Optimizing the Production of High-Quality Silage from Jingkenuo 2000 Fresh Waxy Maize: The Synergistic Effects of Microbial Fertilizer and Fermentation Agents

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for valuable comments that we have used to improve the quailty of our manuscript.Our response is given in normal font and changes/addtions to the manuscript are given in the red text.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: To appreciate the changes in each of the variables studied, a control without any treatment is needed.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. In this study, we have set up three fertilization treatments, which are (1) Conventional fertilization treatment (CK); (2) Conventional fertilization + drip irrigation bacterial solution treatment (JJ); (3) Conventional fertilization + microbial organic fertilizer treatment (YJ). The conventional fertilization treatment is based on the local traditional fertilization method, and on this basis, we have added treatments with bacterial solution and organic fertilizer to fully observe the effects of different treatments on the variables.

Comments 2: In much of the discussion, the results obtained are described again. It would be best for you to look this section and focus on comparing the results with those obtained by other authors as well as explaining the differences or similarities found.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten this section in accordance with your recommendations on page 16, lines 521-545 of the manuscript, page 17, lines 567-568, and lines 597-598 of the manuscript.

Comments 3:Lines 429-438. All of this writing corresponds to a description of results and not to a discussion. Neither is evidence shown for their claims and they do not compare their results with those of other authors.

Response 3: Thank you for your professional suggestions. We have also rewritten this section, but there is still very little research in this area, so there are few related references. Our research in this part can provide a reference for the identification of various nutritional indicators of Jing ke nuo 2000 in the later stage.

Comments 4:Lines 439-444. The authors mention that both NDF and ADF remain constant and show a slight decrease in stage R5. Later, they mention that low values of NDF and ADF favor a higher nutritional value of the food. How do the values obtained compare with those described by other authors?

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have re-integrated this part according to your suggestion on page 14, lines 531-545 of the manuscript.The purpose of this study is to detect the content of NDF and ADF in various tissues during the growth period of corn under three fertilization treatments, as there is little research related to this part. Then, silage was made from whole corn plants at the R5 stage under the three fertilization treatments, and related indicators were further tested by adding or not adding silage compound bacteria. Ultimately, it is desired to determine whether the quality of silage is better improved under the combined effects of corn growth and late fermentation processing. There is a lot of research related to the fermentation part, and it has been fully discussed.

Comments 5:Line 463. How do inoculants or additives participate in the accumulation of the nutrients described?

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion.We have added relevant literature on page 17, lines 560-565 of the manuscript.

Comments 6:Line 469. How does the RFV value obtained compare to those obtained by other authors?

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion.We have added relevant literature on page 17, lines 569-570 of the manuscript.

Comments 7:Lines 494. What role do Furmicutes and Protobacteria play in the fermentation process? Why is it common for them to appear in the early stages of fermentation?

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the relevant literature on page 17, lines 596-602 of the manuscript and rewritten it.

Comments 8:Figure 7 shows the correlations between bacterial genera at different stages of silage. It is assumed that each genus plays a fundamental role during the fermentation of the corn plant. Is it possible to deduce how each bacterial genus (of those reported) participates in the fermentation process and how they contribute to the quality of silage?

Response 8: Thank you for your highly professional question. We utilized correlation analysis to examine the connection between the chemical composition of silage and the microbial communities during the fermentation process. To deduce how bacterial genera participate in the fermentation process and how they contribute to the quality of silage feed, further research is required, such as metabolomics and transcriptomics. We also elaborated on future research directions in the conclusion section of this chapter.

3. Additional clarifications

Thank you very much for reviewing our research paper to help us improve its quality and for providing us with several valuable comments.

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for valuable comments that we have used to improve the quailty of our manuscript.Our response is given in normal font and changes/addtions to the manuscript are given in the red text.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Line 8. “the R5 stage” should be replaced with “wax stage”.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced "the R5 stage" with "wax stage" on page 1, lines 26 of the manuscript.

Comments 2: Lines 9-10. What additives and fertilizers are these should be specified.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have re-written this part according to your suggestion on page 1, lines 28-34 of the manuscript.

Comments 3:Lines 37-39. The sentence “The wx gene with almost 100% amylopectin content …” should be rephrased.

Response 3: Thank you for the helpful comments. We have modified the content on page 2, lines 64-67 of the manuscript.

Comments 4:Lines 48-49. “… single microbial fertilizer, compound microbial fertilizer, bio-organic fertilizer, etc.”. Examples of these fertilizers should be given with appropriate references.

Response 4: Thanks for your professional suggestions. We have added relevant reference  on page 2, lines 77-82 of the manuscript.

Comments 5:Please rephrase "These microorganisms mainly promote plant growth through their metabolism". What exactly is meant?

Response 5: Thanks for your professional suggestions. We have rewritted relevant contents on page 2, lines 77-80 of the manuscript.

Comments 6:Lines 50-51. "Microbial fertilizer could not only increase the yield of corn but also increase the content of corn protein and soluble solids". References should be provided.

Response 6: Thanks for your professional suggestions. We have added relevant reference  on page 2, lines 77-82 of the manuscript

Comments 7:Line 58. The abbreviation LP should be deleted.

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion.We have eliminated redundancies on page 2, lines 88.

Comments 8:The purpose of the study is missing.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion.We have added the purpose of the study on page 3, lines 114-118.

Comments 9:What does the phrase "The liquid microbial agents were mainly composed of Bacillus subtilis" mean? What else was included in the composition of the microbial fertilizer?

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion. We have re-written this part according to your suggestion on page 3, lines 126 of the manuscript.

Comments 10:Lines 134-137 should be deleted. The experimental variants and, accordingly, the plant tissue samples have already been indicated in lines 107-120.

Response 10: Thank for your reminder. We have deleted this part according to your suggestion.

Comments 11:The titles of sections 2.2 and 2.3 are the same.

Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified this part according to your suggestion on page 4, lines 175 of the manuscript.

Comments 12:I recommend providing links to figures and tables from the Results section in the Discussion. This will be more convenient for readers.

Response 12:Thank you for your suggestion.We have provided links to figures and tables from the Results section in the Discussion on page 16, lines 524 of the manuscript,on page 16, lines 535 of the manuscript,on page 17, lines 569 of the manuscript,on page 17, lines 599 of the manuscript.

Comments 13:Line 486. What is MU?

Response 13: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified this part according to your suggestion on page 17, lines 588 of the manuscript.

Comments 14:References are not formatted correctly, DOI is missing.

Response 14: Thank for your reminder. We have modified the relevant format in the references on page 19-22 of the manuscript.

3. Additional clarifications

Thank you very much for reviewing our research paper to help us improve its quality and for providing us with several valuable comments.

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for valuable comments that we have used to improve the quailty of our manuscript.Our response is given in normal font and changes/addtions to the manuscript are given in the red text.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The subject of the article submitted for evaluation is very interesting. The scope of research, methodological evaluations are consistent with the applicable principles contained in the literature on the subject. The results come from only one growing season, there is a lack of references to temperature and precipitation. It is the thermal and humidity conditions, in addition to the corn variety, that determine the quality of the obtained raw material for ensiling. The article also does not provide the date of corn harvest, which is very important. Due to the fact that the presented results come from one year of research, the article submitted for review does not meet the requirements for an original scientific work. The results constitute only and exclusively a report from one year of research. Therefore, my opinion on the acceptance of the article is negative. After adding the results from 2024 and 2025, the article may be re-submitted for review.

Response 1: Thank you for your professional suggestions. We conducted two corn planting experiments from April 29, 2022, to August 3, 2022, and from April 30, 2023, to August 4, 2023, respectively. Since the accumulation trends of nutritional components in various tissues under the three fertilization treatments in the two experiments were consistent, we selected a set of relatively representative data to write this paper.Additionally, the planting experiment was set up with 3 treatment groups and randomly assigned, with 3 replicates for each treatment group, which to some extent ensured the reliability of the experimental data. Our objective is to investigate the effect of probiotics on enhancing the quality of whole-plant corn feed from the planting phase through to the fermentation stage. During the R5 growth stage of the corn plant, silage was produced using three different fertilization treatments, and subsequent indicators were assessed with or without the addition of silage compound bacteria. Ultimately, we aim to ascertain whether the quality of the silage has been more effectively improved through the synergistic effects of corn growth and late-stage fermentation processing. Of course, we also acknowledge some deficiencies in the experimental design, which we will improve upon in future experimental plans. We have added the planting and harvesting times of the experiments on page 3, lines 129-135 of the manuscript.

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: We have applied MDPI's Author Services to polish the language of the article, Manuscript ID was english-91124.

4. Additional clarifications

Thank you very much for reviewing our research paper to help us improve its quality and for providing us with several valuable comments.