Effect of Mixing Peanut Vine on Fermentation Quality, Nitrogen Fraction and Microbial Community of High-Moisture Alfalfa Silage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study of using agricultural by-products is vital to find affordable animal feeds and to decrease environmental pollution. This particular research focuses on using peanut vine for this purpose, providing valuable knowledge. However, the authors have overused abbreviations without providing proper explanations, making it challenging to comprehend the text. Additionally, improvements are needed in English writing and being more precise in presenting results and discussion. Several references need to be completed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer: We are truly grateful to your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions again for our manuscript. They are really helpful and based on these comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript carefully. Revised portions have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to your comments/suggestions.
Comment 1：Can you provide information regarding the size and material of the silos?
Response 1:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. The size of silos is 25 × 35 cm.(Line 14)
Comment 2：What was the temperature?
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. The temperature is 25–32 °C.(Line 14)
Comment 3：Why CP? It may be mistaken with crude protein (CP)
Response 3:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. I'm sorry, this is a writing error, not CP.(Line 16)
Comment 4：overused abbreviations without providing proper explanations
Response 4:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. All the abbreviations are supplemented with detailed explanations, such as water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), Cornell net carbohydrate and protein synthesis (CNCPS), etc.”(Line 19-22,106-108,121)
Comment 5：L249 “This sentence is not clear”.
Response 5:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. The sentence was reorganized and changed to “Lactic acid in silage is produced by lactic acid bacteria using WSC as substrate”.(Line 249)
Comment 6：However, WSC were low in both alfalfa and peanut vine.
Response 6:
The explanation is as follows:
With the increase of the mixed proportion of peanut seedlings, the dry matter content and WSC content in the silage bag increased. (Line 255)
Comment 7：What about the different fractions PA1, PA2?
Response 7:
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented material seems interesting and requires partial revision.
The authors need to make minor corrections to improve the article.
Comments are provided below.
1. Form a generalized scientific goal of the research, indicate it in the abstract of the article
2. For all raw materials used, indicate the city of origin in addition to the country.
3. Give a more complete description of the research methods Concentrations of NDF and 101 ADF and WSC.
4. The authors should give a more detailed description of the fermentation processes
5. In conclusion, it is necessary to indicate possible options for the practical application of the results obtained.
Moderate English editing required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer: We are truly grateful to your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions again for our manuscript. They are really helpful and based on these comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript carefully. Revised portions have been marked in blue in the revised manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to your comments/suggestions.
Comment 1：Form a generalized scientific goal of the research, indicate it in the abstract of the article
Response 1:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. Added the generalized scientific goal of the research in line 11,which is “Fresh alfalfa is difficult to ensile successfully because of …”(Line 11)
Comment 2：For all raw materials used, indicate the city of origin in addition to the country.
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. The raw materials are marked with their origin. (Line 75,77)
Comment 3：Give a more complete description of the research methods Concentrations of NDF and 101ADF and WSC.
Response 3:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. The specific method has been written in the article. (Line 101-104)
Comment 4：The authors should give a more detailed description of the fermentation processes
Response 4:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. The ermentation processes has been written in the article. (Line 81-86)
Comment 5：In conclusion, it is necessary to indicate possible options for the practical application of the results obtained
Response 5:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript.The conclusion part has been condensed and summarized again.(Line 370-372)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although it is interesting research, the manuscript requires further improvement in English writing, materials and methods, and discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer: We are truly grateful to your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions again for our manuscript. They are really helpful and based on these comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript carefully. Revised portions have been marked in green in the revised manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to your comments/suggestions.
Response 1:
The reference for the division of CNCPS protein components and calculation formula is "Dong Nong No.1" CNCPS Nutrients and Rumen Degradation Rate, which is in the introduction 1.2.2. The calculation formula is as follows:
Non-protein nitrogen: PA(%CP)=NPN(%SP)×001×SP(%CP)
Rapidly degraded protein:PB1(%CP)=PB1(%CP)=SP(%CP)－PA(%CP)
Moderately degraded protein:PB2(%CP)=100－PA(%CP)－PB1(%CP)－PB3(%CP)－PC(%CP)
Slowly degraded protein:PB3(%CP)=NDIP(%CP)－ADIP(%CP)
Non-degradable protein: PC(%CP)=ADIP(%CP) (Line 107)
The corresponding references have been revised. (Line 437)
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised in the revised manuscript. Although the experimental design and model are listed in the previous article, the description is not clear. Based on this, this revision gives a detailed description of the experimental design and model, which has been marked in green in the article. Please review it. (Line 114)
Comment 3：The abbreviation "FW" remains unchanged from the previous version. It is unclear if it refers to fresh weight and why this term is preferred over the more commonly used “as fed”.
Response 3:
DM content is the content of dry matter in fresh raw materials, while nutrients are calculated on the basis of dry matter. The expression of the unit refers to the article " Effect of Storage Period on the Fermentation Profile and Bacterial Community of Silage Prepared with Alfalfa, Whole-Plant Corn and Their Mixture". (Line 121)
Comment 4： Are the results on "as fed" or dry matter basis?
Response 4:
Yes, the result were all on dry matter basis. The description has been marked in the header .(Line 126,145,150,161)
Comment 5：Is there any reference for this statement?.
Response 5:
This sentence is referred to in Ref. 52,which is In discussion section 4.3.(Line 333)
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have considered the suggestions given to them, resulting in an improved and more comprehensive article.
