Comparison of a Conventional Harvesting Technique in Alfalfa and Red Clover with a Leaf Stripping Technique Regarding Dry Matter Yield, Total Leaf Mass, Leaf Portion, Crude Protein and Amino Acid Contents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Line 17, should read “approach to”?

Line 39, should read “in the case of”

Line 49, delete “only”

Line 54, should read “legumes is via”

Line 60; 347; 349; 359; 361; 362, perhaps “cubes” rather than “cobs”? Define “cobs” if that is the intended terminology.

Line 78, “were sown” on a total of how many ha? What was the experimental design (e.g., randomized complete block)? Was the soil tested and brought to an adequate level of fertility before sowing?

Line 81, what does “the plot moved alongside” mean? Perhaps the experiment in the subsequent years was carried out on an adjacent plot?

Line 90, move this sentence to precede the sentence that begins in line 82.

Line 119, delete “in”

Lines 193-222, The presentation would be more clear if the authors combined Tables 2 and 3. Under A1 in Table 2 insert A1L and A1S from Table 3, and under R1 in Table 2 insert R1L and R1S from Table 3. The values from Table 3 sum to A1 and R1, respectively, in Table 2. Since there were two different cultivars of each plant species depending on the year, from what years and cv. are the data in Tables 2 and 3? The same question applies to Table 4. Please add this information to the table headings.

Lines 235-239, Is Table 4 just the whole plant material? If so, refer to it as whole plant rather than “initial plant state.”

Table 5 must represent something different from Table 3, because in Table 3 the proportion of A1L and A1S are about 50:50, and in Table 5 the proportions of A1L and A1S are closer to 80:20. It’s not clear from either the tables or the text what the difference is. Table 6 adds to the confusion with different values for A1L and R1L kg/ha relative to Table 3. Clarify what is represented in each table in the table heading.

Line 261, Does this paragraph refer to the crude protein concentration of the whole or reconstituted whole forage? Please clarify in the text and table heading.

Lines 281-282, “except for”? The superscript letters are always “a” for the upper line and “b” for the lower line of each paid, so are the superscript letters wrong, or is the text incorrect to say there are exceptions to the differences between treatments?

Since leaf stripping is an added step requiring time, labor and fuel, please describe these factors, which will eventually need to be accounted for when estimating the added economic value of the stripped leaves. The other differences that need to be described is the lost dry matter yield if the leaf stripping occurs before the stage at which hay would normally be harvested, and the reduced value of the stripped stems, which presumably are used as a lower-protein, higher-fiber ruminant feed.

Line 358, “occurred” can be deleted

Line 370, the term “randomised block design” should be moved to the paragraph where the experimental design was described.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors propose a manuscript titled “Comparison of a conventional harvesting technique in alfalfa and red clover with a leaf stripping technique regarding dry matter yield, total leaf mass, leaf portion, crude protein and amino acid contents”. The topic is interesting. The manuscript is well written and argued. I suggest some changes only in order to make it even more palatable for the international audience of Agronomy journal mdpi.

 

I suggest the following changes:

 

References into the text should be changed according to the journal’s instructions.

 

The aim of the study should be stated clearly.

 

Introduction

I suggest expanding this section, with the addition of more references

 

Materials and Methods

It would be important to add information about the varieties included in the study.

 

References

References should be presented according the journal's instructions

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx