Reviewer Comments on: Effect of feeding wheat middlings and calcium lignosulfonate as pellet binders on pellet quality, growth performance and lipid peroxidation in broiler chickens

Generally, the English language of the paper, in sometimes, has to be checked throughout the paper, as there are some mistakes in writing and also in the grammar. There are some comments and questions in each part of the manuscript. Also, the discussion of the results is not enough and needs to be improved. Below, you can find some specific comments that should be considered and corrected:
I- Abstract:
1- L9: ….local broiler strain… should be changed into: Egyptian broiler strain.
2- L12: basal diets supplementation with… should be changed into basal diets supplemented with ……
3- L17: Dry matter, crude protein and crude fiber retentions….. retentions or digestibility rates? Please check this point as you measured the apparent digestibility rates, not the retention rates. There is a big difference in measuring the following parameters: apparent digestibility, true digestibility and retention rate.
4- L 18: Ca- Ls should be changed into: Ca-LS.
5- L23: ….WM had positive effects.. should be changed into: …WM ( at a level of 50 kg/ton) had positive effects….
6- L24: …local broiler strain. Should be changed into: Egyptian broiler strain.

II- Introduction:
1- L34: … to improve feed intake… should be changed into: improved feed intake.
2- L35: … energy expend in eating, should be changed into: energy expended in eating,
3- L 41: please reorder the references, as 1976 is before 1998.
4- L 43 to44: please, describe the chemical composition values of Ca-LS.
5- L 46: in level 1-3%... should be changed into: at a level of 1-3%
6- L 50 to 58: please, describe the nutrient composition values of WM, especially of ME, CP, CF, EE and amino acids values.
7- L57: mention the value of total non-starch poly saccharides content in WM.
8- L 56 to 58: the effect of WM in improving the pellet quality is not only due to its content of NSPs, but also related to starch gelatinization process which is more efficient in case of WM. This information should be added with its appropriate references.
9- L59: please, describe the level of WM that improved the performance, and in which species of poultry? Broilers or layers or what??
10- L62: local broiler strain. Should be changed into: Egyptian broiler strain. This should be done all over the manuscript.

III- Materials and methods:
1- L 66: All birds fed on same starter diet.. should be changed into: All birds were fed on the same starter diet
2- L 69: the second group fed on diets content 50 kg/ton of… should be changed into: the second group was fed on diets containing 50 kg/ton of….
3- L70: the third group was fed on diets supplemented on 4 kg/ton… should be changed into: the third group was fed on diets supplemented with 4 kg/ton
4- L 69-70: You should describe why did you add WM and Ca-LS at these selected levels (50 kg for WM and 4 kg for Ca-LS per ton)?
5- L 70: what about the formulation of the diet? You formulated the diets to satisfy the nutrient requirements according to what?? Did you analyze the diets or its chemical composition was calculated? You should mention these points.
6- L72: the temperature and humidity should be described also during the brooding period.
7- L 85 to 86: what is the difference between Pellet durability index (PDI) and New Holmen Pellet Tester (NHPT)? As I think this device (Holmen pellet tester) is used for determination of pellet durability index.
8- L 90: Did you correct the FCR according to mortality rate or dead birds? and did you measure the mortality rate of birds throughout the experiment?
9- L 97-99: Did you measure the uric acid in excreta to correct the digestibility of crude protein. In addition, the described equation is not for nitrogen retention, but it is for apparent digestibility of crude protein or nitrogen. Why did you write the equation of CP apparent digestibility, but not for ether extract and crude fiber? You can write one sentence or one equation for calculating the apparent digestibility of all tested nutrients and you have to describe if the CP corrected for uric acid or not as this is very important for calculation of CP digestibility in poultry.
10- L 104: Why did you not measure malondialdehyde in blood plasma?
11- L 114: You should describe which statistical test used in the analyses of data? Also, you should describe if the results are presented as Mean ± SD or Mean ±SEM.

IV- Results:
1. L 133-135: the word retention in this part has to be changed into: apparent digestibility.
2. Table 1: why did you add potassium carbonate to the diets, although they contain high amount of SBM which is rich in potassium content. Also, You should give the values of Lys. , Met. , Met+Cys., potassium, EE and crude fiber contents in the nutrient composition of the diets.
3. Table 2: The superscripts should be written above the mean values in all tables. In the title of all tables, local broiler strain should be changed into: Egyptian broiler strain.
4. Table 3: please, separate table 3 from table 4 as both was confused together. You should add in the title also the effect on growth performance and carcass traits. You should calculate the carcass yield as this is also very important data to determine among the treatments, and write that in materials and methods.
5. Table 4: CPU and EEU and CFU. You measured the apparent digestibility of these nutrients and not the utilization or retention. Please, correct this issue as there is a big difference in measuring the digestibility, retention or efficiency of utilization of nutrients. This point is very important and it makes confusion, and has to be corrected to apparent digestibility of nutrients. In addition, You should describe that the measured digestibility for CP was the apparent digestibility and it is not corrected for uric acid of the excreta.
6. Fig. 1: you should write in the title that the fatty acids profile and lipid peroxidation in the muscles of Egyptian broiler strain.

V- Discussion:
1. You should discuss why did you choose that levels of WM and Ca-LS in this study? Generally, the discussion (reasons) of the effects of WM in increasing the pellet quality, performance and digestibility of nutrients or other parameters is not clear and not enough. Please, discuss these points briefly and give the potential reasons for the effects of WM on each parameter. Also, you should provide information about the effects of the minimum and maximum levels of WM, which can be used in poultry, on performance and pellet quality in poultry. In addition, you should discuss why the effects of WM on all tested parameters were better than Ca-LS.
2. L 162-164: this part should be revised for English writing. Also, the discussion of the effect of WM in improvement of pellet quality is not enough. You should search for other reasons such as starch gelatinization and ….so on. Also, you should give reasons why the effect of WM is better than Ca-LS.
3. L 168: delete the words: Table 3.
4. L 182-183: what is the level of WM that used by Gheisari et al (2003). You should write that.
5. L 183-184: this part should be revised as the discussion of the effect of WM on performance is not clear. Also, you should give the possible reasons for improving the performance by WM.
6. L 185: Crude protein and crude fiber utilizations … should be changed into: Crude protein and crude fiber digestibilities….
7. L 194: Protein and fiber utilizations… Should be changed into: Protein and fiber digestibilities
8. L 194-196: How can the NSPs in WM increase the digestibility of nutrients? This is wrong, as known; the NSPs increase the viscosity and consequently decrease the digestibility of nutrients.

VI- Conclusions:
1. You should write the conclusions in details, supporting it with levels of WM and Ca-LS and values as possible. Also, you should compare between the WM and Ca-LS (which was better in the effect), I think the WM had better effects than Ca-LS. In addition, you should write your recommendation for the poultry industry based on the results of your study.
2. L 229: Based in the data presented above,.. should be changed into: based on the obtained data, ….
3. L 231: lipid peroxidation and fatty acids profile in local broiler strain should be changed into: lipid peroxidation and fatty acids profile in muscles of Egyptian broiler strain.

L 186 to 187: please delete this sentence, starting from because CaLS becoming…….drying. , because this sentence is repeated again in the next lines.