Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, this is a very applied study. However, this work is mainly oriented to the optimization of engineering parameters and lacks some scientific theoretical discussion. I think this paper can be accepted for publication after the major revision.

1. Why use a special additive like Kemisilie 2000?
2. There is a typo in Figure 6 caption.
3. Is the higher the density the better? Or is there an optimal range of density? Can too high a density also create problems?
4. I think the main thing missing in this work is that the authors did not explore the principles of each parameter affecting the quality of the final silage. If the authors had included some relevant explanations, it would have made the paper more like a scientific paper than an engineering report.

Author Response

First, this is a very applied study. However, this work is mainly oriented to the optimization of engineering parameters and lacks some scientific theoretical discussion. I think this paper can be accepted for publication after the major revision.

As the Reviewer rightly noted, the work contains a practical approach to the subject. We have dealt with the subject of the works many times. The research presented in the paper is the result of interdisciplinary work. The authors focused the presentation of the effects on technical aspects, without indicating the nutritional effects. These results are presented in other works. You can see the influence of the place of adding the solid preparation in our work doi: 10.1016 / j.biosystemseng.2006.07.014.

This manuscript aims to draw attention to the technical aspects of the use of liquid chemical additives in feed. These aspects are largely overlooked in animal nutrition studies. It does not mention the loss of the preparation. These losses affect the amount of additive that remains in the bale. This is very important in the case of chemical additives. Chemical additives can get into the environment and become a pollution there [Kaszkowiak, J.; Dulcet, E. Losses of chemical additives during application to green forage at picking up with a roller-baler, Inżynieria Rolnicza 2000 Vol.4 No.8 pp.95-101]

Why use a special additive like Kemisilie 2000?

The addition of Kemisile 2000 is intended to enable the silage of plant material with a lower dry matter content, but also to stabilize the silage composition after the completion of the forming process. There was also a slight increase in material compaction for bales formed with the use of the preparation. The mechanism of this process is under investigation. The effects of using the Kemisile 2000 additive to forage during ensilage are presented by various authors in other publications. The studies did not analyze the doses or the method of application of the preparation, the authors did it in other publications, e.g. [Dorszewski P., Dulcet E., Kaszkowiak J. Influence of the round baler harvesting technique with the addition of a preservative on the quality of the obtained haylage, Bibliotheca Fragmenta Agronomica, 2005, 9, p. 77-78].

There is a typo in Figure 6 caption.

Thank you - corrected 

Is the higher the density the better? Or is there an optimal range of density? Can too high a density also create problems?

Based on previous studies, it was assumed that an increase in the density of plant material reduces the air content in bales (which slows down the ensilage process and stimulates unfavorable secondary fermentation). The research analyzed what selection of pressing pressure, material moisture and cutting length allowed to obtain the highest compaction. It is worth noting that the compaction process depends both on technical parameters (pressing pressure, cutting length) and on the collected material (material moisture). Both the own research and the literature show that obtaining a higher compaction of the material has a positive effect on the quality of the silage. However, when preparations controlling the fermentation process are used, excessive concentration may make it difficult to mix the preparation with green forage. Too high pressing pressure of the material also adversely affects energy expenditure (studies not presented in this article).

I think the main thing missing in this work is that the authors did not explore the principles of each parameter affecting the quality of the final silage. If the authors had included some relevant explanations, it would have made the paper more like a scientific paper than an engineering report.

On the basis of the authors' previous research, it was found that the highest quality of silage is obtained for the analyzed mixture of grasses when harvested with the addition of Kemisile 2000, using material comminution (lm = 183 mm) and pressing pressure of 18 MPa. The humidity of the collected material should be between 49-56% [24].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript title “How to Use Additives When Harvesting Silage in Sustainable 2 Agriculture”. This manuscript has significant novelty with essential information. However, the authors need to improve the data presentation and their interpretations of the manuscript before further process.

In abstract:  Please re-write the following sentences as clearly “present the methodology 10 and results of an experiment into the impact of plant material moisture content, the length of the 11 forage mix, and the pressing pressure on the density in bales collected by round balers with simul-12 taneous application of a liquid additive”.

Authors must mention the main focuses of the current work. I think the title is not suitable for the presented data.

Result section: More elaborate interpretation is required for the experimental data   

The authors must include how this research data contributes to the present agriculture sector and provide the summary of recommendation in the conclusion part which would help the reader to identify both the originality and importance of this investigation.

If possible, include the recent references 

Author Response

The manuscript title “How to Use Additives When Harvesting Silage in Sustainable 2 Agriculture”. This manuscript has significant novelty with essential information. However, the authors need to improve the data presentation and their interpretations of the manuscript before further process.

In abstract:  Please re-write the following sentences as clearly “present the methodology 10 and results of an experiment into the impact of plant material moisture content, the length of the 11 forage mix, and the pressing pressure on the density in bales collected by round balers with simul-12 taneous application of a liquid additive”.

Thank you - corrected 

Authors must mention the main focuses of the current work. I think the title is not suitable for the presented data.

Focus has been added to the target of the manuscript. As the Reviewer rightly pointed out, we have also changed the title of the mnuscript. 

Result section: More elaborate interpretation is required for the experimental data   

Some interpretation has been added 

The authors must include how this research data contributes to the present agriculture sector and provide the summary of recommendation in the conclusion part which would help the reader to identify both the originality and importance of this investigation.

A sentence for practitioners has been added to the summary. 

If possible, include the recent references 

Several references have been added 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the revised version can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

I am very grateful to the Reviewer for paying attention