Comparison of the Chemical and Microbial Composition and Aerobic Stability of High-Moisture Barley Grain Ensiled with Either Chemical or Viable Lactic Acid Bacteria Application
, Vilma Vrotniakiene 1, Ivan Eisner 2, Kristian Lybek Witt 2 and Rafael Camargo do Amaral 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is suitable for publication. The work meets the requirements for publication in a scientific journal. It contains all the required details. The methodology of the work is well developed, suitable analytical methods are used. The statistical processing is satisfactory. The results are valuable, the work expands current knowledge. Conclusions are relevant. Work is also important for practice.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors. The manuscript is suitable for publication. The work meets the requirements for publication in a scientific journal. It contains all the required details. The methodology of the work is well developed, suitable analytical methods are used. The statistical processing is satisfactory. The results are valuable, the work expands current knowledge. Conclusions are relevant. Work is also important for practice.
There were no further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThat's a very good article. But there are some details that need attention.
On line 44, the percentage is wrong. It should be 30%-40%.
Line 55, missing content after and.
The contents listed in Table 3 can be expressed in words without the need for a table.
In 2.5 statistical analysis, it was mentioned that significance level was represented by P-value, but no P-value was found in the table. Ask the author to verify.
The crude ash in Table 4 is inconsistent with other indicators, please be consistent.
What is the meaning of the upper corner mark in Table 5 and Table 6, which is not understood from the table annotation.
The experiment was a two-factor (i.e., additive and storage time) design, but the influence of these two factors on the indicators was not analyzed in the statistical analysis. This may be due to different analytical methods.
The unit of microbial quantity in Table 4 is inconsistent with other tables, please pa a attention to this.
In Table 4, FF is used to represent fresh matter, but FM is used in the previous table or content. Please unify the whole text.
Some of the tables in this paper use SD and some use SEM. I think SEM can be used uniformly.
Conclusion There is no content after "and" in the third line. Please check.
Please check whether the full text of the reference format is correct, generally use the author's name + year, or use serial number. It's rare to use both together.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
That's a very good article. But there are some details that need attention. On line 44, the percentage is wrong. It should be 30%-40%. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Line 55, missing content after and. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. The contents listed in Table 3 can be expressed in words without the need for a table. Response. We have, accordingly, revised and Table 3 was deleted. In 2.5 statistical analysis, it was mentioned that significance level was represented by P-value, but no P-value was found in the table. Ask the author to verify. Response. P-value can be found in the table footnote. The crude ash in Table 4 is inconsistent with other indicators, please be consistent. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. What is the meaning of the upper corner mark in Table 5 and Table 6, which is not understood from the table annotation. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. The experiment was a two-factor (i.e., additive and storage time) design, but the influence of these two factors on the indicators was not analyzed in the statistical analysis. This may be due to different analytical methods. Response. The statistical model statement included only the fixed effect of treatment (i.e. only additive but not storage time). The unit of microbial quantity in Table 4 is inconsistent with other tables, please pa a attention to this. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. In Table 4, FF is used to represent fresh matter, but FM is used in the previous table or content. Please unify the whole text. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Some of the tables in this paper use SD and some use SEM. I think SEM can be used uniformly.Conclusion There is no content after "and" in the third line. Please check. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Please check whether the full text of the reference format is correct, generally use the author's name + year, or use serial number. It's rare to use both together. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Comments on the Quality of English Language Moderate editing of English language required. Response. Agree. Editing of English language was done by English speaking person.
|
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsL12, a chemical additive, an inoculant
L19, water soluble carbohydrates rather than WSC
L20 and 136, volatile fatty acids rather than VFA
L24, concentrations
L24, 26, 64 and 117, 1,2-propanediol
L26, please keep in accordance between “mold and yeast counts” and “yeast and mold count” (L13); I sugges using “yeast and mold counts” in the text
L49-50, their salts
L53, water soluble carbohydrates (WSC)
L55, “yeasts and” ?
L68, microbial populations
L97-98, what is the subject of this sentence ?
L110-111, please show the DM correction formula in the text
L114-115 and 134, WSC rather than water soluble carbohydrates
L119, please delete Table 3, because the content of this Table has repeatability with the information of “Materials and Methods”
L132-133, was amylase used during NDF analysis ? please show this part in the text
L136, 1,2-propanediol
L159, “≈20oC” ?
L161, h
L173, generally speaking, “Results” and “Discussions” should be separated individually according to the journal style
L175, compositions
L205, 222, 225, “Lactobacillus” should be italic, “Lactobacillus buchneri” should be italic, “Lactobacillus buchneri” and “Pediococcus pentosaceus” should be italic
Comments on the Quality of English Language
L55, “yeasts and” ?
L68, microbial populations
L97-98, what is the subject of this sentence ?
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
1. L12, a chemical additive, an inoculant Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction. 2. L19, water soluble carbohydrates rather than WSC. Response. Noticed and corrected. 3. L20 and 136, volatile fatty acids rather than VFA. Response. Noticed and corrected. 4. L24, concentrations. Response. Noticed and corrected. 5. L24, 26, 64 and 117, 1,2-propanediol. Response. Noticed and corrected. 6. L26, please keep in accordance between “mold and yeast counts” and “yeast and mold count” (L13); I suggest using “yeast and mold counts” in the text. Response. Noticed and corrected. 7. L49-50, their salts. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. 8. L53, water soluble carbohydrates (WSC). Response. Noticed and corrected. 9. L55, “yeasts and” ? Response. Thank you for pointing this out. “mold” added. 10. L68, microbial populations. Response. Noticed and corrected. 11. L97-98, what is the subject of this sentence ? Response. Thank you for pointing this out. Sentence was improved. 12. L110-111, please show the DM correction formula in the text. Response. DM correction formula added. 13. L114-115 and 134, WSC rather than water soluble carbohydrates. Response. Noticed and corrected. 14. L119, please delete Table 3, because the content of this Table has repeatability with the information of “Materials and Methods”. Response. We have, accordingly, revised and Table 3 was deleted. 15. L132-133, was amylase used during NDF analysis? please show this part in the text. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. 16. L136, 1,2-propanediol. Response. Noticed and corrected. 17. L159, “≈20oC” ? Response. Noticed and corrected. 18. L161, h Response. Noticed and corrected 19. L173, generally speaking, “Results” and “Discussions” should be separated individually according to the journal style. Response. In the Instructions for Authors in Section Manuscript Preparation is stated that Discussion may be combined with Results. 20. L175, compositions Response. Noticed and corrected. 21. L205, 222, 225, “Lactobacillus” should be italic, “Lactobacillus buchneri” should be italic, “Lactobacillus buchneri” and “Pediococcus pentosaceus” should be italic. Response. Noticed and corrected. 22. L55, “yeasts and” ? Response. Thank you for pointing this out. “mold” added. 23. L68, microbial populations. Response. Noticed and corrected. 24. L97-98, what is the subject of this sentence ? Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. 25. Comments on the Quality of English Language, Minor edditing of English language required. Response. Agree. Editing of English language was done by English speaking person.
|
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo additional comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
