Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Early Fermentation Dynamics and Aerobic Stability of Maize Silage Improved by Dual-Strain Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation

Fermentation 2025, 11(5), 293; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11050293

by Jonas Jatkauskas^1,*, Rafael Camargo do Amaral², Kristian Lybek Witt², Jens Noesgaard Joergensen², Ivan Eisner² and Vilma Vrotniakiene¹

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Kousaku Souma

Fermentation 2025, 11(5), 293; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11050293

Submission received: 26 March 2025 / Revised: 19 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 21 May 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Use of Lactobacillus in Forage Storage and Processing, 2nd Edition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript in question is clearly written, well-structured, and scientifically relevant, and is therefore worthy of consideration by this journal. However, a few points should be addressed to improve the overall quality of the work.

Keywords
It is recommended to avoid repeating words already present in the title, in accordance with standard indexing and keyword originality guidelines.

Introduction

Line 34: The authors refer to “these processes” but do not clearly specify which processes are being discussed. Clarification is needed for better understanding.
Lines 40–68: This paragraph is excessively long, which hinders the flow of reading. It is advisable to break it into two or more thematic paragraphs.
Justification for the fermentation period: Why did the authors choose 32 days of fermentation? Is this period sufficient to ensure stabilization of microbial populations, especially lactic acid bacteria? Are there references that support this choice? As it stands, the justification appears weak.
Although well-referenced, the introduction reads more like a literature review—lengthy and tiring. The authors should focus on synthesizing the key points and leading the reader more directly to the study objective.

Materials and Methods

Line 102: The manuscript does not mention whether the silos had valves to release the gases formed during the fermentation process, which is important to maintain anaerobic conditions. Additionally, what compaction force was applied? These details are essential for reproducibility.
Line 144: The statistical model used in the analysis must be included, as it is crucial for evaluating the robustness of the data.
Table: Replace the term "crude fat" with "ether extract," which is the more appropriate and widely accepted terminology in bromatological analysis.

Conclusion
The conclusion should be more concise and direct, summarizing the main findings clearly without repeating results or extending the discussion.

Author Response

For research article

Jonas Jatkauskas, Rafael Camargo do Amaral, Kristian Lybek Witt, Jens Noesgaard Joergensen², Ivan Eisner , Vilma Vrotniakiene

“Early Fermentation Dynamics and Aerobic Stability of Maize Silage Improved by Dual-Strain Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation ”

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments. Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions, which have been highlighted using track changes in the resubmitted files.

Open Review 1

(x) I would not like to sign my review report

( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Is the research design appropriate?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the methods adequately described?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the results clearly presented?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Keywords

It is recommended to avoid repeating words already present in the title, in accordance with standard indexing and keyword originality guidelines. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction.

Introduction

Line 34: The authors refer to “these processes” but do not clearly specify which processes are being discussed. Clarification is needed for better understanding. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Introduction was rewritten.

Lines 40–68: This paragraph is excessively long, which hinders the flow of reading. It is advisable to break it into two or more thematic paragraphs. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Introduction was rewritten.

Justification for the fermentation period: Why did the authors choose 32 days of fermentation? Is this period sufficient to ensure stabilization of microbial populations, especially lactic acid bacteria? Are there references that support this choice? As it stands, the justification appears weak. Response: We have added a justification for the 32-day period in the Introduction, supported by appropriate references. This period was chosen to reflect a relevant short-term storage duration for commercial silage bunkers and to capture the early stabilization phase of fermentation dynamics. Supporting literature includes Arriola et al. (2021) and Diepersloot et al. (2021), both of which discuss silage stabilization within 30–45 days. The revised paragraph now includes: "The 32-day period was selected to represent the early stabilization phase of fermentation, during which most microbial and chemical changes occur (Arriola et al., 2021; Diepersloot et al., 2021)."

Although well-referenced, the introduction reads more like a literature review—lengthy and tiring. The authors should focus on synthesizing the key points and leading the reader more directly to the study objective. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction. Introduction was rewritten.

Materials and Methods

Line 102: The manuscript does not mention whether the silos had valves to release the gases formed during the fermentation process, which is important to maintain anaerobic conditions. Additionally, what compaction force was applied? These details are essential for reproducibility. Response: Taken into account and described. When we placed 2 kg of forage into 3 litres (0.003 m³), the forage density was 667 kg/m³

Line 144: The statistical model used in the analysis must be included, as it is crucial for evaluating the robustness of the data. Response: We have expanded the description of the statistical model in the Materials and Methods section. The model now explicitly states: "Data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure in SAS 9.4, with fixed effects of treatment, storage time, and their interaction. Tukey’s post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons (p ≤ 0.05). For non-parametric data, the NPAR1WAY procedure was used with the Kruskal-Wallis test."

Table: Replace the term "crude fat" with "ether extract," which is the more appropriate and widely accepted terminology in bromatological analysis. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction.

Conclusion

The conclusion should be more concise and direct, summarizing the main findings clearly without repeating results or extending the discussion. Response. We agree with this comment and have made correction.

Submission Date

26 March 2025

Date of this review

24 Apr 2025 02:36:28

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, respectfully, it seems to me that this is a good manuscript. However, many points affect the quality of the manuscript. The main factor that affects the manuscript is the generic writing style that decreases the relevance of the text and the form of the data is showed. Some suggestions are below.

Abstract: My suggestion is to add numbers to improve your results description because describing "greater or lesser" is generic. For example, MxH silage showed a 25% higher crude protein than pure H silage. Also, add p-values. Add the experimental design.

Line 16: Add the number of mini-silos.

Lines 21-22: This is not a good description of the results. It is more of an informal summary, like a casual conversation. Be specific and use numerical data. Include p-values throughout your description of the results.

Lines 22-23: Same comment as above.

Lines 23-24: Same comment as above.

Lines 24-26: Same comment as above.

Lines 27-28: Same comment as above.

Lines 28-29: Improved the description of the conclusion. Be more specific. Add numbers. Highlight the relevance of your study.

Keyword: My suggestion is to use keywords other than the title.

Introduction: In its current format, the introduction is a generic review. I suggest adding numbers to improve the description. Also, reorganize the paragraphs to organize the ideas in the essay more coherently.

Furthermore, the study describes a lot about other microorganisms, but it's not clear why the bacteria chosen for this study were studied. In this sense, the introduction doesn't reflect the novelty of the manuscript, which diminishes its relevance. In other words, it seems like a repetitive study without any new features, which isn't true. Your study was created out of a need (a problem), and the hypothesis is that the chosen bacteria should solve that problem. Rewrite it.

Line 41: How much?

Lines 41-42: How fast is this pH drop in relation to time?

Line 45: What compounds?

Lines 45-47: I don't understand this text. Excuse the expression, but isn't it obvious? What new idea is this trying to convey to the reader? Rewrite it.

Lines 47-50: How much? How much? How much? How much? …

Lines 50-53: Complete the idea because it is not desirable to have very high levels of acetic acid during the ensiling process.

Lines 53-54: It is not true. Remove these lines.

Line 56: How much is “initial days”? 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 …….

Lines 58-59: What are the ideal parameters? Ideal pH, ideal lactic acid content, ideal acetic acid content, ideal protein turnover, ideal ammonia content. And how long should this take? In 6 hours? In 2 hours? In 6 days? ….

Lines 60-63: If this has been well-documented, please add the highlights. For example: reduces forage losses by 4%, promotes a 15% reduction in effluent losses, maintains stability of exposed silage for 3 days, etc.

Lines 64-65: Okay, and what is the novelty?

Line 66: The name is not the same as the previous one.

Lines 66-67: At what point does this process occur?

Lines 67-69: Okay, and what is the novelty?

Line 70: What is the hypothesis?

Material and methods

Line 78: Okay but is more relevant to describe the specific harvest age. Example: 120 days.

Line 81: Are you sure it was chopped at 10 mm?

Line 101: Why this density? Corn silage doesn't usually use this density. Don't answer me; write down the reason in the manuscript.

Line 101: If possible, add the measurements of the minisilos.

Lines 106-107: The labeling information is irrelevant, please remove it.

Line 109: Why this temperature? Is this a common temperature in your region?

Line 117: Remove “es”

Line 117: How much is representative?

Line 118: How much for each analysis?

Results. The results description is generic. Improve your writing style showing your data in other forms more than a simple description of tables. Was higher? How much (%, g, l, etc)?

Lines 155-164: The results description contains some lines that resemble discussion lines. This is not recommended, but if you feel it's necessary, you can keep it. However, lines like line 164 should be removed. Also, try to improve the writing style of the results by describing the data in formats other than simple table descriptions. Was it higher? By how much (%, g, l, etc.)?

Apply this comment to the entire results description.

Lines 172-173: Remove this type of description because it is irrelevant and repetitive with the table title.

Line 176: Homogenize and reduce the number of decimals to a maximum of three (0.001) for the p values.

Line 184: Avoid this type of description: "The content remained relatively stable." This is a generic description that can be interpreted differently by different readers. Use the values generated in your study.

Table 3: Research the literature to find the best table option to display your results and statistics. Only the inoculum p-values are presented here, but neither the time nor the interaction p-values are described. Choose another table presentation. Also, the interaction decomposition is not shown. Show the interaction decomposition in another table or in a figure.

Table 3: Remove the expression “data presented as LS means in % DM unless stated otherwise, n = 5” in all the table titles.

Table 4: Verify the ammonia values. I believe these values are incorrect. Also verify the calculation of all the variables studied.

Discussion: Place the results in the results topic. The topic of discussion, when discussed, is very speculative. The discussion should focus on explaining how your results were obtained. For this, add theories, hypotheses or statements about how you obtained your results, whether biologically, metabolically, physiologically, environmentally, etc. In the current situation, the discussion is a general review, results description (Here the results should be avoided so as not to be repetitive), and comparison of data with other authors; however, you need to make a SPECIFIC description of how the results were obtained.

Below are some suggestions that should be applied to ALL paragraphs in the discussion topic.

Lines 308-318: The description is accurate, but it needs to be improved with more specific figures and descriptions. I understand you're trying to highlight the importance of using lactic acid bacteria inoculum, but I only see it in the last two lines of the paragraph.

Lines 320-321: Okay and? What is the idea you are trying to convey?

Lines 322-323: Comment similar to the previous one.

Lines 324-328: Why describe contradictory ideas that place your study on the observation of the validity of the data?

Lines 328-332: In addition to being contradictory, it doesn't explain its results; in this sense, what is the reason for this description in the text?

Conclusion: I disagree with the conclusion. It should be more objective and descriptive, avoiding a repetitive description of the results. Furthermore, the conclusion should address the problem described as objective. Example: The use of LLB and LCL at concentrations of 10⁵ and 10⁸, respectively, in corn silage improved silage stability by 50% up to 12 hours of aerobic exposure.

Author Response

For research article

Jonas Jatkauskas, Rafael Camargo do Amaral, Kristian Lybek Witt, Jens Noesgaard Joergensen², Ivan Eisner , Vilma Vrotniakiene

“Early Fermentation Dynamics and Aerobic Stability of Maize Silage Improved by Dual-Strain Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation

”

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Summary

Open Review 2

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.


	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 16: Add the number of mini-silos. Response. Considered and corrected.

Lines 22-23: Same comment as above. Response. Considered and corrected.

Lines 23-24: Same comment as above. Response. Considered and corrected.

Lines 24-26: Same comment as above. Response. Considered and corrected.

Lines 27-28: Same comment as above. Response. Considered and corrected.

Lines 28-29: Improved the description of the conclusion. Be more specific. Add numbers. Highlight the relevance of your study. Response. Considered and corrected.

Keyword: My suggestion is to use keywords other than the title. Response. Considered and corrected.

Line 41: How much? Response. Corrected

Lines 41-42: How fast is this pH drop in relation to time? Response. The pH drop in silage is most rapid within the first 24 to 72 hours after ensiling, which is the critical phase for preservation. So, The first 2–3 days are key for rapid acidification. A well-managed silage should reach a stable, low pH (~3.8–4.2) within 7–10 days, though microbial activity continues for several weeks.

Line 45: What compounds? Response. Compounds are described

Lines 45-47: I don't understand this text. Excuse the expression, but isn't it obvious? What new idea is this trying to convey to the reader? Rewrite it. Response. Rewritten

Lines 47-50: How much? How much? How much? How much? Response. Corrected

Lines 50-53: Complete the idea because it is not desirable to have very high levels of acetic acid during the ensiling process. Response. Introduction was rewritten.

Lines 53-54: It is not true. Remove these lines. Response. Introduction was rewritten.

Line 56: How much is “initial days”? 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. Response. Introduction was rewritten.

Okay Lines 64-65:, and what is the novelty? Response: Thank you for this important question. We have now clarified the novelty of our study in the revised Introduction. The central innovation lies in the use of a dual-strain lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculant combining Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM22501 and Lactococcus lactis DSM11037 — two strains with distinct and complementary metabolic functions. L. buchneri is a heterofermentative LAB known for enhancing aerobic stability through the production of acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol, which inhibit spoilage microorganisms. L. lactis DSM11037, on the other hand, is a relatively novel silage strain with high oxygen-scavenging capacity, allowing it to dominate the early fermentation phase, rapidly reduce pH, and suppress undesirable aerobic microbes (e.g., yeasts and enterobacteria). This combination strategy addresses a key challenge in silage management: ensuring rapid acidification while improving long-term aerobic stability. Additionally, our study focuses on short-term fermentation dynamics (2–32 days) — a period that is often neglected but critical in modern silage practices where silos may be opened early. This dual-strain, time-resolved approach offers new insights into fermentation control and microbial succession and contributes original findings to the field.

Line 66: The name is not the same as the previous one. Response. Introduction was rewritten.

Lines 66-67: At what point does this process occur? Response. Introduction was rewritten.

Lines 67-69: Okay, and what is the novelty? Response. Introduction was rewritten.

Line 70: What is the hypothesis? Response. Introduction was rewritten. We hypothesized that the dual-strain inoculant would accelerate early fermentation, improve silage quality, and enhance aerobic stability across a short-term ensiling period when compared to non-inoculated control.

Material and methods

Line 78: Okay but is more relevant to describe the specific harvest age. Example: 120 days. Response. Harvest age added.

Line 81: Are you sure it was chopped at 10 mm? Response. Taken innto account and corrected

Line 101: Why this density? Corn silage doesn't usually use this density. Don't answer me; write down the reason in the manuscript. Taken into account and described. When we placed 2 kg of forage into 3 litres (0.003 m³), the forage density was 667 kg/m³. A good benchmark for well-packed maize silage is 600–750 kg/m³ as fresh.

Line 101: If possible, add the measurements of the minisilos. Response. The measurements of the minisilos added.

Lines 106-107: The labeling information is irrelevant, please remove it. Response. Labeling information removed

Line 109: Why this temperature? Is this a common temperature in your region? Response. In accordance with DLG Guidelines for testing silage additives, mini-silos must be kept at a constant temperature between 20 and 25 °C.

Line 117: Remove “es” Response. Removed

Line 117: How much is representative? Response. Corrected

Line 118: How much for each analysis? Response. Added

Lines 123-124 and 140: This is a self-citation and is not recommended at this position. Perhaps you could quote yourself in the discussion topic, and it might be accepted there. Add the methodology for each analysis. Response. To avoid repeating the research methods described in the previous article, a reference to that publication is provided.

Results. The results description is generic. Improve your writing style showing your data in other forms more than a simple description of tables. Was higher? How much (%, g, l, etc)? Response. Thank you, taken innto account Section „Results“ was rewritten.

Apply this comment to the entire results description. Response. Thank you, taken innto account Section „Results“ was rewritten.

Lines 172-173: Remove this type of description because it is irrelevant and repetitive with the table title. Response. Thank you, taken innto account Section „Results“ was rewritten.

Line 176: Homogenize and reduce the number of decimals to a maximum of three (0.001) for the p values. Response. Thank you, taken innto account Section „Results“ was rewritten.

Table3: Are you sure the standard deviation (SD) is the same for all the times evaluated? The statistical significance of this event, equal values, is not good for your study. The same for all the tables. Response. We verified SD values and clarified that they reflect LS means with pooled SEs from the model—not raw SD.

Table 3: Remove the expression “data presented as LS means in % DM unless stated otherwise, n = 5” in all the table titles. Response. Taken out this description of the table.

Table 4: Verify the ammonia values. I believe these values are incorrect. Also verify the calculation of all the variables studied. Response. Was checked

Below are some suggestions that should be applied to ALL paragraphs in the discussion topic.

Lines 320-321: Okay and? What is the idea you are trying to convey? Response. Revised paragraph:The heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria L. buchneri has been widely used as a silage inoculant due to its ability to improve aerobic stability through the production of acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol, which inhibit spoilage microorganisms and delay aerobic deterioration [16,17]. In contrast, L. lactis DSM11037 is a homofermentative LAB strain characterized by its strong oxygen-scavenging capacity and rapid pH reduction, making it highly effective during the initial stages of fermentation [18]. The complementary activity of these two strains in our study likely supported a more controlled and efficient fermentation, which contributed to improved preservation of dry matter (DM), corrected dry matter (DMc), and crude protein (CP) content. While a decline in DM and DMc was observed over time—as expected during ensiling—silages treated with the dual-strain inoculant (LBL) consistently retained higher DM and DMc values compared to the untreated control, particularly after 16 and 32 days of storage. This suggests that the enhanced fermentation quality reduced nutrient losses typically associated with uncontrolled microbial activity. Notably, previous concerns that heterofermentative pathways might lead to greater DM losses were not supported in our findings, aligning with the meta-analysis by Kleinschmit and Kung [25].

Lines 322-323: Comment similar to the previous one. Response. Was improved.

Lines 324-328: Why describe contradictory ideas that place your study on the observation of the validity of the data? Response. Were taken into account and improved

Lines 328-332: In addition to being contradictory, it doesn't explain its results; in this sense, what is the reason for this description in the text? Response. Were taken into account and improved

Conclusion: I disagree with the conclusion. It should be more objective and descriptive, avoiding a repetitive description of the results. Furthermore, the conclusion should address the problem described as objective. Example: The use of LLB and LCL at concentrations of 10⁵ and 10⁸, respectively, in corn silage improved silage stability by 50% up to 12 hours of aerobic exposure. Response. Were taken into account and improved.

Submission Date

26 March 2025

Date of this review

10 Apr 2025 16:57:16

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides valuable data on the combination of lactic acid bacteria preparations when considering improvements to the fermentation quality and bank life of maize silage.

The author and I may have different ideas about how to summarize the data, but I think it would be better to summarize it separately based on the relationship with changes over time.

The notation in each table for the silage adjustment period and changes in fermentation quality was difficult to read, and I felt that it would be easier to read if it was graphed. In addition, the statistical processing for the bacterial inoculation and preparation period was one-way analysis of variance, but if the results were shown as two-way analysis of variance with the main effects of the addition effect and the preparation period, it would be possible to verify whether the factors were due to the addition, the preparation period, or both.

Regarding stability, how did the temperature change progress? In my research, there were two peaks in the temperature rise due to the influence of yeast and mold. As mentioned in the paper I referred to, the evaluation was based on a temperature rise of 3°C, but normally, a rise in temperature can be seen within half a day even after opening the silage.
Although this is a desk simulation, I think it would be wise to state the temperature changes that were used as the criteria for your judgment, including the papers you referenced.

Please consider the above.

Author Response

For research article

Jonas Jatkauskas, Rafael Camargo do Amaral, Kristian Lybek Witt, Jens Noesgaard Joergensen², Ivan Eisner , Vilma Vrotniakiene

“Early Fermentation Dynamics and Aerobic Stability of Maize Silage Improved by Dual-Strain Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation”

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments. Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions, which have been highlighted using track changes in the resubmitted files.

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides valuable data on the combination of lactic acid bacteria preparations when considering improvements to the fermentation quality and bank life of maize silage. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made correction.

The author and I may have different ideas about how to summarize the data, but I think it would be better to summarize it separately based on the relationship with changes over time. Response. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made some changes

Regarding stability, how did the temperature change progress? In my research, there were two peaks in the temperature rise due to the influence of yeast and mold. As mentioned in the paper I referred to, the evaluation was based on a temperature rise of 3°C, but normally, a rise in temperature can be seen within half a day even after opening the silage. Although this is a desk simulation, I think it would be wise to state the temperature changes that were used as the criteria for your judgment, including the papers you referenced. Response. Added Figures 8-12 shows temperature changes

Please consider the above.

Submission Date

26 March 2025

Date of this review

29 Apr 2025 10:52:33

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, respectfully, reviewers provide suggestions with the primary aim of improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the authors to decide whether to fully accept, partially accept, or respectfully reject those suggestions.

That said, I am generally satisfied with the responses provided. However, I have some suggestions.

Thank you for your continued efforts in improving the manuscript.

Introduction: The introduction is quite long (which can be straining), but it's a good, engaging read. For me it doesn't need reductions.

Lines 94-105-108: Correct the first use of the abbreviation for dry matter. The full term 'dry matter (DM)' should be written out the first time it appears, and the abbreviation 'DM' can be used in subsequent mentions. The same applies to other abbreviations throughout the text.

Lines 151-167: This description is repetitive and very similar. It makes perfect sense, but avoids repetition.

Lines 177-179: My suggestion is to remove it; however, the authors may decide to keep it.

Discussion: I only have one suggestion: it's not mandatory, and the authors are responsible for making any changes. Don't rewrite the results. Use a different form of description.

Author Response

For research article

Jonas Jatkauskas, Rafael Camargo do Amaral, Kristian Lybek Witt, Jens Noesgaard Joergensen², Ivan Eisner , Vilma Vrotniakiene

“Early Fermentation Dynamics and Aerobic Stability of Maize Silage Improved by Dual-Strain Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation“

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments, Round 2

Summary

Thank you very much to the reviewer for taking the time to re-evaluate our manuscript and for providing clear, constructive, and helpful comments to improve it. We also sincerely appreciate the reviewer kind words acknowledging the authors' efforts in revising the article.

Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions, which have been highlighted using track changes in the resubmitted files.

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report

( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Is the research design appropriate?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the methods adequately described?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the results clearly presented?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

That said, I am generally satisfied with the responses provided. However, I have some suggestions.

Thank you for your continued efforts in improving the manuscript.

Introduction: The introduction is quite long (which can be straining), but it's a good, engaging read. For me it doesn't need reductions. Response. Authors sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging feedback. We are pleased to hear that the revisions improved the clarity and rigor of the Introduction of the manuscript. The constructive comments provided were very helpful in guiding the revision process. Introduction was slightly improved according comments given below

Lines 151-167: This description is repetitive and very similar. It makes perfect sense but avoids repetition. Response. Repetitive description was removed

Lines 177-179: My suggestion is to remove it; however, the authors may decide to keep it. Response. Was removed

Discussion: I only have one suggestion: it's not mandatory, and the authors are responsible for making any changes. Don't rewrite the results. Use a different form of description. Response. Thanks for the comment. This will be taken into account when preparing future articles.

Submission Date

26 March 2025

Date of this review

15 May 2025 05:05:43

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Early Fermentation Dynamics and Aerobic Stability of Maize Silage Improved by Dual-Strain Lactic Acid Bacteria Inoculation

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI