Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript is a fairly well written text, but still needs some editing before being published. Maybe a rush for the authors to submit the text some template texts is still shown.

Lines 141-143

Template advice has been kept in the manuscript. Please remove:

“This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn”

 

For all tables, the data should be expressed in three significant figures, for small decimals are of no significance when the value is on the hundreds. For instance:

From table 3

It reads

DM (g/kg FM)    417.14 c     423.53 b    428.10 a           1.20

 

(here the hundredths have no significance whatsoever due the magnitude of the data values and SEM 1.20 in three significant figures should be reduced to one or two maximum sig figs)

Should read:

DM (g/kg FM)    417c    424 b      428a       1  

 

(SEM value is recommended to be expressed in units for it denotes were the values limit of uncertainty starts/ends)

 

From table 5

Ace                   378.95               215.13           199.38           80.02

Ace                   379                     215                199                 80     (2 sig figs for SEM)

This recommendation goes for all tables and figures.

As a rule, once a scientific name is written in full and in cursive font (for is not English but Latin) in the following occasions it should be abbreviated but the species. For instance, Lactobacillus parafarraginis and Lactobacillus brevis in the following lines should be written L. parafarraginis and L. brevis. The former is true for the whole manuscript and all species mentioned in.

Conclusions should be rewritten in a more fluent and scientific style, its actual form is not sound enough.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The present manuscript is a fairly well written text, but still needs some editing before being published. Maybe a rush for the authors to submit the text some template texts is still shown.

Lines 141-143

Template advice has been kept in the manuscript. Please remove:

“This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn”

 

For all tables, the data should be expressed in three significant figures, for small decimals are of no significance when the value is on the hundreds. For instance:

From table 3

It reads

DM (g/kg FM)    417.14 c     423.53 b    428.10 a           1.20

 (here the hundredths have no significance whatsoever due the order of the data values and SEM 1.20 in three significant figures should be reduced to one or two maximum sig figs)

 

Should read:

DM (g/kg FM)    417c    424 b      428a       1  

 

(SEM value is recommended to be expressed in units for it denotes were the values limit of uncertainty starts/ends)

 

From table 5

Ace                   378.95               215.13           199.38           80.02

Ace                   379                     215                199                 80    (2 sig figs for SEM)

This recommendation goes for all tables and figures.

As a rule, once a scientific name is written in full and in cursive font (for is not English but Latin) in the following occasions it should be abbreviated but the species. For instance, Lactobacillus parafarraginis and Lactobacillus brevis in the following lines should be written L. parafarraginis and L. brevis. The former is true for the whole manuscript and all species mentioned in.

Conclusions should be rewritten; its present form is not sound enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 46: The literature on the addition of antibacterial and antioxidant substances in livestock feed and food is vast. Please delete this sentence. Please look up examples of adding plant extracts to feed in different countries.

 

Line 79: Was the FT purchased commercially? Please find out the solvent and conditions used to extract the FT through the company and provide a detailed description.

 

Lines 84, 92, 97, 111: Please provide accurate information about the manufacturers and city names for equipment like the vacuum machine, filter, oven, media for lactic acid bacteria, PDA media, etc.

 

M&M: A separate section needs to be written in detail about the microbial analysis. Please specify where each of lactic acid bacteria, yeast, and molds was cultured, how they were counted (e.g., serial dilution or hematocytometer), and provide details about the incubation conditions of each microorganism.

 

2.5 section: Wasn't a community analysis of fungi or yeast conducted based on the ITS region or 18s rRNA sequence? In this paper, only bacteria community analysis seems to have been performed. Protein-degrading enzymes held by yeast or mold in such silage analysis can have a more potent effect than bacterial enzymes. Therefore, this paper needs to be reinforced with data on fungi and yeast.

 

Line 93: phenol-sodium hypochlorite colorimetric method → Please add a reference.

 

Line 98: Please list the chemical analyses in detail.

 

Lines 119-121: Please provide a more detailed explanation of what antioxidant capability was measured and how it was measured. Describe the method used in the kit.

 

Table 1: How did you differentiate and count yeast and mold using the PDA medium? How can you be sure that the yeast has 0 colonies? Please describe the method used to differentiate the two.

 

Lines 291-293, 306-308: More references are needed.

 

Lines 309-310: This conclusion might be premature. Typically, substances like polyphenols or flavonoids that exhibit antibacterial and antioxidant properties can inhibit the growth of microbial strains. It should be expressed as a concentration range that doesn't inhibit growth. Additionally, a control group with only LAB and FT (without silage) is also necessary.

 

Lines 390-391: Concluding that harmful bacteria's growth was inhibited solely based on community analysis may be illogical. Moreover, interpreting Pseudomonas at the genus level as representing the entirety of harmful bacteria might be a flawed interpretation.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job of correcting it as directed extensively throughout the paper. It can be published after a little correction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. In the revised version prepared, all changes made in text are highlighted by colored text. The comments and corrections suggested by the referees were completely adopted unless the corresponding text had been otherwise modified. In the revised version, the blue colored words were the responses to the comments of Reviewer #2. We highly appreciate the constructive and kind comments that all the reviewers addressed in our manuscript.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	It has been revised.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	Reviewer’s Evaluation is yes.
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	It has been revised.
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	Reviewer’s Evaluation is yes.
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	It has been revised.
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	It has been revised.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
3.1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The authors did a good job of correcting it as directed extensively throughout the paper. It can be published after a little correction. Response 3.1: Thank you very much for your comments and recognition. Introduction, results and conclusions have been revised.—Line 56-59, 193, 212-214, 224-225, 228, 236, 243-244, 247, 256, 273, 308, 310, 414, 435, 458. 3.2 Comments on the Quality of English Language: Minor editing of English language required. Response 3.2: Agree. Our manuscript was checked by a colleague fluent in English writing.We have revised the English language of the full text.