Current Applications and Future Trends of Dehydrated Lactic Acid Bacteria for Incorporation in Animal Feed Products
, Bárbara M. Bravo-Ferrada 2, Emma E. Tymczyszyn 2,* and Marina A. Golowczyc 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review reports interesting and up to date information on the use of Lactic Acid Bacteria as probiotics or postbiotics in animal food. The topic is wide and the review requires some adjustments before publication.
First of all, starting from the title the authors focus on Lactic Acid Bacteria, nevertheless in chapter 4 also Bacillus spp. are mentioned. I believe that this genus should be addressed before, or the reason for including it in this review should be better specified. The same for Bifidobacterium spp. that are metioned along the text.
Paragraph 3 requires an extensive revision of the English language; moreover, many typos are included in the text and should be corrected.
The cited literature is wide, nevertheless practical examples are missing. For instance, although explaining the critical points in LAB addition to animal foods, only few examples of real applications are reported, thus it is not easy to catch the point. For example, is any drying technique more suitable for some microorganisms or food animals depending on their characteristics, and not suitable for others? Which are the reasons? Except for general considerations, no practical information is included in the text, while in my opinion they will be useful for readers.
A table with advantages, disadvantages and technical considerations on the different methods could be useful.
Specific comments:
Table 1 should be revised because the formatting has changed and some lines appear pasted together. Moreover the name of microorganisms in the text should be corrected from some typos, e.g. E coli has to be written in italic, Plantarum for reference 44 does not need the capital letter. The same for Johnsonii in regards to reference 46. Moreover, some words are joined together along the whole table, and need to be separated. In addition, the abbreviations should be specified.
L 178: Lacticacid bacteria: the words need to be separated.
L207: controlled instead of control.
L222: consists
L230: reformulate the sentence
In paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 the English language needs to be revised and some mistakes have to be corrected.
In table 2 legend, name of microorganisms should be written in italic.
L252, L296: de?
L256: maybe beath instead of dead?
Paragraph 4.2: please insert the new name of Lb. plantarum along the text.
English language needs some revisions, particularly in paragraph 3, as specified in the comments above.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are sending you the revised version of the manuscript “Current applications and future trends of dehydrated lactic acid bacteria for the incorporation in animal feed products”; Manuscript ID: fermentation- 2494225, in consonance with reviewers and editor suggestions. Changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow and also answered in this letter.
We are very grateful to the reviewers for their constructive and useful comments.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,
Dr. E. Elizabeth Tymczyszyn
Reviewer #1:
Specific comments:
The review reports interesting and up to date information on the use of Lactic Acid Bacteria as probiotics or postbiotics in animal food. The topic is wide and the review requires some adjustments before publication.
First of all, starting from the title the authors focus on Lactic Acid Bacteria, nevertheless in chapter 4 also Bacillus spp. are mentioned. I believe that this genus should be addressed before, or the reason for including it in this review should be better specified. The same for Bifidobacterium spp. that are metioned along the text.
- ANSWER: The reviewer is right, in concordance with other reviewer suggestion, the mention of Bacillus was deleted of the revised manuscript. Also, the mention of Bifidobacterium was deleted in order to focus in LAB.
Paragraph 3 requires an extensive revision of the English language; moreover, many typos are included in the text and should be corrected.
- ANSWER: The reviewer is right, the paragraph was re-written for more clarity.
The cited literature is wide, nevertheless practical examples are missing. For instance, although explaining the critical points in LAB addition to animal foods, only few examples of real applications are reported, thus it is not easy to catch the point. For example, is any drying technique more suitable for some microorganisms or food animals depending on their characteristics, and not suitable for others? Which are the reasons? Except for general considerations, no practical information is included in the text, while in my opinion they will be useful for readers.
- ANSWER: According reviewer suggestion, more application recommendation was added along the section 3.
A table with advantages, disadvantages and technical considerations on the different methods could be useful.
- ANSWER: A comparative scheme of different drying methods was included in the revised manuscript: see new Table 2
Specific comments:
Table 1 should be revised because the formatting has changed and some lines appear pasted together. Moreover the name of microorganisms in the text should be corrected from some typos, e.g. E coli has to be written in italic, Plantarum for reference 44 does not need the capital letter. The same for Johnsonii in regards to reference 46. Moreover, some words are joined together along the whole table, and need to be separated. In addition, the abbreviations should be specified.
- ANSWER: The format of the table was revised
L 178: Lacticacid bacteria: the words need to be separated: DONE
L207: controlled instead of control. DONE
L222: consists: DONE
L230: reformulate the sentence: The sentences was reformulated
In paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 the English language needs to be revised and some mistakes have to be corrected.:
- ANSWER: The English language was corrected carefully along the manuscript
In table 2 legend, name of microorganisms should be written in italic.: DONE
L252, L296: de?. The mistake was corrected
L256: maybe beath instead of dead? DONE
Paragraph 4.2: please insert the new name of Lb. plantarum along the text: DONE
Reviewer 2 Report
This review presents a well-written analysis that is likely to generate interest in the field of animal probiotics. To further align with the scope of Fermentation, I recommend expanding upon the content in section 2, specifically by introducing the resources of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for animals and highlighting the recent advancements in high-density culturing technologies.
The review could be enhanced by providing an in-depth exploration of the various resources of LAB that are applicable to animal-probiotic. Because the probiotics that suitable for animal-use may different from that for human. This could involve discussing the diverse strains of LAB that have been identified and utilized in animal feed and health applications. Furthermore, the review could delve into the benefits that LAB can offer to animals, such as improved digestion, enhanced immune responses, and overall well-being.
Additionally, the review can emphasize the recent advances in high-density culturing technologies for LAB. These advancements have enabled the large-scale production of LAB in a controlled environment, leading to improved fermentation outcomes and higher yields.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are sending you the revised version of the manuscript “Current applications and future trends of dehydrated lactic acid bacteria for the incorporation in animal feed products; Manuscript ID: fermentation- 2494225, in consonance with reviewers and editor suggestions. Changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow and also answered in this letter.
We are very grateful to the reviewers for their constructive and useful comments.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,
Dr. E. Elizabeth Tymczyszyn
Reviewer #2:
Specific comments:
This review presents a well-written analysis that is likely to generate interest in the field of animal probiotics. To further align with the scope of Fermentation, I recommend expanding upon the content in section 2, specifically by introducing the resources of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for animals and highlighting the recent advancements in high-density culturing technologies.
- ANSWER: New paragraphs including resources of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for animals and the recent advancements in high-density culturing technologies were added in Section 2 in the revised version of the manuscript.
The review could be enhanced by providing an in-depth exploration of the various resources of LAB that are applicable to animal-probiotic. Because the probiotics that suitable for animal-use may different from that for human. This could involve discussing the diverse strains of LAB that have been identified and utilized in animal feed and health applications. Furthermore, the review could delve into the benefits that LAB can offer to animals, such as improved digestion, enhanced immune responses, and overall well-being.
- ANSWER: According reviewer suggestion, new paragraphs about the sources of LAB with potential applicability as animal probiotics and selection of probiotics for animal use were added in Section 2.
Additionally, the review can emphasize the recent advances in high-density culturing technologies for LAB. These advancements have enabled the large-scale production of LAB in a controlled environment, leading to improved fermentation outcomes and higher yields.
- ANSWER: The recent advances in high density culturing technologies were added in the section 2 of revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting paper on an important subject. The authors have limited the field of review quite a bit, but within their self-imposed limitations provide a decent overview of the topic. However, a great deal of revision should be carried out before the paper becomes acceptable for publication. Both the style and the content could and should be improved – a lot.
Content-wise, the paper looks promising. Much valuable information is provided, including two highly informative tables. The role of LAB as probiotics in animal feed is rather neglected compared to the much vaster literature on LAB’s health benefits in humans. Likewise the methods for drying LAB, their pros and cons, and the role of LAB as postbiotics are all relatively little discussed in the scientific literature. Thus a review on subject is most welcome. Nevertheless, the manuscript could be improved in various ways. Some suggestions you may want to consider are the following:
- The section on postbiotics (4.2.) seems counterproductive in the context of the whole paper . Why should we take so much trouble to preserve LAB viability during drying if we can use them inanimate as probiotics? You should either 1) omit the postbiotic discussion altogether; or 2) expand it as to play a more prominent role in the abstract, perhaps even include it in the title. The second alternative is the one I, personally, should like to see realised.
- Lines 80-81: it would be useful to know what part of the global market for probiotics is taken their application in animal feed; if this information is available, please included it: preferably in the end of the previous paragraph where it fits better.
- Lines 310-313: since storage temperature is such a crucial factor, more than one reference should be discussed in some detail; please elaborate and provide more examples about the importance of storage temperature, preferably with more recent studies than references 100-102.
- Lines 313-314: references 104-106 seem inadequate; only the first appears directly related to vacuum storage and lipid peroxidation; please expand and clarify the issue, and if possible support your conclusions with more recent references.
- Sections 3.1. and 3.2.: Additional table with the pros and cons of drying methods would be a nice supplement to the text.
- Section 4.1. seems too long and too diverse; I suggest splitting it into two or three separate sections; for instance, the passages on doses (lines 417-429) and adverse factors (lines 430-439, 484-499) seem hardly related to low-moisture matrices and may be separated, while the paragraph about non-LAB probiotics (lines 470-483) may be omitted as it doesn’t really belong to this paper.
The English needs a good deal of revision and improvement. Much of the text is muddled and hard to follow, with grammar, vocabulary and punctuation that make reading hard and understanding even harder. Some paragraphs (e.g. lines 237-41) and a number of sentences (e.g. lines 293-5, ) are almost incomprehensible. I suggest the authors consult a native speaker in order to make their manuscript readable and comprehensible.
Some examples of confused expression and suggestions how it could be improved:
- Table 1: the abbreviations “ETEC” and “EPEC” are never explained;
- Figure 1: it might be useful to change “influence on cell viability” to “reduction of cell viability”, also to point out that the blue boxes are the critical factors;
- Lines 80-81: redundant wording, either “projected” or “expected” should be omitted;
- Line 151: substitute “species” with “genera”;
- Line 180: substitute “activity” with “content”;
- Line 199: substitute “than” with “compared to”;
- Line 251: “several” seems incongruous, perhaps you meant “severe”;
- Lines 215 & 217: “sensible” sounds at best obsolete, “sensitive” would make better sense;
- Line 229: “dying” or “drying”?
- Line 256: “dead” should be “death”, perhaps?
- Line 300: what is “Craig 2019”? A missed reference, perhaps?
- Line 325: “Intrinsic Resistant of” makes no sense: “intrinsically resistant” or “intrinsic resistance of” is the correct phrase;
- Line 368: use “feed” instead of “food”, otherwise it sounds like food of animal origin for human consumption; the same change should be made at many other places (title, lines 15, 23, 26, 105, 242, 584);
- Line 371: “symbiotics” or “synbiotics”?
- And so on and so forth – similar examples abound.
Some minor corrections necessary (a small selection):
- Line 14: “health benefits”, no indefinite article necessary;
- Table 2: unify the “yes” and “no” in the penultimate column, caps and italics inconsistent at present; “Strain” in title of second column need not be in italics;
- Lines 207-8: “control” should be “controlled”;
- Line 212: insert “to” between “due” and “the”;
- Line 296: “de” should be “the”;
- Many merged words and punctuation marks: e.g. “broilerchicks”, “additionmethod”, “Faecalibacteriuminfecal”, “Aeromonassalmonicida” (Table 1); “Lacticacid” (line 178); “hasa” (line 189); “al.[65].During” (line 203); “amethod” (line 217); “[76].The” (line 225); “/orin” (line 240); “stopsmost” (line 267); numerous other examples – please check your text carefully.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are sending you the revised version of the manuscript “Current applications and future trends of dehydrated lactic acid bacteria for the incorporation in animal feed products; Manuscript ID: fermentation- 2494225, in consonance with reviewers and editor suggestions. Changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow and also answered in this letter.
We are very grateful to the reviewers for their constructive and useful comments.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,
Dr. E. Elizabeth Tymczyszyn
Reviewer #3:
Specific comments:
Interesting paper on an important subject. The authors have limited the field of review quite a bit, but within their self-imposed limitations provide a decent overview of the topic. However, a great deal of revision should be carried out before the paper becomes acceptable for publication. Both the style and the content could and should be improved – a lot.
Content-wise, the paper looks promising. Much valuable information is provided, including two highly informative tables. The role of LAB as probiotics in animal feed is rather neglected compared to the much vaster literature on LAB’s health benefits in humans. Likewise the methods for drying LAB, their pros and cons, and the role of LAB as postbiotics are all relatively little discussed in the scientific literature. Thus a review on subject is most welcome. Nevertheless, the manuscript could be improved in various ways.
Some suggestions you may want to consider are the following:
The section on postbiotics (4.2.) seems counterproductive in the context of the whole paper . Why should we take so much trouble to preserve LAB viability during drying if we can use them inanimate as probiotics? You should either 1) omit the postbiotic discussion altogether; or 2) expand it as to play a more prominent role in the abstract, perhaps even include it in the title. The second alternative is the one I, personally, should like to see realised.
ANSWER: According a reviewer suggestion the section on postbiotics has been allocated its own separate section (Section 5) and has been expanded to include new research conducted on animals.
The authors consider that the inclusion of this point may not possess sufficient relevance to warrant its inclusion in the title.
Lines 80-81: it would be useful to know what part of the global market for probiotics is taken their application in animal feed; if this information is available, please included it: preferably in the end of the previous paragraph where it fits better.
- ANSWER: According a reviewer suggestion, a paragraph of the global market for probiotics was added in the introduction section.
Lines 310-313: since storage temperature is such a crucial factor, more than one reference should be discussed in some detail; please elaborate and provide more examples about the importance of storage temperature, preferably with more recent studies than references 100-102.
ANSWER: According a reviewer suggestion, more details about the effect of storage temperature were added in section 3.4.
Lines 313-314: references 104-106 seem inadequate; only the first appears directly related to vacuum storage and lipid peroxidation; please expand and clarify the issue, and if possible support your conclusions with more recent references.
- ANSWER: Reference was changed by others more appropriate works
Sections 3.1. and 3.2.: Additional table with the pros and cons of drying methods would be a nice supplement to the text.
ANSWER: A new table (Table 2 of revised manuscript) was included with a relative comparison of pros and cons of drying methods
Section 4.1. seems too long and too diverse; I suggest splitting it into two or three separate sections; for instance, the passages on doses (lines 417-429) and adverse factors (lines 430-439, 484-499) seem hardly related to low-moisture matrices and may be separated, while the paragraph about non-LAB probiotics (lines 470-483) may be omitted as it doesn’t really belong to this paper.
- ANSWER: According a reviewer suggestion, Section 4 has been separated into two subsections, 4.1 (Dosage of probiotics) and 4.2 (Incorporation in Low-Moisture Food Matrices). Regards lines 470-483, the reviewers is right and the mentions of Bacillus and other non-LAB were deleted from section 4.1 and other parts of the manuscript.
The English needs a good deal of revision and improvement. Much of the text is muddled and hard to follow, with grammar, vocabulary and punctuation that make reading hard and understanding even harder. Some paragraphs (e.g. lines 237-41) and a number of sentences (e.g. lines 293-5, ) are almost incomprehensible. I suggest the authors consult a native speaker in order to make their manuscript readable and comprehensible.
ANSWER: The English of the entire text, especially section 3, has been thoroughly reviewed and enhanced for improved clarity and accuracy.
Some examples of confused expression and suggestions how it could be improved:
- Table 1: the abbreviations “ETEC” and “EPEC” are never explained
ANSWER: abbreviations were replaced by complete expression in Table 1
- Figure 1: it might be useful to change “influence on cell viability” to “reduction of cell viability”, also to point out that the blue boxes are the critical factors;
ANSWER: Caption to figure was modified according reviewer suggestion.
- Lines 80-81: redundant wording, either “projected” or “expected” should be omitted: DONE
- Line 151: substitute “species” with “genera”; DONE
- Line 180: substitute “activity” with “content”; DONE
- Line 199: substitute “than” with “compared to”; DONE
- Line 251: “several” seems incongruous, perhaps you meant “severe”; DONE
- Lines 215 & 217: “sensible” sounds at best obsolete, “sensitive” would make better sense; DONE
- Line 229: “dying” or “drying”? DONE
- Line 256: “dead” should be “death”, perhaps? DONE
- Line 300: what is “Craig 2019”? A missed reference, perhaps? The references was added accordingly
- Line 325: “Intrinsic Resistant of” makes no sense: “intrinsically resistant” or “intrinsic resistance of” is the correct phrase;
ANSWER: Sub-title was corrected.
- Line 368: use “feed” instead of “food”, otherwise it sounds like food of animal origin for human consumption; the same change should be made at many other places (title, lines 15, 23, 26, 105, 242, 584);
- Line 371: “symbiotics” or “synbiotics”? ANSWER: word was replaced by synbiotic
- And so on and so forth – similar examples abound.
The English of the entire text has been thoroughly reviewed and enhanced for improved clarity and accuracy.
Some minor corrections necessary (a small selection):
- Line 14: “health benefits”, no indefinite article necessary; DONE
- Table 2: unify the “yes” and “no” in the penultimate column, caps and italics inconsistent at present; “Strain” in title of second column need not be in italics; DONE
- Lines 207-8: “control” should be “controlled”; DONE
- Line 212: insert “to” between “due” and “the”; DONE
- Line 296: “de” should be “the”; DONE
- Many merged words and punctuation marks: e.g. “broilerchicks”, “additionmethod”, “Faecalibacteriuminfecal”, “Aeromonassalmonicida” (Table 1); “Lacticacid” (line 178); “hasa” (line 189); “al.[65].During” (line 203); “amethod” (line 217); “[76].The” (line 225); “/orin” (line 240); “stopsmost” (line 267); numerous other examples – please check your text carefully. ; DONE
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version is acceptable.
