Provision of High-Quality Molasses Blocks to Improve Productivity and Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Smallholder Cattle and Buffalo: Studies from Lao PDR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is written quite informative.

However, I would like to mention a few clarifications.

Line 1: It is recommended to correct the type of manuscript from the article to the review.

Also give the title of the manuscript in accordance with the material presented in it, because you studied the blocks in one country (Lao People's Democratic Republic).

Also, with the recommendations of the journal, it is recommended to avoid abbreviations in the Simple Summary and Abstract section.

Also in the introduction you give the effect on the production of methane by animals, but in other chapters this is rare. Or have you estimated methane production based on the IPCC Inventory Software Model V 2.69?

Author Response

Responses. Thanks for your efforts, much appreciated.

Line 1: It is recommended to correct the type of manuscript from the article to the review. 

Agreed; this was intended

Also give the title of the manuscript in accordance with the material presented in it, because you studied the blocks in one country (Lao People's Democratic Republic).

Agreed and Lao PDR included

Also, with the recommendations of the journal, it is recommended to avoid abbreviations in the Simple Summary and Abstract section.

All abreviations removed from both

Also in the introduction you give the effect on the production of methane by animals, but in other chapters this is rare. Or have you estimated methane production based on the IPCC Inventory Software Model V 2.69?

We use CO2e rather than just CH4 as this is more comprehensive and is used in the IPCC model

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I have evaluated the manuscript titled "xxx". However interesting and well written, I think it is excessively "abundant" in some parts, making the text not very usable and difficult to consult. From this point of view, a first effort could be made to "lighten" the simple summary, making it more suitable for the lay public (it is advisable to see the journal's guidelines in this regard). The same goes for the introduction, which in my opinion makes you lose focus, risking failing to identify the purpose of the manuscript. Ultimately, the authors are invited to reshape the architecture of the paper, aiming at a pragmatic simplification. As a minor detail, I believe that the formulas must report numerical subscripts. Good work

Author Response

Responses. Thanks for your efforts and useful suggestions.

1. to "lighten" the simple summary, making it more suitable for the lay public (it is advisable to see the journal's guidelines in this regard). This has been reworded to simplify as much as is possible.
2. The same goes for the introduction, which in my opinion makes you lose focus, risking failing to identify the purpose of the manuscript. Ultimately, the authors are invited to reshape the architecture of the paper, aiming at a pragmatic simplification. Agreed that the Intro is too wordy as there is much to discuss, so we have reshaped the architecture as suggested with additional sections that are 'titled' and enable the flow of the arguments to be be more readily understood.  
3. As a minor detail, I believe that the formulas must report numerical subscripts. We have now included a detailed paragraph in the Discussion that elaborates how the IPCC modelling works in practice and trust this meets this minor detail. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
I have reviewed the edited version of your manuscript. I really appreciate your effort and the choices you made in reshaping the text. In my opinion, the current version deserves to be published. Congratulations.

Author Response

Many thanks for your positive comments and your efforts, it is very much appreciated!