical analysis, and improve presentation and interpretation of results.

**********

-->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: Yes:   Dr. Manish K. Singh

**********

[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 ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->PONE-D-26-01344R1-->-->Integrated Assessment of Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Economic Efficiency of Three Broiler Strains Raised Under Humid-Tropical Conditions-->-->

PLOS One

Dear Dr. ACHEAMPONG,

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.

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

Dear Dr., DENNIS OWUSU ACHEAMPONG, MPHIL.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Mainor Revision.

Kind regards,

Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer1

The manuscript has undergone substantial changes and all my comments have been incorporated into the text. I recommend accepting the manuscript.

Reviewer2

I observed that the authors did not include the markings in the manuscript indicating where the corrections requested in the previous review were made. Therefore, it was not possible to clearly identify the modifications performed.

Thus, I am returning the manuscript so that the authors can resubmit the files with the corrections properly indicated in the document.

Sincerely.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only   the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot   verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr., DENNIS OWUSU ACHEAMPONG, MPHIL.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Mainor Revision.

Kind regards,

Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer1

The manuscript has undergone substantial changes and all my comments have been incorporated into the text. I recommend accepting the manuscript.

Reviewer2

I observed that the authors did not include the markings in the manuscript indicating where the corrections requested in the previous review were made. Therefore, it was not possible to clearly identify the modifications performed.

Thus, I am returning the manuscript so that the authors can resubmit the files with the corrections properly indicated in the document.

Sincerely.

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: The manuscript has undergone substantial changes and all my comments have been incorporated into the text. I recommend accepting the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: I observed that the authors did not include the markings in the manuscript indicating where the corrections requested in the previous review were made. Therefore, it was not possible to clearly identify the modifications performed.

Thus, I am returning the manuscript so that the authors can resubmit the files with the corrections properly indicated in the document.

Sincerely.

**********

-->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 #1: Yes:   František Zigo

Reviewer #2: Yes:   Dr. Manish K. Singh

**********

[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 ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Final Corrections.docx

Integrated Assessment of Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Economic Efficiency of Three Broiler Strains Raised Under Humid-Tropical Conditions

PONE-D-26-01344R2

Dear Dr. DENNIS OWUSU ACHEAMPONG, MPHIL,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr., DENNIS OWUSU ACHEAMPONG, MPHIL.

I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Kind regards,

Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer 1

The authors incorporated all my comments into the text, which led to its improvement. I recommend accepting the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewer 2

I appreciate your efforts in revising the manuscript and have no further comments at this stage.

Best regards,

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: The authors incorporated all my comments into the text, which led to its improvement. I recommend accepting the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate your efforts in revising the manuscript and have no further comments at this stage.

Best regards,

(MKS)

**********

-->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 #1: Yes:   František Zigo

Reviewer #2: Yes:   Dr. Manish K. Singh (Ph.D. Poultry Science)

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc