Fermentation Quality and Bacterial Ecology of Grass Silage Modulated by Additive Treatments, Extent of Compaction and Soil Contamination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study overall showed solid and sound research on the silage fermentation quality under various conditions, and the discussion is insightful and reasonable. 

Author Response

Reviewer #1: This study overall showed solid and sound research on the silage fermentation quality under various conditions, and the discussion is insightful and reasonable.

Reply: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive feedback. It’s very inspiring for the authors to have such a positive comment on our manuscript that required so many efforts.

Many thanks!

The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Silages, especially those of reduced quality, can be a source of pathogens causing metabolic and production disturbances in cattle. Therefore, we are looking for methods that can increase the efficiency of ensilage and the quality of silage. The results of research on the impact of the used silage additives and the method of ensilage have been presented in many previously published studies. The work presented for evaluation takes up these still current problems.

The abstract has been properly prepared.

The assumptions based on a short introduction and the purpose of the work were formulated correctly.

The "material and methods" section was presented in a proper and comprehensive way.

The results are described in a clear and transparent way, based on legible tables and graphs.

In the discussion, reference was made not only to the results of other studies, but also the appropriate interpretation of the obtained own results was undertaken. It allowed to formulate correct conclusions.

There are no substantive or methodological comments, the whole work should be assessed positively.

A few minor comments: Maybe (sentences in lines 189, 250) it is not necessary to repeat the title of the tables in the text of the paper, and references to their contents should be presented as, for example, in line 266. A similar remark applies to figures (line 285) as compared to line 297. Maybe the layout of the keywords should be changed a little? DNA extraction was only part of the procedure used.

These minor comments do not affect the overall value of the work. The work should be positively assessed and qualified for publication in the Fermentation journal, after possible minor corrections resulting from the comments presented.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Silages, especially those of reduced quality, can be a source of pathogens causing metabolic and production disturbances in cattle. Therefore, we are looking for methods that can increase the efficiency of ensilage and the quality of silage. The results of research on the impact of the used silage additives and the method of ensilage have been presented in many previously published studies. The work presented for evaluation takes up these still current problems.

Reply: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. Indeed, silage production has been widely studied, but many efforts to improve it is still required. Authors deeply appreciate your feedback.

Reviewer #2: The abstract has been properly prepared.

Reply: Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The assumptions based on a short introduction and the purpose of the work were formulated correctly.

Reply: We are glad to know that. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The "material and methods" section was presented in a proper and comprehensive way.

Reply: It’s important for us as authors to know that our methodology is properly presented. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The results are described in a clear and transparent way, based on legible tables and graphs.

Reply: Thank you for the comment.

Reviewer #2: In the discussion, reference was made not only to the results of other studies, but also the appropriate interpretation of the obtained own results was undertaken. It allowed to formulate correct conclusions.

Reply: Authors are happy to know that results and discussion are presented in an understandable way for the readers of the journal.

Reviewer #2: There are no substantive or methodological comments, the whole work should be assessed positively.

Reply: Thank you.

Reviewer #2: A few minor comments: Maybe (sentences in lines 189, 250) it is not necessary to repeat the title of the tables in the text of the paper, and references to their contents should be presented as, for example, in line 266. A similar remark applies to figures (line 285) as compared to line 297.

Reply: Thanks a lot for the advice. In this way, reading becomes more fluent. The sentences have been changed according to the suggestion.

Maybe the layout of the keywords should be changed a little? DNA extraction was only part of the procedure used.

Reply: You are right. This keyword has been removed. Thanks for the suggestion.

Reviewer #2: These minor comments do not affect the overall value of the work. The work should be positively assessed and qualified for publication in the Fermentation journal, after possible minor corrections resulting from the comments presented.

Reply: Authors greatly appreciate comments and feedback from Reviewer #2 in improving our manuscript. Many thanks!

The authors.