Comparison of Muscle Quality of the Yellow Catfish Cultured in In-Pond Raceway Systems and Traditional Ponds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for allowing me to review your paper. I found that the scientific merits of your approach were sound and that the results were compelling that the IPR method produced a more desirable product.
I have attached a file with a few suggestions on grammatical usage or wording. Please consider them.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript entitled “Comparison of muscle quality of the yellow catfish cultured in
in-pond raceway system and traditional ponds” provides interesting findings, however description of methods, presentation of results and the content of discussion need further substantial improvement. My major comments are provided below:
ABSTRACT
L11/12 Latin name of species is needed here.
L14 “the same specifications”? I assume starting weight but not farming conditions. Please correct.
L17 and L23 “extremely higher” please provide exact values.
INTRODUCTION
L48 Please delete this sentence “These results confirmed the view.„
L52 Please provide production of P. fulvidraco as million tonnes.
L54 Please provide values for high mortality, and examples of diseases, pollution, other problems that affect P. fulvidracofarming.
L57 All fins? Please provide precise information.
L60-63 Please define clear aim of the study.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
L67 please introduce spaces between values and SD. Correct also other instances.
L71 – “2” as superscript.
L90 Please correct “(26.3±2.2) °C. „ Fonts, spaces, and “°C” placed in brackets.
L88-98 Please provide references and equipment/kits names.
L99 Please check and improve title of the table.
L115/116 description (mantissa) and symbol (S0) need improvement.
L117-124 Please describe preparation of samples and provide number of replicates.
L125-132 Sample preparation and detailed description of each method is essential for all methods, not only here.
Please provide equations for calculation of different types (SFA, MUFA, PUFA, …) of FA.
Please update and follow calculations of AA and FA, and indices as described here https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010059
RESULTS
Subchapter 3.1. Move Table 1 here. Improve the name of the table and titles of the columns. In other table please improve names of the EP column. I assume you should use TRP.
Table 4 and 5 – units should be placed in the brackets.
Subchapter 3.5 Do not list each AA, discuss differences in groups or if necessary specific AA.
L205 Please do not claim that one AA was limiting and at the same time you refer to two. Additionally, why abbreviations for Phe and Tyr are provided with different font style.
Table 8 Please use only one name for FA, e.g. Methyl palmitoleate or C16:1. I prefer the former one. Additionally, in the table please provide also total value for UFA and SFA. The values were calculated for wet weight or dry weight, please indicate.
DISCUSSION
L226/227 I did not find sufficient information to support this observation in the manuscript, since mentioned DO level was assessed only at the end of the trail.
L239 Taste relate to sensory parameters and not to parameters of texture. Please reconsider this sentence and rewrite.
L242 Please provide Latin name for the species.
L243-245 Which results do you refer to?
L249 Please do not use such words as “extremely” refer to facts by giving figures.
L273 please provide examples of “other aquatic products”.
General comment, discussion repeat results and the result should be discussed more thoroughly considering transversality aspect of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not have further comments or remarks.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
