Environmental and Economic Responses to Precision Feed Management in Dairy Cattle Diets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a review and description of successful precision feed management on-farm research, highlighting the issues regarding optimal N and P diet provision, and their impact in environmental and economic responses.
The author promoted a well-drafted discussion on the importance of adequate diet balancing and its impact on successful dairy herd management.
Few comments to improve the clarity of presentation are given below:
Tables and figures: In general, tables and figure lack in standing alone and need improvement.
Table 1. The title should be more specific like: "Diet Nutrient Content and Milk Production of a dairy herd in the state of Washington."
The acronyms (CP, MP, NEU, IOFC) should be described in the footnote.
Because this is the result of a referenced paper, the reference should be mentioned in the footnote.
Does MP stand for intake of metabolizable protein, and the unit is g/day/cow? Clarify in the table.
Does Milk stand for milk yield, and the unit is kg/day/cow? Clarify in the table.
And IOFC? $/day? $/cow?
Table 2.
The acronyms should be described in the footnote.
Does MP stand for intake of metabolizable protein, and the unit is g/day/cow? Clarify in the table.
Does Milk stand for milk yield, and the unit is kg/day/cow? Clarify in the table.
And Feed Cost? $/kg DM/day? $/cow/day?
Because this is the result of a referenced paper, the reference should be mentioned in the footnote.
Table 3
Because this is the result of a referenced paper, the reference should be mentioned in the footnote.
Table 4
Because this is the result of a referenced paper, the reference should be mentioned in the footnote.
Table 5
Because this is the result of a referenced paper, the reference should be mentioned in the footnote.
The acronyms should be described in the footnote.
Does MP stand for intake of metabolizable protein, and the unit is g/day/cow? Clarify in the table.
Table 6. The title should be more specific like: "CNCPS Environmental Outputs for a diet balanced 493 for 43 kg of milk with a DMI of 23.8 kg".
Insert what CNCPS stands for in the footnote.
Figure 1. Include titles in the axis.
Line 30. …"Per capita milk production is projected…" I think you meant "Per capita milk consumption is projected…"
L95-96 - "The range of 95 NUE in commercial dairy herds is 20 to 40%." Add a reference.
L103-104: "Diet CP decreased from 16 to 103 14.2% as NUE increased". This information is impactful. What may it imply? Has not the diet been balanced accordingly? Or nutrient requirements should be revised?
L221-22: "Methane emissions were reduced by 30.9 to 32.7%." It was not clear what 30.9 and 32.7% refer to.
Topics 9 and 10 could be merged as they refer to the same subject. For instance, although Topic 10 is "Diet Formulation Models", the author only describe the CNCPS model, which is mentioned in the last paragraph of Topic 9.
Author Response
Point 1 to 6 - Tables. The title should be more specific like: "Diet Nutrient Content and Milk Production of a dairy herd in the state of Washington." The acronyms (CP, MP, NEU, IOFC) should be described in the footnote. Because this is the result of a referenced paper, the reference should be mentioned in the footnote. Does MP stand for intake of metabolizable protein, and the unit is g/day/cow? Clarify in the table. Does Milk stand for milk yield, and the unit is kg/day/cow? Clarify in the table.And IOFC? $/day? $/cow? - Response 1: Tables 1 - 6 - Adjustments in titles, citing references and defining acronmyms have been done.
Point 2: Figure 1. Include titles in the axis. Response 2: Figure 1 - Axis titles added.
Point 3: Line 30. …"Per capita milk production is projected…" I think you meant "Per capita milk consumption is projected…" Response 3: Line 30 - Change made
Point 4: L95-96 - "The range of 95 NUE in commercial dairy herds is 20 to 40%." Add a reference. Response 4: L95-96 - I have changed the wording to indicate that this is the range I have observed in commercial herds. Thus, no reference is needed.
Point 5: L103-104: "Diet CP decreased from 16 to 103 14.2% as NUE increased". This information is impactful. What may it imply? Has not the diet been balanced accordingly? Or nutrient requirements should be revised? Response 5: L 103-104 - Wording added to clarify the opportunity to balance rations to improve NUE.
Point 6: L221-22: "Methane emissions were reduced by 30.9 to 32.7%." It was not clear what 30.9 and 32.7% refer to. Response 6: L 221-222 Wording added to clarify these values.
Point 7: Topics 9 and 10 could be merged as they refer to the same subject. For instance, although Topic 10 is "Diet Formulation Models", the author only describe the CNCPS model, which is mentioned in the last paragraph of Topic 9. Response 7: Topics 9 and 10 - I didn't merge these as I feel they are not the same subject and it is more logical to keep them separate. I only used CNCPS values as an example of the type of information that can be obtained from a model. Papers are referenced that provide comparisons of some models.
Reviewer 2 Report
General points about the review: The review brings interesting information regarding precision feed management as a tool in the dairy cattle sector in order to overcome the challenges of animal production. The review is very well written, with sufficient information and background data in the different sections. However, I kindly pointed in this letter some issues that must be reviewed and fixed by the authors, or at least they should explain them better.
Specific considerations:
Keywords: For indexing reasons, I would kindly suggest the authors to use as keywords different words than those already mentioned in the title. For instance, replace the term “precision feed management”, which is both mentioned in title and as keyword.
Include in the end of the Introduction section, the objectives of this review.
Write as full “United States”, instead of “U.S.”, as this is a global journal.
L105: NUE22?
L111: “on the highest CP diet”, the CP level of the previous diet was indicated (13.5%), thus, please also indicate the CP level of “the highest CP diet”.
L112: Indicate the levels of CP in “as diet CP increased”.
L116 and L117: Include the references between brackets, according to Journal’s guidelines.
L140 and L141: Check font.
L153: Spell out DMI first time mentioned, and then only abbreviation afterwards. Check all abbreviation throughout the review.
L172: Include “per lactation”, and in other places of the review as well when appropriate.
L181: Add the same amount of digits in the numbers in order to standardize them.
Section 3. Phosphorus: In addition to everything the authors reported about phosphorus, another problem is the possible shortage of this element that may occur in future decades. If pertinent, I would kindly suggest the authors to also include a sentence or two regarding this issue.
Table 1: Describe the abbreviations in footnote. The same for other Tables.
Table 6: I believe this Table should stand by itself even without the support of the text. Thus, I suggest including in title or footnotes additional details, such as expected milk production, dry matter intake and other factors.
L525: “precision feed management” was defined as abbreviation, so that use just the abbreviation. Check throughout for all abbreviations used in this review.
I believe Tables should include in their footnotes the proper reference to the paper they are describing the results.
Figure 1: Briefly mention in the title of this Figure what the herds A, B and C refer to.
L571: I didn’t understand the sentence “The quantity of silage added to the mixer wagon was periods”. Is it correct? Or does it require revision to improve its readability?
Kind regards.
The review is very well written and English is fine.
Author Response
Point 1 - Keywords: For indexing reasons, I would kindly suggest the authors to use as keywords different words than those already mentioned in the title. For instance, replace the term “precision feed management”, which is both mentioned in title and as keyword. Response 1: new keywords added
Point 2 - Include in the end of the Introduction section, the objectives of this review. Response 2: objectives added
Point 3 - Write as full “United States”, instead of “U.S.”, as this is a global journal. Response 3: text changed
Point 4 - L105: NUE22? Response 4: abbreviation explained
Point 5 - L111: “on the highest CP diet”, the CP level of the previous diet was indicated (13.5%), thus, please also indicate the CP level of “the highest CP diet”. Response 5: the CP level has been indicated
Point 6 - L112: Indicate the levels of CP in “as diet CP increased”. Response 6: CP levels added
Point 7 - L116 and L117: Include the references between brackets, according to Journal’s guidelines. Response 7: brackets added
Point 8 - L140 and L141: Check font. Response 8: checked and corrected
Point 9 - L153: Spell out DMI first time mentioned, and then only abbreviation afterwards. Check all abbreviation throughout the review. Response 9: checked and corrected
Point 10 - L172: Include “per lactation”, and in other places of the review as well when appropriate. Response 10: included in the text
Point 11 - L181: Add the same amount of digits in the numbers in order to standardize them. Response 11: checked and corrected
Point 12 - Section 3. Phosphorus: In addition to everything the authors reported about phosphorus, another problem is the possible shortage of this element that may occur in future decades. If pertinent, I would kindly suggest the authors to also include a sentence or two regarding this issue. Response 12: a sentence regarding this issue has been added
Point 13 - Table 1: Describe the abbreviations in footnote. The same for other Tables. Response 13: all abbreviations in footnote have been described for all tables
Point 14 - Table 6: I believe this Table should stand by itself even without the support of the text. Thus, I suggest including in title or footnotes additional details, such as expected milk production, dry matter intake and other factors. Response 14: details added in the footnote
Point 15 - L525: “precision feed management” was defined as abbreviation, so that use just the abbreviation. Check throughout for all abbreviations used in this review. Response 15: checked and corrected
Point 16 - I believe Tables should include in their footnotes the proper reference to the paper they are describing the results. Response 16: references added in the footnotes
Point 17 - Figure 1: Briefly mention in the title of this Figure what the herds A, B and C refer to. Response 17: as explained in the text, the figure shows an example of daily variation in DMI in a 7 day period in 3 herds and dry cows.
Point 18 - L571: I didn’t understand the sentence “The quantity of silage added to the mixer wagon was periods”. Is it correct? Or does it require revision to improve its readability? Response 18: we revised the text and added new details
