Nutritional Value Evaluation of Corn Silage from Different Mesoregions of Southern Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented the paper titled as "Nutritional value evaluation of whole-plant silage from different mesoregions of southern Brazil", which fell into the scope of the journal agriculture. However, the authors should deal with the following comments or questions before being considered for acceptance.

First, the section of L128-142 appeared to be not relevant with the content of this manuscript. I suggest deleting it;

Second, the full words of NDF and ADF appeared to be incorrect;

Last, the content of this manuscript is very common and makes only some contribution to the scientific community.

More comments in detail can be available in the PDF file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

L14-17, there is no predicate

L49, is

 

Author Response

In one of the emails received, the following message came: We noticed during peer review that the self-citation is 30%. Therefore, during revision, we kindly ask you to reduce the self-citation rate to 20% (please add or remove 3-5 references). However, self-citation in the manuscript is below 20%, which was carried out in references 6, 17, and 20, which lists Neumann as the first author. Does this being a co-author also fall under self-citation?

All specific changes requested by each evaluator were accepted, as were the changes highlighted throughout the article. All of these are highlighted in the body of the article.

 

Reviewer 1

Comments: First, the section of L128-142 appeared to be not relevant to the content of this manuscript. I suggest deleting it;  

Response: Deleted. Sorry, there was a mistake when inserting the article in the module document. This part remained there but was removed as requested.

Comments: Second, the full words of NDF and ADF appeared to be incorrect;

Response: Corrections were made throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The chemical-bromatological evaluation of corn silage is a crucial topic in agriculture and livestock farming, particularly in a region like southern Brazil, where intensive livestock farming is expanding. This study utilized a large number of samples (498), enhancing the reliability of the results. The analysis spans multiple mesoregions, offering a comprehensive view of regional variations. The analytical methods and statistical tools employed are well-detailed, facilitating easy replication of the study. The methodology section is thorough and precise. The discussion extensively covers the key parameters studied, providing valuable insights.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

In one of the emails received, the following message came: We noticed during peer review that the self-citation is 30%. Therefore, during revision, we kindly ask you to reduce the self-citation rate to 20% (please add or remove 3-5 references). However, self-citation in the manuscript is below 20%, which was carried out in references 6, 17, and 20, which lists Neumann as the first author. Does this being a co-author also fall under self-citation?

All specific changes requested by each evaluator were accepted, as were the changes highlighted throughout the article. All of these are highlighted in the body of the article.

Reviewer 2

The chemical-bromatological evaluation of corn silage is a crucial topic in agriculture and livestock farming, particularly in a region like southern Brazil, where intensive livestock farming is expanding. This study utilized a large number of samples (498), enhancing the reliability of the results. The analysis spans multiple mesoregions, offering a comprehensive view of regional variations. The analytical methods and statistical tools employed are well-detailed, facilitating easy replication of the study. The methodology section is thorough and precise. The discussion extensively covers the critical parameters studied, providing valuable insights.

Response: Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At ,,Materials and methods'' you have to check the text. It remains some paragraphs from the manuscript template - lines 128-142 - you have to delete it.

At ,,Nutritional value'' subchapter you are missing some data. Please check all the informations and detail all the abbreviations you used. Explain the value ,,87.84'' - line 115.

Again - check all the abbreviations from the Abstract, Materials and methods and Results!!!!!

Please reformulate the conclusions and give more specifics ones

 

Author Response

In one of the emails received, the following message came: We noticed during peer review that the self-citation is 30%. Therefore, during revision, we kindly ask you to reduce the self-citation rate to 20% (please add or remove 3-5 references). However, self-citation in the manuscript is below 20%, which was carried out in references 6, 17, and 20, which lists Neumann as the first author. Does this being a co-author also fall under self-citation?

All specific changes requested by each evaluator were accepted, as were the changes highlighted throughout the article. All of these are highlighted in the body of the article.

Reviewer 3

Comments: At Materials and Methods'' you must check the text. It remains some paragraphs from the manuscript template - lines 128-142 - you have to delete it.

Response: Deleted. Sorry, there was a mistake when inserting the article in the module document. This part remained there but was removed as requested.

Comments: In the nutritional value'' subchapter, you are missing some data. Please check all the information and detail all the abbreviations you used. Explain the value, 87.84'' - line 115.

Response: The missing data was inserted. And about the value 87.84, this is a constant provided by the equation.

Comments: what does the mineral matter mean in detail?

Response: It means the mineral portion of the silage, which is not organic material, including macro and micro minerals.

Comments: Again - check all the abbreviations from the Abstract, Materials and Methods, and Results!!!!!

Response: Accomplished

Comments: what does the R4 stage mean?

Response: Modified the text to improve understanding.

Comments: Please reformulate the conclusions and give more specifics ones

Response: Accomplished

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

L17-21, 6.24%, 0.92%, 6.34%, 5.92%, 4.38%, 1.98%, 3.84%

L451, "Zea mays" should be italic

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

Question: Reviewer: L17-21, 6.24%, 0.92%, 6.34%, 5.92%, 4.38%, 1.98%, 3.84%

Response: Thank you for pointing this out in the Abstract. The corrections between lines 17 - 21 were made and highlighted in the article. We agree with this comment, so we are pleased to inform you that these changes have been made and are marked in red in the text.

Question: Reviewer: L451, "Zea mays" should be italic

Response: The correction proposed in line L451 of the reference topic was made and highlighted as requested.