Ensiling of High-Moisture Plant By-Products: Fermentation Quality, Nutritional Values, and Animal Performance
, Sergio Á. Rios 3, Thobela T. Nkukwana 4 and Robin Meeske 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview fermentation-3158803 is devoted to the relevant and interesting topic of increasing the feed value of food cellulose-containing waste by ensiling. The authors are specialists in this field. The review is methodologically competent, well structured, and written in understandable language. It shows bottlenecks and critical problems, and provides ways to overcome them. The review has both scientific and applied significance.
A small note: since ensiling is carried out using lactic acid bacteria, it is necessary to give a brief overview of them in paragraph 5.2, and in Table 3 specify the genus, species, and strain of producers. Also in Table 3 it is necessary to specify the name and origin of the enzyme preparations used.
Author Response
Comment 1: Since ensiling is carried out using LAB, give brief overview of them in paragraph 5.2.
Response: A brief overview of LAB was given in paragraph 5.2. Line 236-240.
Comment 2: Table 3, specify the genus, species and strain of the producers.
Response: Genus, species and strain of the bacteria in Table 3 were given were possible. Those that were not given could not be found on the original manuscript.
Comment 3: Specify the name and origin of the enzyme prepared. Lines 316-318.
Response: Were possible, names and origins of the enzymes in Table 3 were specified. Lines 316-318. Some of the original manuscript did not indicate the origin of the enzyme.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review article "Fermentation of Organic Waste to Produce High Value-Added Products" is devoted to solving the problem of producing feed from high-moisture plant by-products. The review contains information on the silage of various by-products. This information will help farmers in developing countries. The review is well structured, a large amount of literature is cited. The material is presented clearly in the form of tables, which is an advantage of this review. However, there are the following comments:
1. Table 1. Provide abbreviations as they are mentioned in the table.
2. Many abbreviations are introduced, which complicates the perception of the text.
3. At the end of each point, I would like to see a brief conclusion.
Author Response
Comment 1: Table 1, provide abbreviations as they are mentioned in Table 1.
Response: Abbreviations were provided as mentioned in Table 1. Lines 74-75.
Comment 2: Many abbreviations, Confusing.
Response: Abbreviations, especially of by-products were written in full. Most of the standard abbreviations were also written in full to avoid confusing the reviewers. Lines 26-442.
Comment 3: Brief conclusion on end of each point.
Response: Brief conclusion was given on each point indicated. Lines 68-71, 167-169, 221-222, 312-314, 440-444.
