Fermentation-Based Preservation of Okara and In Vitro Evaluation of Its Application in Dairy Cattle Diets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript describes an interesting analysis of Fermentation-based preservation of okara and in vitro evaluation of its application in dairy cattle diets. The authors conclude that the fermentation process has a positive impact as a sustainable protein alternative
The abstract describes the accuracy of the proposal of the article. In line 18, in vitro must be in italics.
The introduction is correct and describes adequately the influence of the fermentation process. It is recommended to edit in:
Line 56 edit in italics “in vivo”
Line 70 The meaning of “p”
Line 71. Editing the phases 1 and 2 could be part of the methodology, and the aim of the investigation must be edited and clarified.
Methodology is well described and supported in some references
Line 88 experimental design, as it is observed two phases on different scales, section 2.2 is recommended to be edited as experimental phases
2.2.1 phase1
2.2.2 phase 2
Line 119 What is nutritional applicability? Do you mean nutrimental potential?
Line 137 and 208 Why briefly, the methodology mentioned is larger than the presented, if not is recommended not to use this term.
Line 163 which was the detector used? A reference could be added.
From results
It is recommended to edit Figure 1, adding the standard deviation of the measures made
Line 236 from findings about inoculum concentration and moisture adjustment, at what time? How does this adjustment impact the microbial population?
Line 252 How do the parameters evaluated indicate stability? Where evaluated the significant difference? If yes, could be added in table 3 as representative letters.
In Table 4 yeast population decreased to 0 in week 4 what happened in week 6.
In Table 5, the same for LAB and yeast
In table 6 the increase in acetate has an impact in acidosis, could you explain why is not favored propionate or butyrate production.
Line 362 Gas production was not modeled, for rate of gas production, it could be an indication of the effect of microbiota in fermentation
Line 552 “S. cerevisiae” must be in italics
Discussion is well presented, and based on references that allow have a clear understand of the effect of fermentation process on this process
Author Response
The response to the reviewer is listed in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript, titled "Fermentation-Based Preservation of Okara and In Vitro Evaluation of Its Application in Dairy Cattle Diets," may be published in the journal Fermentation after deep revisions.
The paper's weakest point is the overly extensive discussion of the results. Nearly 30% of the text is a discussion, most of which is a rehash of the results. This section of the manuscript is intended as a review, not a scientific paper.
Other comments are included in the text in their order:
Is the following statement correct (lines 52-53): ...enhance the nutritional value of feed by breaking down fibers, increasing the concentration of free amino acids...? Associating amino acids with fiber rather than with proteins is a mental shortcut and a factual error.
Please explain line 70. "This p introduces a two-phase approach addressing the challenges of okara ..."
Line 86 please add explanation for NDF abbreviation.
The description of experiment 1 (lines 97-100) of fermentation requires further clarification. The combinations tested are not specified. Only from Figure 1 can one guess what experiment 1 entailed?
Lines 85-87 and table 2 In table presents the results of these analyses. In the authors’ opinion, the very low content of WSCs (2.07% DM) should not have been one of the factors taken into account in experiment 1.
Line 159 typo error
Based on the description of Figure 1, it can be deduced that nine fermentation variants were tested in experiment 1. Why are the results presented in Tables 3 and 4 only for one variant: moisture 80%; inoculation concentration (106 CFU/g)? The authors did not provide any explanation for this variant or the factors underlying the selection. The purpose of testing the remaining eight variants also requires clarification.
Line 263. Sentence need correction.
Which variant was selected for testing? 3.1.4 Aerobic Stability of Fermented Okara
Lines 286-288 These data are not included in Table 5.
Should the data in Table 5 correspond to the data in Table 4? If so, please explain differences:
NH3-N1 (g/kg DM) Table 4 (week 8) 51.38; table 5 (12 h after open) 12.21
Lactate (g/kg DM) Table 4 (week 8) 4.21; table 5 (12 h after open) 32.92
Acetate (g/kg DM) Table 4 (week 8) 44.76; table 5 (12 h after open) 8.81
Lines 304-308. The comment provided requires correction. It is untrue. Please check degradable fraction %, p value as well as degradation rate.
Lines 325-328. In the Effective degradability parameter, the control group was marked as the same homogeneous group as the fresh group (Table 7).
Line 365. Please decide degradable fraction (c) or Degradable rate of b (h-1) (Table 9).
The manuscript contains many minor errors, such as errors in units and the scientific names of microorganism species. I recommend carefully reading the text and correcting it.
Author Response
The response to the reviewer is listed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made corrections and I can recommend the article for publication.
