a. There are potential benefits of incorporating multigenerational animals into current production schemes in order to improve traits which have been inadvertently selected against.

b. Modern genetics may prove to be more beneficial to incorporate into breeding herds as these phenotypes are more in line with current market demands in the beef industry.

Yes, these are rather novel claims.

Yes.

Yes, I believe they do.  Different carcass traits were significantly affected by both sire groups, indicating that both have merit in an animal breeding system designed to improve overall carcass trait acceptability to the consumer.

The authors adhered to their stated protocol throughout the manuscript.

The statistical methodology section needs some corrections (see comments section below). Otherwise, the methodology is valid and sufficient for replication of the experiment.

No, I believe the manuscript is complete.  It would have been nice if a “modern” Angus sire group had been added, but that is not possible at this juncture.

From the perspective of adding to the scientific literature for beef cattle breeding and genetics, the manuscript is outstanding and worthy of presentation at a scientific meeting within the discipline.  The work with multigenerational sires within the Angus breed is unique as is the work with the “modern” sires of the Charolais breed. The manuscript should be referenced in subsequent scientific literature dealing with this subject matter.

Page 3

The electronic citations should appear in the literature cited in the proper form for an electronic reference.

Charolais and Angus sired (calves, animals, etc.) should read Charolais-sired and Angus-sired, respectively.

Species names should be italicized and the T should be lower case.

"Dams had ..." should be changed to "Dams were ..." or "Dams had been ...".

Using Charolais bulls as cleanup bulls introduce bias in terms of weaning age, i.e., Charolais calves were younger.  If you used BIF adjustments or covariate adjustment on data it should be okay.

What specifically was the suitable harvest weight?

Page 4

Were weaning and preweaning data subjected to a BIF adjustements?  If so, this should be stated.  If they weren’t adjusted to BIF standards, there should be a covariate of weaning age for weaning weight at the very least.

“…calf to carcass program…” should read “…calf-to-carcass program…”.

“…mixed model procedure of SAS…” should be accompanied by a citation specific to SAS and not as referenced in another article.

“Random effects…” should read “Dependent variables…”.  Random effects in this model should include sire within breed type. 

For some traits there was perhaps a covariate fit in the model, please indicate if this is so.

Actually, it is the PDIFF function of the LSMEANS statement in PROC MIXED that was used for means separation.  This should be a “protected” test, i.e., there should be an overall significant effect of sire breed indicated by the F-test for PDIFF to be used.  With only two levels of sire breed, the F-test should be sufficient for separating the lsmeans.  No PDIFF is necessary and means were separated by the F-test, not the LSMEANS function.  The statistical analyses section should be reworked in this manuscript.

The probability levels for significance should be stated as follows:  (P< 0.05) wherein “p” is both capitalized and italicized. 

The sentence “When analyzing the trait birth weight …” should simply and more straightforwardly read “Charolais-sired calves were heavier (P< 0.05) at birth than Angus-sired calves (Table 1).”.  There is no need to state the probability level and whether it is significant or not.  The results section should be re-written with these concepts imposed.

The authors are encouraged to re-think the use of figures in the manuscript.  A table with means and standard errors for each trait should be more efficient in presenting the data.

Where are the means for the sex effect and the breed type X sex interaction?  Rather than use the term sex, calf gender would be preferred.
       
Were the heavier weaning weights of the Angus-sired calves heavier because they were older?  Please indicate if these were BIF adjusted weights or if a covariate of age was used in the analyses.  Your rationale of stating that the Angus sires were more paternal is suspect.

“…reported an correlation…” should read “…reported a correlation…”.

Page 5

The authors may want to rethink their conclusions in light of a reanalysis of the data incorporating some means of equalizing calf age.  Whether it will have an effect on carcass traits per se, may be a bit sketchy, but should be explored.

Wyatt et al. 1997. Performance of Angus and Brangus cow-calf pairs grazing Alicia bermudagrass and common bermudagrass-dallisgrass pastures. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1926-1933. Wyatt et al. 2013. Pre- and postweaning calf performances in crossbred cattle from Hereford, Braford, and Bonsmara sires and Angus and Brangus dams. Prof. Anim. Sci. 29: 621-631. Wyatt et al. 2013. Feedlot performance, carcass merit, and meat tenderness in crossbred cattle from Hereford, Braford, and Bonsmara sires and Angus and Brangus dams. Prof. Anim. Sci. 29: 632-644. Wyatt et al. 2014. Growth and reproductive performances in F1 crossbred heifers from Hereford, Braford, and Bonsmara sires and Angus and Brangus dams. Prof. Anim. Sci. 30: 342-353.

I received my BS degree in Agricultural Science in 1975 from the University of Tennessee at Martin. I receivedan MS degree in 1978 and a PhDdegree in 1981 in Animal Sciences from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I am a full professor of Animal Science in a major land grant university (Louisiana State University Agricultural Center) with 32 years of research experience. I have conducted and published research in beef production management and in animal breeding and genetics.