Degradability of Vicia ervilia Grain Using In Situ and CNCPS Methods, and Model-Based Analysis of Its Ruminal Degradation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Line 18-20, this sentence is incomplete, please rewrite it.

2. Line 22, “” changed as “dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP)”.

3. line 73, “Vicia Ervilia” should be italic.

4. line 82, please define NDF and ADF.

5. Line 90, “65 degrees f” changed as “65℃”.

6. line 102, please define TCA.

7. line 114, “the DM (dry matter) and CP (crude protein) disappearance” changed as “the DM and CP disappearance”.

8. section “3.1 Chemical analysis”, the description of the results is not complete, EE, CA, NDF, ADF?

9. line 128, “DM (dry matter) and CP (crude protein) disappearance” changed as “DM and CP disappearance”.

10. table 4, “R= square” changed as “R-square”.

11. line 173 and line 188, “SST” may be “SSM”??

12. line 196, “%CP”, a space is needed.

13. line 229, “A,B”, a space is needed.

14. line 231, “C,D”, a space is needed.

15. line 235, “A,B”, a space is needed.

16. The discussion section of this article is more of a review, and the results of this article are rarely discussed. Please rewrite this section.

17. Please standardize the format of references, for example, line 341 “McNiven (1994) reported”, line 342 “Ljokjel et al. (2003) found that”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your comments, we have addressed all of them to improve our manuscript, see details in the attachment.

Best regards,

Maximilian Lackner

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

                 The aim of presented manuscript was to assess how effectively these models could be used for determining parameters related to the degradability of DM (dry matter) and CP (crude protein), nano structures and protein fractions of untreated and heat treated Steam Flaking, Microwave and Roasting using in situ, scanning electron microscope and CNCPS methods.

The structure of the reviewed article is well thought out and clear, in line with the editorial requirements of the Journal Fermentation.

The introduction provides an outdated background of the topic. I think the findings of this study aren’t  sufficiently described in the context of the published literature.  It is important to consider replacing parts of old references (more than 10 years old) for more current ones. This matter concerns 27 references of 46 of all presented. It needs to be necessarily improved. The conclusions are supported by appropriate evidence. 

I have for the Authors some  suggestions for improvement of the manuscript  as follows:

·         Lines 81-82: please give details about applied methods with the number,

·         Complete subsection no.  4.1,

·   Please try to show some results in the form of plots,   presenting  the obtained data dependencies in spaces, not just as tables.

·         Please complete the section “Conclusions”, what  can be the form of a summary of the results obtained and an indication of their application potential.

From my standpoint, this manuscript can be considered for publication in Journal – Fermentation,  after major revision,  given the above aspects.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your comments, we have addressed all of them to improve our manuscript, see details in the attachment.

Best regards,

Maximilian Lackner

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Major comments：

The discussion in this paper does not analyze the data of this paper, which is basically to elaborate other people's research.

Minor comments：

line 191, 'SST' changed as "SSM".

line 341, “DM (dry matter) and CP (crude protein)” changed as “DM and CP”.

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thank you for your comments, which we have addressed.

Best regards, Maximilian Lackner

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the responses to the review.

The new version of  manuscript has  been corrected taking into account the previous aspects.

From my standpoint, this revised version of the manuscript  is appropriate for publication in Journal – Fermentation,  given the above aspects.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thank you for your comments, which we have addressed.

Best regards, Maximilian Lackner