Sorghum as a Potential Valuable Aquafeed Ingredient: Nutritional Quality and Digestibility
, Abdolsamad K. Amirkolaei 1, Jesse T. Trushenski 2, Wendy M. Sealey 3, Michael H. Schwarz 4 and Reza Ovissipour 1,5,6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review
Sorghum as a Potential Valuable Aquafeed Ingredient: Nutritional Quality and Digestibility
Comments to the Author
Introduction:
Line 67, Table 1, the “summary of sorghum cons” details. The author should explain hydrogen cyanide, nitrates and other lethal ingredients in sorghum grains. The stress, drought and other environmental abiotic stress may have elevated the toxic levels during the earlier growth.
Line 143: Authors should check the table number [Table 1?]
Line 156: typo error “protein”
Line 157: change the table number
Line no 178, 179: Cystine and methionine content is minimal in sorghum grains. The authors should have clarified with relevant references.
Line 200 and 202: The ‘OBJ’ text box was pasted and removed from the article.
Line no 367: The author should have added the additional reference Cavalcante et al., 2020 [Probiotics, Prebiotics and Symbiotic for Nile tilapia: Growth performance and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Aquaculture Report, 17; 100343].
Author Response
Review 1
Sorghum as a Potential Valuable Aquafeed Ingredient: Nutritional Quality and Digestibility
Comments to the Author
Introduction:
Line 67, Table 1, the “summary of sorghum cons” details. The author should explain hydrogen cyanide, nitrates and other lethal ingredients in sorghum grains. The stress, drought and other environmental abiotic stress may have elevated the toxic levels during the earlier growth.
Response: While we agree with reviewer about the possibility of cyanide formation in sorghum leaves, this review article is mainly focusing on the grain itself.
Line 143: Authors should check the table number [Table 1?]
Response: Revised.
Line 156: typo error “protein”
Response: Revised.
Line 157: change the table number
Response: Revised.
Line no 178, 179: Cystine and methionine content is minimal in sorghum grains. The authors should have clarified with relevant references.
Response: Revised.
Line 200 and 202: The ‘OBJ’ text box was pasted and removed from the article.
Response: Revised.
Line no 367: The author should have added the additional reference Cavalcante et al., 2020 [Probiotics, Prebiotics and Symbiotic for Nile tilapia: Growth performance and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Aquaculture Report, 17; 100343].
Response: Added.
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, this paper presents interesting information. Some points should be clarified and a revision is needed. Please especially correct conclusions that are too general.
Abstract
Please put some conclusions from your literature review at the end.
- Sorghum biology and Agriculture
- 102 Table 3 instead of Table 1
- Nutrient composition of sorghum
- 145 varieties instead of variteis
l 157 Table 4 instead Table 1
4.1. Aquatic livestock
- 337 Bruce and Harris, 2017 ??? number
- 345 Clarias gariepinus instead Clarias gariepinus
- 346 Vuong et al., 2017 ??? number
4.2. Supplementation strategies for improving sorghum performance in aquafeed
l.377 Litopenaeus vannamei instead Litopenaeus vannamei
- 379 L . vannamei instead L. vannamei
5.2. Chemical modification
- 451number instead (Rom et al., 1992)
- 457 number instead (Yang and Seib, 1995)
- Conclusions
The conclusions are too general, they do not touch the very purpose of the article. Please highlight the values of sorghum as aquafeed. Correct and thus complete Abstract
Author Response
Please put some conclusions from your literature review at the end.
Sorghum biology and Agriculture
102 Table 3 instead of Table 1
Response: Added.
Nutrient composition of sorghum
145 varieties instead of variteis
Response: Added.
l 157 Table 4 instead Table 1
Response: Added.
4.1. Aquatic livestock
337 Bruce and Harris, 2017 ??? number
345 Clarias gariepinus instead Clarias gariepinus
346 Vuong et al., 2017 ??? number
Response: Added.
4.2. Supplementation strategies for improving sorghum performance in aquafeed
l.377 Litopenaeus vannamei instead Litopenaeus vannamei
Response: Added.
379 L . vannamei instead L. vannamei
Response: Added.
5.2. Chemical modification
451number instead (Rom et al., 1992)
457 number instead (Yang and Seib, 1995)
Response: Added.
Conclusions
The conclusions are too general, they do not touch the very purpose of the article. Please highlight the values of sorghum as aquafeed. Correct and thus complete Abstract
Response: Revised.
