Effects of Centella asiatica Extracts on Rumen In Vitro Fermentation Characteristics and Digestibility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented the effect of Centella asiatica extract at different levels on rumen in vitro fermentation characteristics, which fell into the scope of the journal animals. However, the authors should deal with the following problems or comments before being considered for further review.
First, the experiment design is kind of incorrect, such as: experiment 1 was not in accordance with experiment 1 on sample weight, bottle volume and medium type
Second, why did not analyze CO2 and H2 at the same time ?
Last, the authos did not show the characteristics of rumen liquid used in experiments 1 and 2
More comments in detail can be available in the attached PDF file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
L176, this result was supported by
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEven though this manuscript is interesting, a several concern needs to be addressed before further consideration. Please see the specific comment in pdf. file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for the review and comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- Line 23 CH4 should be CH4
2-Line 28 DM, CP, and NDF authors should mention the full name first then use the abbreviations please
3-Line 29 methane should be CH4
4-Line 43 greenhouse gas should put the abbreviation once authors will use it (GHGs) the same for methane
5-Lines 63-65 should be removed and can be put into the introduction please
6-Introduction lack more details about the C. asiatica and a plant ?
6- line 94 what about the source of Dried C. asiatica powder ? please clarify
7-Line 93 more details needs for 2.2. C. asiatica extraction ?
8-In my opinion its very essential fro the authors to mention the main active components in the C. asiatica extraction, its will help specially in there discussion
9-Line 100 CO2 should be CO2
10-The authors did not mention about CH4 collection ? how many samples? and the time of collections ?
11-The VFA analyzed according to whom? and how authors did the collection and the samples preparation ? Clarify please
12-In the materials and methods no thing mention about the pH?
13-Line 151- and line 174 bioactive compounds ? which ? Please Clarify ?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for the review and comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsL162, 6 h, 24 h, 48 h
L192, why did not the author present the data of total gas production or methane in table 3 ?
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am grateful that you have accepted my opinion into the manuscript. In addition, there are a few small comments that the writers need to fix.
Neither the Abstract nor the Introduction section presents the aims of Experiment 2 in a clear and concise manner. However, the authors only discuss rumen fermentation in the abstract section, and they do not discuss digestibility. Although the introductory section focuses solely on digestibility, it does not include any characteristics related to rumen fermentation. Throughout the whole document, please verify and make improvements.
Author Response
We appreciate your detailed review.
The comments were addressed in lines #9-14, 23-28, and #62-70 in the revised manuscript.
Thank you.
