Phosphorus for Cattle and Buffaloes in Brazil: Clinical Signs and Diagnosis of Its Deficiency and Relevance, and Recommended Strategies to Alleviate Issues Observed under Grazing Conditions
, José Diomedes Barbosa 2, Marilene Farias Brito 3, Vinícius Carneiro de Souza 4 and Diogo Fleury Azevedo Costa 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations on producing this review. I have made several suggestions on the manuscript that personally i consider should improve the document. I would also suggest a complete review of the paper using more professional and scientific language.
There is a tendency for the authors to use more words than required in a sentence...suggest that when reviewing the authors consider if they can state what is needed more simply using more common language.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
We really appreciate all the time and effort that Reviewer 1 spent on this manuscript. This new revised copy of the manuscript has changed drastically due to your input that can now be seen throughout the whole manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting review which describes the clinical signs and diagnosis of phosphorus deficiency in cattle and buffalos. At the end of the paper the authors also provide recommendations of strategies to address the deficiency of this mineral in brazilian systems. Overall, the paper shows interesting and important information to be published. However, I would suggest to include in this work more references and background information when recommending the rage of values for: blood sampling, faecal sampling, bone biopsy (CT) and needle test. I think would be useful for the reader to understand how the threshold values (recommendations) presented in the sections mentioned above were defined.
In addition please find bellow some specific comments/suggestions.
Abstract
Line 14 - Please define the acronyms when used at the first time (i.e. P)
Introduction
Line 25 – I would suggest the use of “ importance of p deficiency for beef cattle grazing..”
Line 41 - I would suggest the use of “A large amount of research initiated..”
Line 57 - I would suggest the use of “relevant to Brazilian production systems” instead of “our own very specific reality”
2. Phosphorus deficiency in cattle and buffaloes: The Brazilian experience
Line 61 – I would suggest to avoid using first-person pronouns
Line 61 – “is” instead of “was”
2.2. General aspects of P deficiency
Line 88 to 90 – This is very interesting. Would be useful if you could include the reference papers which compared the effect of P deficiency in cattle and buffalos.
2.3. Clinical P deficiency
Line 91 – “Clinical P deficiency occurs…”
Line 92 to 93 – Please include the reference which suggests that clinical deficiency takes place when intake is 1.5 to 2.0 times lower than requirements
Line 133 - I would suggest the use of “can be diagnosed” instead of “is easily observed”
Line 149 to 151 – I’m a bit confused by this statement. It says that the clinical signs of P deficiency in buffalos are quite characteristic but at the same time similar to cattle.
Line 152 – Rural poverty as a consequence of P deficiency seems like an overstatement. I agree with you that it leads to poor animal performance and most likely low economic returns but there would be many other factors leading to poverty.
Line 153 to 157 – This is an important information and probably should be placed at the beginning of this section for clarification.
2.4. Subclinical P deficiency
Line 159 - “Subclinical P deficiency occurs…”
Line 159 to 160 – Would be useful to quantify what is slightly less than the requirements.
Line 161 – “lower growth rates” instead of “less than ideal body development”
3. Diagnosis of P deficiency
Line 186 – maybe “health or herd management history”
Line 219 – “subtle” instead of “discreet”
3.1. Collection of soil samples
Table 1 – “bulked” instead of “gave rise”.
Table 1 – Apart of soil D, all other soils only showed a small variation in terms of P (mg/L) between the 0 – 3 cm sampling compared to the 0 – 10 cm. It seems that this is in some way contradictory to the suggestions made on the text. How the differences in terms of sampling depth can be interpreted when diagnosing P deficiency? Are there any recommendations in terms of minimum levels? What was the extracting solution utilized?
3.2. Collection of forage samples
Line 257 to 259 – This section has already repeated in lines 185 to 187.
Line 279 – “well” instead of “very”
3.3. Blood sampling
Line 301 to 305 – Is lower intake of P during the dry season caused by a lower concentration of P in the forages or due to the overall lower dry matter intake due to low CP levels?
Line 297 – “mobilize” instead of “remove”
Line 314 – The statement says “Pi values,… should always be compared with faecal nitrogen (N) and P (Table 3)”. It’s not clear what values of P should the values of Pi and faecal nitrogen should be compared.
Table 3 – It seems that the citation is not following the journal guidelines. Please double check.
Line 344 – “concentration” instead of “value”
Line 358 to 360 – It’s not clear which authors are being referred here. Is this data originated from the authors own work or is it a citation from another paper?
Table 4 – Are there any limitations for the interpretation of these values if the herd is being fed any type of protein supplementation?
3.5. Bone biopsy
Line 396 to 399 – This is interesting. Would be great if the authors could provide further information about the studies which led to the determination of CT parameters.
Line 401 – It seems that the citation is not following the journal guidelines. Please double check.
3.6. Needle test
Line 410 – Please define “NT” when used at the first time.
Line 424 to 426 – It’s understandable the recommendations of the authors that the complementary tests should take into account another parameter’s before reaching a diagnose of P deficiency. However, this sentence has been constantly repeated in most sections. I would recommend the authors to avoid its repetition.
3.7 Experimentation
Line 470 – “composition” instead of “formula”. Please correct throughout the document
Line 474 – “greater chances of reaching a correct diagnosis” instead of “greater the safety of the diagnosis”
4.0 Prophylactic measures after P deficiency is diagnosed
Line 515 – “with lower concentrations” instead of “poorly concentrated”
4.2. Supply of P to animals, orally, mixed with common salt (NaCl)
Line 538 – “which” instead of “whose”
Author Response
***Thank you very much. The authors really appreciate the effort and time you spent on this.
Specific comments:
Abstract
Line 14 - Please define the acronyms when used at the first time (i.e. P)
***Modification done as suggested.
Introduction
Line 25 – I would suggest the use of “ importance of p deficiency for beef cattle grazing..”
***Modification done based on inputs from reviewer 1 and 2. Now lines 27 and 28 read: “The importance of Phosphorus (P) deficiency in the nutrition of grazing beef cattle was firstly established in South Africa …”
Line 41 - I would suggest the use of “A large amount of research initiated..”
***We’ve replaced the word “ignited” by “initiated” as indicated by the reviewer.
Line 57 - I would suggest the use of “relevant to Brazilian production systems” instead of “our own very specific reality”
***Modification done as suggested.
- Phosphorus deficiency in cattle and buffaloes: The Brazilian experience
Line 61 – I would suggest to avoid using first-person pronouns
***First-person pronouns are no longer present.
Line 61 – “is” instead of “was”
***Modification done as suggested.
2.2. General aspects of P deficiency
Line 88 to 90 – This is very interesting. Would be useful if you could include the reference papers which compared the effect of P deficiency in cattle and buffalos.
***References have been included as suggested.
2.3. Clinical P deficiency
Line 91 – “Clinical P deficiency occurs…”
***Modification done as suggested.
Line 92 to 93 – Please include the reference which suggests that clinical deficiency takes place when intake is 1.5 to 2.0 times lower than requirements
***Reference added.
Line 133 - I would suggest the use of “can be diagnosed” instead of “is easily observed”
***Modification done based on input from 2 reviewers. Now line 15 reads: “Aphosphorosis can be easily detected due to its drastic consequences.”
Line 149 to 151 – I’m a bit confused by this statement. It says that the clinical signs of P deficiency in buffalos are quite characteristic but at the same time similar to cattle.
The paragraph has been rewritten: “In buffaloes, the signs and pathological picture of clinical phosphorus deficiency are not dissimilar to those observed in cattle.”
Line 152 – Rural poverty as a consequence of P deficiency seems like an overstatement. I agree with you that it leads to poor animal performance and most likely low economic returns but there would be many other factors leading to poverty.
Thank you. The paragraph has been rewritten and lines 185 and 186 now say: “this form of the disease has severe economic impacts due to….”
Line 153 to 157 – This is an important information and probably should be placed at the beginning of this section for clarification.
***Modification done as suggested.
2.4. Subclinical P deficiency
Line 159 - “Subclinical P deficiency occurs…”
***Modification done as suggested.
Line 159 to 160 – Would be useful to quantify what is slightly less than the requirements.
***The whole paragraph has been rewritten to clarify the above.
Line 161 – “lower growth rates” instead of “less than ideal body development”
***Modification done as suggested.
- Diagnosis of P deficiency
Line 186 – maybe “health or herd management history”
Line 219 – “subtle” instead of “discreet”
***Modification done as suggested.
3.1. Collection of soil samples
Table 1 – “bulked” instead of “gave rise”.
***Modification done as suggested.
Table 1 – Apart of soil D, all other soils only showed a small variation in terms of P (mg/L) between the 0 – 3 cm sampling compared to the 0 – 10 cm. It seems that this is in some way contradictory to the suggestions made on the text. How the differences in terms of sampling depth can be interpreted when diagnosing P deficiency? Are there any recommendations in terms of minimum levels? What was the extracting solution utilized?
***Clarified in the new text.
3.2. Collection of forage samples
Line 257 to 259 – This section has already repeated in lines 185 to 187.
***This is now removed.
Line 279 – “well” instead of “very”
***Modification done as suggested.
3.3. Blood sampling
Line 301 to 305 – Is lower intake of P during the dry season caused by a lower concentration of P in the forages or due to the overall lower dry matter intake due to low CP levels?
*** due to the overall lower dry matter intake due to low CP levels.
Line 297 – “mobilize” instead of “remove”
***Modification done as suggested.
Line 314 – The statement says “Pi values,… should always be compared with faecal nitrogen (N) and P (Table 3)”. It’s not clear what values of P should the values of Pi and faecal nitrogen should be compared.
*** Blood Pi. Ruminants have an efficient system to regulate phosphatemia, which keeps blood P (Pi) within the normal reference values (3.5 to 7.0mg/dL or ≅ 1.1 to 2.3 mM)
Table 3 – It seems that the citation is not following the journal guidelines. Please double check.
***Thank you. It has been corrected.
Line 344 – “concentration” instead of “value”
***Modification done as suggested.
Line 358 to 360 – It’s not clear which authors are being referred here. Is this data originated from the authors own work or is it a citation from another paper?
***Correct. This has been clarified “The authors statements are based on their own data…”
Table 4 – Are there any limitations for the interpretation of these values if the herd is being fed any type of protein supplementation?
***The P coming from protein supplements has to be accounted for.
3.5. Bone biopsy
Line 396 to 399 – This is interesting. Would be great if the authors could provide further information about the studies which led to the determination of CT parameters.
Line 401 – It seems that the citation is not following the journal guidelines. Please double check.
***Thank you! It has been corrected.
3.6. Needle test
Line 410 – Please define “NT” when used at the first time.
***Modification done as suggested.
Line 424 to 426 – It’s understandable the recommendations of the authors that the complementary tests should take into account another parameter’s before reaching a diagnose of P deficiency. However, this sentence has been constantly repeated in most sections. I would recommend the authors to avoid its repetition.
***Thank you! This has now been removed.
3.7 Experimentation
Line 470 – “composition” instead of “formula”. Please correct throughout the document
***Modification done as suggested.
Line 474 – “greater chances of reaching a correct diagnosis” instead of “greater the safety of the diagnosis”
***Modification done as suggested.
4.0 Prophylactic measures after P deficiency is diagnosed
Line 515 – “with lower concentrations” instead of “poorly concentrated”
***Modification done as suggested.
4.2. Supply of P to animals, orally, mixed with common salt (NaCl)
Line 538 – “which” instead of “whose”.
***Modification done as suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
Phosphorus for cattle and buffaloes in Brazil – Clinical signs and diagnosis of the deficiency, its relevance, and recommendation of strategies to alleviate issues observed under grazing conditions
Review
The abstract of this paper is too general and not informative enough for the reader. I suggest that the abstract should be expanded and present all the elements of the work. You can use the principles of structured abstract writing. A structured abstract is an abstract with distinct, labeled sections (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) for rapid comprehension. An example of a good abstract that could be applied to your work is below:
“BACKGROUND: What is the latest knowledge on the issue? Some key phrases to use here are: recent studies/although some clinical research has established x, the role of y is not well known.
OBJECTIVE: What did you want to find out? Some key phrases to use here are: This study examines/To ascertain/To identify/To understand
METHODS: How did you go about finding it? What type of methodology did you use? A quantitative study/a randomized controlled study/a qualitative survey/a literature review/a double blind trial
RESULTS: What did you find? What data or outcomes did you observe? You can use phrases such as X was observed because of Y. Do not be vague! State exactly what you found.
CONCLUSION: What did your results tell you? Did you find out what you wanted? Why or why not? What should be studied next? Use phrases such as X was statistically significant, Variable A has a negative correlation with Variable B, etc.”
The text of the manuscript is well organized and written in 5 chapters, and in some chapters there is an additional classification into smaller units. The manuscript is well written and presents a logical whole. It starts with the state of affairs in the field, goes through sampling and diagnosis of hypophosphatemia and ends with preventive measures that should be taken to ensure that there is enough phosphorus in the soil, and therefore in plants and in animal feed.
The photos are well chosen, but they are scattered through the text. Pictures should be grouped according to thematic units.
In the introduction, you could also describe the importance of phosphorus in systemic regulation in dairy cows, such as the development of insulin resistance, which depends on milk production and other homeostatic properties in cattle. This would contribute to a better communicability of the manuscript.
Some works that would be a good reference are:
Cincović, M. R., Djoković, R., Belić, B., Potkonjak, A., Toholj, B., Stojanac, N., ... & Starič, J. (2017). Inorganic phosphorus decrease after intravenous glucose tolerance test is associated with insulin resistance in dairy cows. Veterinarski arhiv, 87(4), 409-418.
Đoković, R., Kurčubić, V., Ilić, Z., Cincović, M., Davidov, I., Petrović, M. D., & Trifković, J. (2014). Changes in blood values of glucose, insulin and inorganic phosphorus in healthy and ketotic cows during an intravenos glucose tolerance test. Biotechnology in animal husbandry, 30(4), 571-578.
What is notable about the manuscript is that many of the images and text can be found in other sources that are cited. It is necessary that the MDPI editors together with the authors consider the conditions for the rights of use. Another thing to consider is possible autoplagiarism. It is necessary to adjust the text to a high quality so that elements of autoplagiarism do not appear. Also, if the images have been published before, the primary source must be next to the name of the image (Figure) in manuscript.
The manuscript is of overall quality and can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
The abstract of this paper is too general and not informative enough for the reader. I suggest that the abstract should be expanded and present all the elements of the work. You can use the principles of structured abstract writing. A structured abstract is an abstract with distinct, labeled sections (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) for rapid comprehension. An example of a good abstract that could be applied to your work is below:
***Thank you! We have added a bit more to the Abstract to expand it and clarify some of the elements of importance.
“BACKGROUND: What is the latest knowledge on the issue? Some key phrases to use here are: recent studies/although some clinical research has established x, the role of y is not well known.
***As indicated in the current review, the topic is not new and our group has been working on it over the last decades. The main findings indicate that one variable alone, e.g. forage or soil sampling, cannot be used to diagnose P deficiency. Please have another look on this revised copy. We believe it has considerably improved after the incorporation of the input from reviewers.
OBJECTIVE: What did you want to find out? Some key phrases to use here are: This study examines/To ascertain/To identify/To understand
***Thank you! Some key phrases now present in this revised copy of the manuscript.
METHODS: How did you go about finding it? What type of methodology did you use? A quantitative study/a randomized controlled study/a qualitative survey/a literature review/a double blind trial
***The references are found throughout this revised copy. A number of them are case studies, but of high relevance and published in distinguished peer-reviewed journals.
RESULTS: What did you find? What data or outcomes did you observe? You can use phrases such as X was observed because of Y. Do not be vague! State exactly what you found.
***Please not that in this review we have stated what was found in the literature.
CONCLUSION: What did your results tell you? Did you find out what you wanted? Why or why not? What should be studied next? Use phrases such as X was statistically significant, Variable A has a negative correlation with Variable B, etc.”
***As indicated above, in this review we have stated what was found in the literature.
The text of the manuscript is well organized and written in 5 chapters, and in some chapters there is an additional classification into smaller units. The manuscript is well written and presents a logical whole. It starts with the state of affairs in the field, goes through sampling and diagnosis of hypophosphatemia and ends with preventive measures that should be taken to ensure that there is enough phosphorus in the soil, and therefore in plants and in animal feed.
The photos are well chosen, but they are scattered through the text. Pictures should be grouped according to thematic units.
***Photos are grouped according to themes. It has started with historical photos, then going to clinical signs of P deficiency, etc.
In the introduction, you could also describe the importance of phosphorus in systemic regulation in dairy cows, such as the development of insulin resistance, which depends on milk production and other homeostatic properties in cattle. This would contribute to a better communicability of the manuscript.
***The authors work with beef cattle and buffaloes and therefore prefer to focus on what they have gathered extensive experience over the last decades.
Some works that would be a good reference are:
***Thank you! The references will be of great value to our team.
What is notable about the manuscript is that many of the images and text can be found in other sources that are cited. It is necessary that the MDPI editors together with the authors consider the conditions for the rights of use. Another thing to consider is possible autoplagiarism. It is necessary to adjust the text to a high quality so that elements of autoplagiarism do not appear. Also, if the images have been published before, the primary source must be next to the name of the image (Figure) in manuscript.
***Thank you! All photos have been properly cited to avoid autoplagiarism.
The manuscript is of overall quality and can be accepted for publication.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
much improved...well done.
