Effects of a Delayed Harvest and Additives on the Fermentation Quality of Corn Stalk Silage
, Yan-Fen Li 2, Young-Sang Yu 2, Hak-Jin Kim 1, Won-Jin Lee 1 and Jong-Geun Kim 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article provides a comprehensive study of the impact of harvest time, cellulase, and lactic acid bacteria on the quality of corn stalks silage fermentation. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before considering it for publication.
Q1: Methods & Materials. The author didn't explain what the basis was for selecting the dosage of additives in each treatment group. In addition, in the control group, the author added 100 mL/kg FM deionized water, which means that the water content of raw materials has been increased by about 10%. Considering that water content (or dry matter content) is one of the important factors for the success of silage fermentation, will the above treatment affect the normal fermentation effect?
Q2: 2.2 Chemical and Microbiological Analysis.
It seems that the total nutritional value (TND) and relative feeding value (RFV) of fermented products are calculated based on ADF% in feed. As we know, water soluble carbohydrate content and crude protein content are also important for the overall nutritional value of fermented products, and it is best to include the above factors in the evaluation of nutritional value of fermented products. In addition, this paper only measured the nutritional value index of fermented products, but did not measure their nutritional status after being eaten by animals, so the reviewers thought that it was inappropriate for the author to say "all treatment improved the feed value" in the conclusion.
Q3: In table 2. The author given the chemical compositions of corn stalks before ensiling. However, the chemical composition of the samples in each treatment group was not shown before the start of sealed fermentation, and the influence of alfalfa stalks or other additives on the mixture before fermentation was not considered. In Table 3, the author gives the chemical composition of each treatment group after 60 days of fermentation, but the results compared with those before fermentation in each group are lacking. If it can be supplemented and compared before and after, it will better reflect the role of different treatment groups in the fermentation process.
Q4：In Figure 1 and Figure 2, there is something wrong with the error line style of TC group, please correct it.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Q1: Methods & Materials.
A: (1) All the amounts of additives were set by the previous studies, I modified them in the text.
(2) And regarding the content of DW in the control group, I'm sorry that there was a mistake, it should be 10 ml/ kg FM. I also modified it in the text. Water content is a key factor in silage fermentation. During the experiment, I added 100ml of DW to 10kg of material, and the amount added in each group was consistent. We tried to minimize the impact of additional water.
Q2: 2.2 Chemical and Microbiological Analysis.
A: (1) In this study, WSC, CP, and other chemical indicators were analyzed, and I added more discussions of them in the manuscript.
(2) Since there is no subsequent animal experiment to support it, the description in the conclusion may be one-sided, so I have revised it. And I will continue to conduct animal experiments to verify the feed value.
Q3: About table 2, and table 3.
A: This study analyzed the chemical composition of each group before fermentation. However, considering that except for the alfalfa treatment group, there were no significant differences between the other groups before fermentation, to make the data more concise and clear, we used averages to describe it. Based on your comments, I also think that comparing the data of each group will make my data more complete, so I modified it to show the complete data. I have also added a description and discussion of the supplementary data to the manuscript.
Q4: In Figure 1 and Figure 2, there is something wrong with the error line style of TC group, please correct it.
A: This has been modified in the manuscript.
About the English editing, I have completed it and attached the supporting documents below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current study investigated the effects of a delayed harvest and additives on the fermentation quality of Corn Stalk. This article researched that harvesting time showed little effect on the nutritive value as it merely rehashed commonly known fact or presented information that is widely available elsewhere. So, the information presented in this article is not unique or groundbreaking. There are some comments which may helpful for authors.
1. Introduction part needs comprehensive improvement, and explain why it was necessary to conduct this study?
2. Line 39-50, please provide the actual numbers of corn cultivation and abundance of corn stalks worldwide or Republic of Korea as this study is conducted in Republic of Korea not in China.
3. Line 56-57 is repetitive to line 50-51. Better to talk about the importance of corn stalks first in essence with shortage of livestock feed and then emphasize on corn stalk deficiencies as feed.
4. What is LP strain accession number? Line 91.
5. Please merge together Table 1 and 2. Please show chemical composition data first followed by microbial counts.
6. Line 158, please write about significant results too, such as TM.
7. Line 171. After 20 days, the CP content decreased…., there is no substantial difference, please revise it.
8. Line 172, compared to alfalfa hay?
9. Section 3.2, please reflect data values while describing significant results.
10. Line 269, the CP content decreased after stalks were left in the field for 20 days…, please revise as there was no substantial difference.
11. Line 278-281, please improve sentence structure.
12. Line 283, please change ‘5.47 to 5.39 log10 cfu/g FM’ to 5.39 to 5.47 log10 cfu/g FM.
13. Discussion part need further attention; each substantial result should be discussed deeply with the help of previous studies. For example, why pH and yeast count didn't change among treatments? Every substantial result should be explained with good logic.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Q1-3: Introduction
A: I re-described the introduction and added worldwide corn stalk data as background.
Q4: LP strain accession number
A: I have added it to the manuscript.
Q5: About Tables 1 and 2
A: Based on the comments of other reviewers, I have supplemented Table 2 with the data of each treatment. So I still keep Tables 1 and 2 separate.
Q6: Line 158
A: I have added the description to the manuscript.
Q7-8: Line 171-172
A: I have corrected the description of CP content and added a description of the pre-silage chemical composition of each treatment group.
Q9: Section 3.2
A: I have added the description to the manuscript.
Q10-12: Line 269-283
A: I have made corrections in the manuscript.
Q13: About Discussion
A: I have added the description to the manuscript.
About the English editing, I have completed it and attached the supporting documents below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
