Quantitative Microbiological Analysis of Artisanal Stretched Cheese Manufacture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is not very original, however, the application to PGI products in which these studies have never been performed is interesting.

Surely this work will be of help to cheesemakers who want to extend the shelf life of their pasta filata products with the support of scientific data.

In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

thank you very much for your support.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is focused on quantitative microbiological analysis in each processing step of raw milk steamed and stretched cheeses. The aim is also to use the results obtained to create a database in order to increase the overall quality of these traditional Slovakian cheeses.

This study can be very interesting especially at national level to create hygiene standards to be taken into account during the steps of this chain. In my opinion it is a well written manuscript, and is suitable for the publication in this form.

Just a small comment the explanation of superscript 2 in the table 1 is missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

thank you for reviewing the manuscript. Superscript 2 indicates the indication of the average of three replicates. Already corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

In general, the information included in this paper is very clear. However, there are some points I would need you to revise.

• Phrase in line 24-26 needs revision
• Line 47-48 needs revision
• Phrase line 61-62 does not give enough information. The second aim of the paper is not clear
• Line 64. It should be mentioned the microorganisms in Fresco DVS 1010
• Complete figure 1. For example, the addition of “comercial rennet is not included”
• Line 124. I would delete the phrase “However, different versions of these cheeses are also produced on an industrial basis applying technology involving the pasteurization of milk and application of starter cultures”. I think there is not much sense in this part of the paper.
• Phrase line 128. Modify the phrase. The fact to start with “for this reason” I think is confusing.
• Line 137. What did you mean when you wrote “as a reference study for common practice
• I have not clear figure 3. Do the results represent the mean value for the 20 cheese with the exception of pLC and LBC?. Aslo, I do not undertand the big confident limits of data from this figure.
• Line 224. How was estimated the count of EC?
• Figure 6. High confidence limits of the values
• Line 238. I do not understand why in some cases it is mentioned 3 replicated. I understood that 20 cheese were analysed.
• Line 293. Delete “our” as these were the result of Mangia et al.
• Line 303. A viable count of what?
• Line 318. What do you mean with “simulating the behaviour”?

Kind regards

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. The comments are in the  Word file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx