Effects of Sorghum Silage in Lactating Buffalo Cow Diet: Biochemical Profile, Milk Yield, and Quality
, Valeria Maria Morittu 2, Nadia Musco 1,*, Micaela Grossi 1, Piera Iommelli 1, Biagio D’Aniello 3, Maria Ferrara 1, Federico Infascelli 1,†and Pietro Lombardi 1,†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "Effects of sorghum silage in lactating buffalo cow diet: biochemical profile, milk yield and quality" is very interesting precisely because of the fact that there is a smaller number of scientific papers compared to papers related to cow's milk.
The two groups were compared with respect to the type of feeding. What is a general objection is the use of a large number of abbreviations throughout the paper that are not described, so it is more difficult to follow the text. It is necessary to elaborate in more detail the chapter “Materials and methods” related to analyzes. The paper indicates the required corrections (in attach).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions, please find below the replies to your comments. We hope that now you will consider the paper suitable for publication.
On behalf of the authors
Kind regards,
Nadia Musco
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present study, the authors have evaluated Effects of sorghum silage in lactating buffalo cow diet: biochemical profile, milk yield and quality. The study is novel in its contents and interesting for the animal nutritionists. The title of the paper is appropriate, introduction is citing very important papers and discuss the back ground of the work. The materials and methods are comprehensive and compact. Results are concise and discussion highlights appropriate explanation of the results with the relevant review of literature. Conclusion has been well drawn from the given results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. It is a real honor for us to receive such a positive comment.
On behalf of the authors
Kind regards,
Nadia Musco
Reviewer 3 Report
Main comments:
- the same reference 3 and 24
- no references in the text to items 25, 26, 28.
Editorial comments:
Section ”Abstract”
Ln 19: (SS, sorghum silage and CS, corn silage)
Ln 24: “and by consequence to its energy value, higher than expected” – in the case of maize and sorghum silage, the value of NEl, MJ / kg DM was similar, which does not justify higher average milk yield in SS than group CS. Please rewrite this sentence.
Ln 23: For significance level I would suggest p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 instead P<0.05 and P<0.01. This remark applies to the entire typescript.
Ln 29: Key words with lowercase.
Section „Introduction”
Ln 34: Please add data source.
Ln 35: Zea mays L.
Ln 38-40: Fusarium, Aspargillus
Section „Material and methods”
Ln 67-68: 7.3 °C (January) to 23.3 °C
Ln 69: m2
Ln 69-70: Sorghum vulgare L.; Zea mais L.
Ln 72: Medicago sativa
Ln 74: m3/ha
Ln 79: 60 °C
Ln 85: SS and CS
Ln: 87: m2
Ln 101: Hara and Radin
Ln 106: Basic transmethylation: IDF-FIL method182 (1999) – please add data source.
Ln110: (100 m length × 0.25 mm inner diameter (i.d.) × 0.20 μm film thickness (df); Supelco, Inc, Bellefonte, PA, USA)
Ln 113-114: at 170 °C for 15 minutes; then with an increase of 5 °C/min it was brought up to 240 °C
Ln 117: Sigma-Aldrich, Inc.,
Ln 127-128: 4 °C until separation of serum. Clotted blood was centrifuged at 1600 x g at 4 °C for 20 minutes. The separated serum samples were stored at -80 °C
Ln 133: (Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA)
Ln: 138, 145: JMP®
Ln 141: Gi = group effect (i = CS and SS)
Ln 148: yij = m + Gi + eij
Section „Results”
Ln 157-158: “The net energy for lactation of silages were similar (5.125 vs 5.267 MJ/kg DM, for 157sorghum and corn silage, respectively) both lower than that of alfalfa hay (Table 2).” I do not understand why the authors compare the NEl value in silage with the alfalfa hay? Larger differences in this respect occurred between the silage and the concentrate. Since this is not the subject of research, I propose to remove "both lower than that of alfalfa hay".
Ln 160-162: In the legend, the abbreviations used for feed should be explained, especially in the "H" (alfalfa hay), used for the first time in the work.
Ln 160: Standardize „NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADL, acid detergent lignin.”
Table 2. In the case of concentrate, were the chemical composition and nutritive value analyzed?
Ln 170: The study analyzed the fatty acid profile of both silages, so why the authors did not take into account fatty acids > C20, e.g. arachidic and behenic acids.
Ln: 175: (Table 4)
Ln 182: (Table 5)
Ln 182-187: I suggest editing this paragraph “Most of milk fatty acids were unaffected by treatment (Table 5), even if group CS showed significantly (p < 0.01) higher percentage of linoleic acid (C18:2 cis9cis12: 2.05% vs 1.27%) total PUFA (3.2% vs 2.32%) and PUFA omega 6 (2.45% vs 1.56%) compared to SS group”. The omega 6/omega 3 ratio was significantly lower in milk from SS than CS group (7.8 vs 12.9; p < 0.01).
Table 5. In the column “Milk fatty acids profile” standardize the way of representing the positional and geometric isomers of fatty acids.
Section „Discussion”
Ln 212: Morand-Fehr and Tran [18]
Ln 216: “while milk yield was higher milk yield in buffalo cows fed sorghum silage”?
Ln 229: “sorghum silage sorghum” – delete “sorghum”
Ln 247: I suggest “was observed” instead of “was seen”
Ln 252-253: “All markers of health status showed no differences between groups, thus showing that the experimental diet did not affect cow metabolism even during the first part of the experiment.” What does it means “during the first part of the experiment”. Please rewrite this sentence for more clarity
Ln 254: The abbreviation ROS was used for the first time and therefore requires some explanation
Ln 256; delete (Table5)
Ln 260: I propose “non-esterified fatty acids” instead of “NEFA”
Ln 262: B-HBA
Section „References”
References should be corrected as per the journal requirements (words in the titles with lowercase letters; official abbreviations of journals instead of full names; year - bold, volume - italics).
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions, please find below the replies to your comments. We hope that now you will consider the paper suitable for publication.
On behalf of the authors
Kind regards, Nadia Musco
Main comments:
- the same reference 3 and 24
- no references in the text to items 25, 26, 28.
Sorry for the mistake, the references have been revised.
Editorial comments:
Section ”Abstract”
Ln 19: (SS, sorghum silage and CS, corn silage)
Done.
Ln 24: “and by consequence to its energy value, higher than expected” – in the case of maize and sorghum silage, the value of NEl, MJ / kg DM was similar, which does not justify higher average milk yield in SS than group CS. Please rewrite this sentence.
Done.
Ln 23: For significance level I would suggest p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 instead P<0.05 and P<0.01. This remark applies to the entire typescript.
Thank you for your observation. The significance level has been changed in all the paper.
Ln 29: Key words with lowercase.
Done.
Section „Introduction”
Ln 34: Please add data source.
Done.
Ln 35: Zea mays L.
Done.
Ln 38-40: Fusarium, Aspargillus
Done.
Section „Material and methods”
Ln 67-68: 7.3 °C (January) to 23.3 °C
Done.
Ln 69: m2
Done.
Ln 69-70: Sorghum vulgare L.; Zea mais L.
Done.
Ln 72: Medicago sativa
Done.
Ln 74: m3/ha
Done.
Ln 79: 60 °C
Done.
Ln 85: SS and CS
Done.
Ln: 87: m2
Done.
Ln 101: Hara and Radin
Done.
Ln 106: Basic transmethylation: IDF-FIL method182 (1999) – please add data source.
Done.
Ln110: (100 m length × 0.25 mm inner diameter (i.d.) × 0.20 μm film thickness (df); Supelco, Inc, Bellefonte, PA, USA)
Done.
Ln 113-114: at 170 °C for 15 minutes; then with an increase of 5 °C/min it was brought up to 240 °C
Done.
Ln 117: Sigma-Aldrich, Inc.,
Done.
Ln 127-128: 4 °C until separation of serum. Clotted blood was centrifuged at 1600 x g at 4 °C for 20 minutes. The separated serum samples were stored at -80 °C
Done.
Ln 133: (Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA)
Done.
Ln: 138, 145: JMP®
Done.
Ln 141: Gi = group effect (i = CS and SS)
Done.
Ln 148: yij = m + Gi + eij
Done.
Section „Results”
Ln 157-158: “The net energy for lactation of silages were similar (5.125 vs 5.267 MJ/kg DM, for 157sorghum and corn silage, respectively) both lower than that of alfalfa hay (Table 2).” I do not understand why the authors compare the NEl value in silage with the alfalfa hay? Larger differences in this respect occurred between the silage and the concentrate. Since this is not the subject of research, I propose to remove "both lower than that of alfalfa hay".
Thanks for the suggestion, we remodulated the sentence according to your comment.
Ln 160-162: In the legend, the abbreviations used for feed should be explained, especially in the "H" (alfalfa hay), used for the first time in the work.
Thank you for your suggestion, the abbreviations are now reported in full.
Ln 160: Standardize „NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADL, acid detergent lignin.”
Done.
Table 2. In the case of concentrate, were the chemical composition and nutritive value analyzed?
Thank you for your observation. The chemical composition of the concentrate was also analyzed.
Ln 170: The study analyzed the fatty acid profile of both silages, so why the authors did not take into account fatty acids > C20, e.g. arachidic and behenic acids.
Thank you for your comment. The differences of these fatty acids have been added into the results section.
Ln: 175: (Table 4)
Done.
Ln 182: (Table 5)
Done.
Ln 182-187: I suggest editing this paragraph “Most of milk fatty acids were unaffected by treatment (Table 5), even if group CS showed significantly (p < 0.01) higher percentage of linoleic acid (C18:2 cis9cis12: 2.05% vs 1.27%) total PUFA (3.2% vs 2.32%) and PUFA omega 6 (2.45% vs 1.56%) compared to SS group”. The omega 6/omega 3 ratio was significantly lower in milk from SS than CS group (7.8 vs 12.9; p < 0.01).
The period has been changed accordingly.
Table 5. In the column “Milk fatty acids profile” standardize the way of representing the positional and geometric isomers of fatty acids.
Done.
Section „Discussion”
Ln 212: Morand-Fehr and Tran [18]
Done.
Ln 216: “while milk yield was higher milk yield in buffalo cows fed sorghum silage”?
Sorry for the mistake, the sentence has been corrected.
Ln 229: “sorghum silage sorghum” – delete “sorghum”
Done.
Ln 247: I suggest “was observed” instead of “was seen”
Done.
Ln 252-253: “All markers of health status showed no differences between groups, thus showing that the experimental diet did not affect cow metabolism even during the first part of the experiment.” What does it means “during the first part of the experiment”. Please rewrite this sentence for more clarity.
The sentence was rewritten.
Ln 254: The abbreviation ROS was used for the first time and therefore requires some explanation
Done.
Ln 256; delete (Table5)
Done.
Ln 260: I propose “non-esterified fatty acids” instead of “NEFA”
Done.
Ln 262: B-HBA
Done.
Section „References”
References should be corrected as per the journal requirements (words in the titles with lowercase letters; official abbreviations of journals instead of full names; year - bold, volume - italics).
The references have been revised according to the authors guidelines of the journal.
Reviewer 4 Report
Review of the manuscript “Effects of sorghum silage in lactating buffalo cow 2 diet: biochemical profile, milk yield and quality”
General comments
The topic of the paper is very interesting considering both the environmental impact of the two forages (sorghum and corn) and nutritional value of food (improvement of fatty acids profile of milk). The objective of the experiment and material and methods, result and discussion sections are clear and supported by the literature.
Below specific comments are reported.
Specific comments
Line 38 explain the meaning of the percentages shown in brackets (47 and 34%)
Lines 93-94 The sum of ingredients of concentrate is 101% (get to 100%)
Lines 124-125 It is very interesting to verify that at the end of the experiment no differences between the metabolic profile of two experimental groups were observed. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to take a blood sample at the start of the trial to assess possible changes of the biochemistry within animal due to the diet.
Lines 140-141 I suggest replacing m (general mean) with m
Line 155 NDF was slightly higher…..
Lines 155-157 I suggest to include in the sentence the lignification of cell wall (ADL/NDF ratio) in order to better explain the difference between diets. In fact, this parameter is very higher corn silage than sorghum silage (8.53 vs 5.45%)
Lines 182-191 If the Authors agree, the pattern of the fatty acids with a significant effect of the interaction group x sampling (i.e. C18:2 cis 9cis12 omega 6, total PUFA, PUFA omega 6, omega 6/omega 3 ratio) could be reported in a graph in order to verify the change of the differences between groups at the different sampling times.
Tables 2 and 3 I suggest to replace CS and SS with “corn silage” and “sorghum silage” in the tables 2 and 3 because the reported data are related to the silages not to the diets.
Lines 216-223 The particle size of the two silages may have played a role in the digestibility of the diets. Do you have information about the granulometry of the TMR? Make particular reference to this aspect in the text.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions, please find below the replies to your comments. We hope that now you will consider the paper suitable for publication.
On behalf of the authors
Kind regards, Nadia Musco
General comments
The topic of the paper is very interesting considering both the environmental impact of the two forages (sorghum and corn) and nutritional value of food (improvement of fatty acids profile of milk). The objective of the experiment and material and methods, result and discussion sections are clear and supported by the literature.
Below specific comments are reported.
Specific comments
Line 38 explain the meaning of the percentages shown in brackets (47 and 34%)
The sentence was changed in order to clarify the period.
Lines 93-94 The sum of ingredients of concentrate is 101% (get to 100%)
Sorry for the mistake, the sum was corrected.
Lines 124-125 It is very interesting to verify that at the end of the experiment no differences between the metabolic profile of two experimental groups were observed. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to take a blood sample at the start of the trial to assess possible changes of the biochemistry within animal due to the diet.
Thank you for your suggestion. Actually, the animals used in this experiment were highly homogeneous (age, number of parities, body weight, BCS), thus we believed a single sample at the end of the trial was enough. We will consider your suggestion in the future.
Lines 140-141 I suggest replacing m (general mean) with m
Done.
Line 155 NDF was slightly higher…..
Done.
Lines 155-157 I suggest to include in the sentence the lignification of cell wall (ADL/NDF ratio) in order to better explain the difference between diets. In fact, this parameter is very higher corn silage than sorghum silage (8.53 vs 5.45%)
Thank you for your suggestion, the result was added.
Lines 182-191 If the Authors agree, the pattern of the fatty acids with a significant effect of the interaction group x sampling (i.e. C18:2 cis 9cis12 omega 6, total PUFA, PUFA omega 6, omega 6/omega 3 ratio) could be reported in a graph in order to verify the change of the differences between groups at the different sampling times.
Thank you for your suggestions, nevertheless only few fatty acids were affected by the interaction between group and sampling, and, also the order of magnitude of these data is very different among the fatty acids, and differences between groups and over time are not noticeable if they are all plotted together in a graph.
Tables 2 and 3 I suggest to replace CS and SS with “corn silage” and “sorghum silage” in the tables 2 and 3 because the reported data are related to the silages not to the diets.
Thank you for your observation. The acronyms have been changed accordingly.
Lines 216-223 The particle size of the two silages may have played a role in the digestibility of the diets. Do you have information about the granulometry of the TMR? Make particular reference to this aspect in the text.
Unfortunately, the granulometry of the TMR was not measured, therefore it was not discussed in the paper. Indeed, the two diets were prepared using the same total mixer wagon and both the experimental diets were only mixed, without a further chopping of silages.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is fully adapted based on the comments on the original version of the paper.
