Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on Fermentation Quality and Anti-Nutritional Factors of Paper Mulberry Silage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page     line

           

2          48        I believe the sentence should be changed to some “researchers”

2          89        Should this be plate instead of plant?

3          table    Why was there no measure of lignin in these materials

6          165-168           To produce a paper that is easier to read and evaluate previous values for the parameters should be listed

 

6          170-176           There seems to be something missing here concerning WSC. If the WSC is the source of energy for the LAB how does increasing the inoculation numbers solve this problem? Wouldn’t the energy source be limiting for good fermentation? What was the level of WSC at the end of the experiment?

 

Table 3            If I am reading the results right there was essentially no difference int the total number of LAB at the beginning and end of the experiment. Why would the control (CK) be the same as the as the experimental inoculants (GX and GZ)?

This manuscript deals with the preservation of paper mulberry to improve the value of the crop primarily for livestock production. Paper mulberry is used in certain regions as a forage source for ruminant production. However, antinutritional factors can limit the value of this crop in animal production. The experimental design was to evaluate the impact of added LAB on preserving and improving the nutritional parameters of paper mulberry.

 

Overall, their experimental design in ok but the results reported do not make sense to me upon reading their manuscript. For example, LAB count in the control and the inoculated were the same based on Table 3. It seems that if one is adding LAB inoculant the numbers should be higher in in the inoculated samples. It does not appear that inoculation with LAB had much positive impact.

 

The authors claim that part of this study was to evaluate the impact of LAB on antinutritional facts found in paper mulberry. What is a bit surprising is that there is no mention of lignin quantities in these materials. If one is looking at nutritional values of a forage and ways to improve it, one would most certainly have to look at levels of lignin in the plant materials at the beginning and end of the experimental trial. Also why would total tannins go up during the ensiling process? Is something else being measured as tannin? What is the possible mechanism for the decrease in saponins and phytic acid? The authors must have some idea as to how this occurs. If it is thought to be due to lower pH that could be easily tested.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The paper entitled: “Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on Fermentation Quality and Anti-Nutritional Factors of Paper Mulberry Silage” focused on investigation the effect of two different LAB strains addition and ensiling time on Paper Mulberry silage fermentation quality, some nutritional parameters, and the content of antinutritional factors. The obtained results are interesting from cognitive and practical point of view. Authors found that adding LAB can significantly improve the fermentation quality of PM silage and is also an effective method of degradation of antinutritional factors.

The manuscript is good written, but it needs major revisions as reported in the specific comments.

In Abstract I suggest adding a one-two sentence introduction to the subject of study. What is the problem, what is the subject of study?

The keywords should be different from the words used in the title, so I suggest changing them.

L 13 I suggest replacing the word “selected” with word “added”.

Statistical Analysis: Please specify the experimental design. Was it a one or two factorial experiment? Now it is not clear because Tables 2-4 show effect of Treatment (T), Days (D) and interaction TxD.

Authors stated that, the results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), but in the tables only mean values without SD are given. So, I suggest Authors adding missing SD values.

The content of DM and other components is expressed in % DM or g/kg. I insist on using units that are compatible with the International System of Units that is not % but g kg^-1. Consequently, for example, the protein content should be expressed in g kg^-1 DM.

Why Authors evaluated only CP in silage? It would be interesting to know the content of other nutrients (ADF, NDF, EE, WSC).

The aim of study was to investigate the effects of LAB and ensiling time on PM silage quality and the contents of antinutritional factors in PM silage but in the conclusions section, I did not find any information regarding the influence of the time of ensiling on the silage parameters. So, I suggest also adding the conclusion on the effect of ensiling time.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the authors have made a good attempt to revise the manuscript to present their results in a clear and concise manner. They have addressed the concerns raised in the original manuscript. One area that still is a little odd to me is the change in tannin (CT,HT). What is happening during the ensiling process that increase the HT and also the CT? It would appear that since both increase there would have to be metabolic process to form new levels of tannins. Is this what is happening? How is this possible? What is the mechanism for this change in tannins? Are there ways to prevent this from happening as this would seem to out weigh the benefits of anti-nutritional component degradation. This may be something that requires separate research and work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The text of the manuscript has been revised according to my comments and can be accepted for publication in its present form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx