Mitigating Carbon Emissions: The Impact of Peat Moss Feeding on CH4 and CO2 Emissions during Pig Slurry Storage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The conducted and described experiment provides useful knowledge on the possibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from pig slurry. The authors well described the design of the experiment and the methods of statistical analysis used. However, the reviewed study requires some changes.
1. In the abstract, the authors did not provide information on the statistical methods used.
2. The purpose of the research should be clearly stated in the introduction.
3. In scientific studies, it is advisable to formulate research hypotheses. The content of the study should indicate how the hypotheses were verified. Currently, information about the hypothesis appears only in the conclusions.
4. The study should justify the choice of statistical methods used.
Author Response
Point 1: In the abstract, the authors did not provide information on the statistical methods used.
Response 1: We added statistical methods in the abstract (lines 17-18).
Point 2: The purpose of the research should be clearly stated in the introduction.
Response 2: We agree with your opinion. The purpose of this study has been written more clearly in the introduction (lines 77-82).
Point 3: In scientific studies, it is advisable to formulate research hypotheses. The content of the study should indicate how the hypotheses were verified. Currently, information about the hypothesis appears only in the conclusions.
Response 3: We agree with your viewpoint. The hypothesis postulates that the utilization of peat moss as a feed additive results in an enhancement of feed efficiency while concurrently leading to a reduction in organic matter present in the strored piggery slurry. This, in turn, might result in lower emissions of CH4 and CO2 during the storage period of pig slurry. The content regarding the hypothesis of this study has been mentioned in the introduction (lines 77-82).
Point 4: The study should justify the choice of statistical methods used.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. The section on materials and methods has been revised to encompass the choice of statistical method in greater detail (lines 172-179).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- The study is well done and presented; the literature cited is correct and sufficient, and the problem and contribution of the study are also well defined.
- Graphs and tables are sufficient.
- The limitations of the experiment and future work are well indicated.
- The conclusions and their implications for the fight against climate change in agriculture are well pointed out.
- The experiment is interesting and novel, but it is somewhat limited. I believe that a summary would suffice, putting the details into the supplementary material.
- Contributions to GHG emissions from agriculture, which are very significant, are noted. But it is not mentioned what the contribution from “piggery slurry stored in slurry pits” to these gases is. Although it is always worth analysing how they can be reduced, knowing this contribution to global GHG emissions would allow to place the novelty of this study better and in context.
- Table 4: what are ‘a’ and ‘b’?; “Data with different letters in the same column are significantly different” What does that mean?
- l. 38, p. 2 “… by 30% by 2030 …”, please improve the expression; it can be understood but does not sound well.
Author Response
Point 1: The experiment is interesting and novel, but it is somewhat limited. I believe that a summary would suffice, putting the details into the supplementary material.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The supplementary material is added in the main text (line 329) and back matter section. (lines 449-452).
Point 2: Contributions to GHG emissions from agriculture, which are very significant, are noted. But it is not mentioned what the contribution from “piggery slurry stored in slurry pits” to these gases is. Although it is always worth analysing how they can be reduced, knowing this contribution to global GHG emissions would allow to place the novelty of this study better and in context.
Response 2: We agree that mentioning the impact of “piggery slurry stored in slurry pits” on global greenhouse gases is necessary to enhance the novelty of this study. We have included this content in the results and discussion section (lines 407-413).
Point 3: Table 4: what are ‘a’ and ‘b’?; “Data with different letters in the same column are significantly different” What does that mean?
Response 3: We agree that the sentence could be misunderstood by readers. As a result, the footnote of Table 4 has been revised to enhance its clarity (lines 400-401).
Point 4: l. 38, p. 2 “… by 30% by 2030 …”, please improve the expression; it can be understood but does not sound well.
Response 4: Sentence containing unclear expressions have been revised (lines 37-40).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
