I thank the referee for his/her comments. In the revised version I have made several changes
to comply with the referee’s suggestions. Hope, the resubmitted version is suitable for 
publication in the SQM proceedings. The list of changes and answers to the referee 
are listed below. 

Wojciech Florkowski

1) It would be good to show/mention what would be different between non-equilibrium model and sequential freeze-out model and what could be the discriminating power between them in terms of model/data comparison. 

ANSWER: A reference to the paper by I. Melo and B. Tomasik has been added to emphasize similar features of our analysis and the model having a higher freeze-out  temperature for hyperons.
Unfortunately, due to limited space we cannot enter a detailed discussion on the issues suggested
by the referee. 

——————
2) P2 Fig.1 and Fig.2 : c=0% "\div" 5% would be just "0-5 %" 

ANSWER: The two figures have been corrected.

——————
3) P2 L6-7 : "The phase-space ..." does this mean the calculation include feed-down effect from all the decaying particles from resonance decay? Are these treatments the same as the one done in the experimental data analysis? 

ANSWER: Yes, we include all known resonance decays and the comparison with the data includes the proper weak-decay corrections. 

——————
4) P2 Eq.(5) : It would be better to define Bi, Si with Nqi, Nsi, and the same for mu_B and mu_S with mu_q and mu_s. 

ANSWER: We have added information what Bi and Si mean. We hope this should clarify alll the definitions. Again, due to the limited space, it is hard to present more extended formulas and their physics discussion.

——————
5) P3 3-4th line from the bottom : "for small centralities" -> "for central collisions" 

ANSWER: IN our opinion „Small centrality” means in practice nothing else but „central collisions” but we have changed this fragment according to the referee’s suggestion.

——————
6) P3 last sentence : If a calculation is only close to one or a few data points in a spectrum, I would say the spectrum is not well described the calculation. One can say the yield is described at some particular data points, though. 

ANSWER: This is what we wanted say that we fond agreement with exception of the high-pt region.