Enhancement of the Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Activities of Fruit Pomaces and Agro-Industrial Byproducts through Solid-State Fermentation for Livestock Nutrition: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review manuscript entitled "Enhancement of the nutritional composition and antioxidant activities of fruit pomaces and agro-industrial byproducts through solid-state fermentation for livestock nutrition: A review" has been reviewed. This review seeks to provide reinforcing evidence on the applicability and impact of fruit pomaces on livestock nutrition. Despite much interest in this field,however, the current organization and expression are not up to publication. Below are my specific concerns:
(1) Title: fruit pomaces are not agro-industrial by products? Why should you list them all? Please give an explanation.
(2) Abstract: Most contents of this section are the background. However, where comes the focus of the current review? for instance, specific subtitle at least should be listed or covered here. By the way, why should the Fermentation in the sentence "hence, improving them via Fermentation could serve the livestock industry indual capacities, including nutraceutical and conventional feedstuff." be capital?
(3) Content: why here comes two 2.1.2 with 2.1.2 Effect on Ether extract and
Effect on crude fibre? The section "3. Impact of solid-state fermented fruit Pomace and agricultural byproducts on
animal performance and health" is disordered, why not add sub-titles?
(4) Tables: Table 2, is it reasonable to show P-value in a review? Check the whole text for this issue.
(5) Reference: Some up to date literature are missing, please add them to expand the review.
I would like to see the manuscript with line numbers, so more specific suggestions would be kindly given.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
- Title: fruit pomaces are not agro-industrial by products?
Response: Truly, fruit pomaces are not agro-industrial by products and the review article at no point classify it to be so. The focus of the review article is to provide information about the volume of waste generated from the two different entities and their potential valorization and use in livestock diet through solid state fermentation.
2. Why should you list them all?
Response: Table 1 is not an exhaustive list of all the fruit pomaces. However, we decided to include the table to provide a background of the volume of fruit waste generated annually, including the potential nutrient content for use as livestock feed.
2. Abstract: Most contents of this section are the background. Where comes the focus of the current review?
Response: The abstract has been remodified to reflect more succinctly the focus of the review
3. Why should the ‘Fermentation’ in the sentence be in capital letter
Response: This has been addressed and written as ‘small letter’
4. Content: Why here comes two 2.1.2 with 2.1.2.
Response: This has been addressed and corrected accordingly
Section 3: The section 3 is disordered, why not add subtitles?
Response: We did add subtitles as reflected in subsections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 respectively.
- Tables: Table 2, Is it reasonable to show P-value in review?
Response: This has been properly checked and all p values removed
- Reference: Some literature references are missing.
Responses: The entire manuscript has been reviewed for missing references and updated accordingly
- Overall: I would like to see the manuscript with line numbers, so more specific suggestions will be given.
Responses: The manuscript now has continuous line numbers
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSolid-state fermentation is a useful way to capitalize the solid waste. The topic reviewed by the authors is very actual and quite well done.
They are some aspects which should be improved:
1. The modern reviews present the key(s) used for selecting the publications used and how the research (even theoretical) was done. In my opinion, the authors should include a short presentation of their approach by selecting the materials used for preparing the review.
2. I don’t understand very well how the publications are written in References. There is no order and in many places the rules for writing the authors are not respected. Because of the absence of order, it is very difficult to follow the articles cited in text.
3. The authors have to check to have the names of the microorganisms or mushrooms written with italics. Ex: lines 112-115
4. Minimal a figure should be included in the review, to represent graphically the content and the vision of the authors.
Specific observations:
Line 42: duplicated word “several”, please find another formulation
Line 44-45: The publication refered here (Mahlake et al., 2021) is not correct. They discuss the effect of green tea leaf powder on quail, and there is no correlation with the fruit pomace or waste from agri-food
Line 71: I cannot find Brennes et al in the list of References, please check
Line 90: please check the correctness of the formulation “In a similar vein
Line 93: The phrase starting here should be in a different paragraph, because a new idea is discussed
Tables 2 and 3: Pay attention to have ALL the names of fruit pomaces and by-products starting with uppercase character in the first column.
Line 158: use the uppercase character at the beginning of the phrase.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Author Response
Reviewer’s 2
- The modern reviews present the key(s) used for selecting the publications used and how the research was done. In my opinion, the authors should include a short presentation of their approach by selecting the materials used for preparing the review.
Response: This has been addressed and presented in section 2
I don’t understand very well how the publications are written in references. There is no order and in many places the rules for writing the authors are not respected.
Response: The reference list has now been ordered alphabetically for ease of checking. However, the specific reference order of the journal will be used after acceptance confirmation of the article.
- The authors have to check to have the names of the microorganisms or mushrooms written with italics
Response: This has been reviewed accordingly and updated
Specific observations
- Line 42: duplicated word ‘several’
Response: This has been removed
- Publication Mahlake et al. 2021 has no relevance to the article
Response: This has been removed
- I cannot find Brennes et al in the list of references.
Response: It is Brenes et al and is on the reference list. However, the cited and listed references have been thoroughly reviewed and reconciled where appropriate.
- Line 101: the correctness of the formulation ‘In a similar vein’?
Response: This has been rephrased as ‘similarly’
- The phrase starting here should be in a different paragraph because a new idea is discussed
Response: This has been addressed as a new paragraph.
- Tables 2 and 3: Pay attention to having all the names of fruit pomaces and byproducts starting with uppercase character in the first column.
Response: This has been addressed accordingly
Line 158: Use the uppercase character at the beginning of the phrase
Response: This has been addressed accordingly
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no other comments. Good Luck!
