The Potential of Fermented Food from Southeast Asia as Biofertiliser
, Jamilah Syafawati Yaacob 3, Wan Abd Al Qadr Imad Wan-Mohtar 4, Nik Iskandar Putra Samsudin 1,5, Arina Shairah Abdul Sukor 6, Elicia Jitming Lim 7 and Muhamad Hafiz Abd Rahim 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting work. It lacks a quantitative discussion about nutrient and components from those biofertilizers, and a better description of methodologies to obtain adequate products.
The present manuscript lacks also some references, such as,
Guo, Xinyuan; He, Yankun; Ren, Lianhai; Zhang, Minglu. 2016. STUDY ON THE PRODUCTION OF LIQUID BIOFERTILIZER BY FOOD WASTEWATER. FRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN Volume:25 Issue:11 Pages:4929-4936.
Author Response
Point 1: It lacks a quantitative discussion about nutrient and components from those biofertilizers, and a better description of methodologies to obtain adequate products.
Response 1: The quantitative discussion about nutrients and components from biofertiliser is already stated at Line 172; Table 2 (typical amino acid) and (chemical elements) and at Line 339; Table 3 (nutritional content) and (potential nutrients for plant growth). Since seafood-based biofertiliser is rich in protein, amino acids have been stressed out in this section. Meanwhile, plant-based biofertiliser is composed of different types of nutritional components. For the description of methodologies to obtain adequate products, the explanations have been stated at Line 359 in subsection ‘Current biofertiliser fermented food (BFF) practice and concluding remark’. Due to your suggestion, we have added some information at Lines 365-368 for a better and clear understanding.
Point 2: The present manuscript lacks also some references, such as,
Guo, Xinyuan; He, Yankun; Ren, Lianhai; Zhang, Minglu. 2016. STUDY ON THE PRODUCTION OF LIQUID BIOFERTILIZER BY FOOD WASTEWATER. FRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN Volume:25 Issue:11 Pages:4929-4936.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We found this work is significant and we have revised it accordingly at Line 159-160.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript ,,The Potential of Fermented Food from Southeast Asia as Biofertiliser,, contains interesting results. However, the manuscript needs to be improved.
I propose a major revision.
Language of manuscript should be improved.
The abstract needs to be expanded and improved. The abstract should be factual. It should contain objectives, results and conclusions.
Please be sure that your manuscript thoroughly establishes how this work is fundamentally novel. Specific comparisons should be made to previously published materials that have a similar purpose. Please present a strong case for how this work is a major advance. This needs to be done in the manuscript itself, not just in the response to review comments.
Please be sure that your abstract and your Conclusions section not only summarize the key findings of your work but also explain the specific ways in which this work fundamentally advances the field relative to prior literature.
The significance of this study should be more emphasize in the introduction.
Line 83, microorganisms, similar effects on the growth of plants ,,This issue has been addressed in great detail by this very important paper and therefore the authors are encouraged to add it here as a reference,, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021001525
Line 166: This section should be written and presented more clearly.
Line 258: The whole manuscript should be better structured and combed. To make it easier to read and better oriented.
Line 337: Table 3: Specify standard deviations.
Line 394: Part of the conclusion is missing
Indicate the possible risks of such research. Add your recommendations for future research.
Line 403: Make sure the references are added correctly according to the journal's instructions.
Author Response
Point 1: Language of manuscript should be improved
Response 1: Thank you. The manuscript was proof-read by Ms Elicia Jitming Lim from The University of Sydney (native speaker) and Dr. Nik Iskandar Putra Samsudin, one of the international journal proofreader. Nevertheless, due to the suggestion, we have rechecked the language and corrected some of the mistakes.
Point 2: The abstract needs to be expanded and improved. The abstract should be factual. It should contain objectives, results and conclusions.
Response 2: Revised accordingly at Line 32-45.
Point 3: Please be sure that your manuscript thoroughly establishes how this work is fundamentally novel. Specific comparisons should be made to previously published materials that have a similar purpose. Please present a strong case for how this work is a major advance. This needs to be done in the manuscript itself, not just in the response to review comments.
Response 3: The novelty of the manuscript have been stated at Line 108-115 in the last paragraph of the ‘introduction’ section. The specific comparison with the previous studies has been discussed in detail at Line 137 in the ‘current advances of biofertiliser and future directions’ section. However, we have added new information and specific comparisons to previous studies that have a similar purpose at Line 108-123 to make it more clear regarding the novelty of this work. Previously, many studies involved using raw food waste or composting either by using natural microbe or starter culture like effective microbe (EM). The utilization of food waste and EM is proven to give good results for plant growth. However, the utilization of EM is less familiar to the local communities. Little is known about the utilization of fermented food as biofertiliser where fermented food consists of the same microbial flora in EM. The microbial flora in EM that enhances plant growth proves that fermented food might as well promote plant growth. As far as we concerned, this is the first report discussing the potential of fermented food as biofertiliser.
Point 4: Please be sure that your abstract and your Conclusions section not only summarize the key findings of your work but also explain the specific ways in which this work fundamentally advances the field relative to prior literature.
Response 4: Revised accordingly in ‘abstract’ at Line 32-45 and in ‘conclusions’ section at Line 385-389.
Point 5: The significance of this study should be more emphasize in the introduction.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. The significance of the study was emphasised at Line 49-71.
Point 6: Line 83, microorganisms, similar effects on the growth of plants ,,This issue has been addressed in great detail by this very important paper and therefore the authors are encouraged to add it here as a reference,, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021001525
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We found this work is significant and we have revised it accordingly.
Point 7: Line 166: This section should be written and presented more clearly
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. The sebsequent lines (Line 177 -263) are the elaboration and extended version of Table 2. Most of the references in Table 2 are grouped and discussed in detail based on their significance.
Point 8: Line 258: The whole manuscript should be better structured and combed. To make it easier to read and better oriented.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. To make it easier for the readers, we have divided the discussion based on different type of substrates – seafood-, plant- and animal-based. We also summarised the key findings in the Tables. Towards the end, we included the suggestions and recommendations from the local practices, which includes popular writings such as Facebook and TV Documentary. We hope this structure is sufficient and easy enough for the non-expert readers.
Point 9: Line 337: Table 3: Specify standard deviations.
Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion. This is a good idea to be included. However, the values were not mentioned in the previous literatures, therefore we cannot simply add standard deviations.
Point 10: Line 394: Part of the conclusion is missing
Indicate the possible risks of such research. Add your recommendations for future research.
Response 10: Thank you for the suggestions. We have added the possible risks and recommendations for further research at Line 402-418.
Point 11 Line 403: Make sure the references are added correctly according to the journal's instructions.
Response 11: Thank you. We have rechecked and reformatting the references according to the journal.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The review entitled (THE POTENTIAL OF FERMENTED FOOD FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA AS BIOFERTILISER) is very interesting. I have read it with much interest, thanks to authors for this good work, informative well writing and easy flow.
I have just some comments:
-The reference style should follow the journal format (change all from names to number formatting as rules of MDPI, or confirm the Journal styl)
-L101 delete fermented before BFF
-Table 1 delete or clarify the sentence (Nitrogen content is higher than compost and phosphorus content same as compost)
-L226 add the year of ref Dastager et al
-please correct the format of scientific names at lines 423,450,462, 470,473,481,504,536,570, 642,653,654,675, 697,732,775,……etc please confirm all
-Some references are not written in English please correct all see for example (L438-440, L569-571, L692; L735, L796-798, etc
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The reference style should follow the journal format (change all from names to number formatting as rules of MDPI, or confirm the Journal style)
Response 1: Thank you. We have rechecked and reformatting the references according to the journal.
Point 2: L101 delete fermented before BFF
Response 2: Revised accordingly.
Point 3: Table 1 delete or clarify the sentence (Nitrogen content is higher than compost and phosphorus content same as compost)
Response 3: Revised accordingly. We have deleted the sentence to avoid confusion.
Point 4: L226 add the year of ref Dastager et al
Response 4: Revised accordingly.
Point 5: please correct the format of scientific names at lines 423,450,462, 470,473,481,504,536,570, 642,653,654,675, 697,732,775,……etc please confirm all
Response 5: Revised accordingly.
Point 6: Some references are not written in English please correct all see for example (L438-440, L569-571, L692; L735, L796-798, etc
Response 6: Revised accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors, I would like to thank you for selecting the topic of BFF application in horticultural crops. It is one of the crucial element of achieving important goals of circular economy in agriculture. There is a special importance in regions where fermented food is widely used. You have reviewed a lot of information concerning types of fermented food and the literature you have gathered is really impressive. Therefore I am really confused of the fact that you cited Facebook as source of knowledge. I understand the reasons of your decision (local food, local receipts etc.) but on the other hand I have in mind that this information could not be verified in any way. Despite of the fact that I would have never referred FB posts as a scientific sources I leave this decision to leave or delete them to you.
In my opinion you have not paid sufficient attention to problems of soil quality under effects of application of organic substances. I am not an expert in the field of fertilization of tropical soil but in Europe application of substances containing some active biological compounds (especially sugars and fat of different origin) is limited by their impact of soil (biological and chemical) not telling of hazard of introducing heavy metal into the soil. I would suggest adding some information about BFF effect on soil quality.
Your manscript basically is a review so number of literature positions cited is really huge. Reviewer knows that in such a manuscript errors can be hardly avoided. I have to admit that generally this task have you fulfilled very well because all positions from Reference section were cited in the text. Anyway please look at:
Line 123 and in many other places – you have five times cited Author Joyoti P (without dot) Tamang whereas in Reference section (lines from 758 to 770) this Author is mentioned as Tamang Jyoti Prokash what is little bit confused for reader. I am not very familiar with Asian surnames but I would suggest to use the same system in the text and in References section;
Line 213 – FAO in References section is dated 2018 (line 510) but in line 2013 is cited FAO dated 2012;
Line 239 – Huss 2007 – not cited in References section;
Line 270 – Naidu et al. 2012 – not cited in References section;
Line 283 -Lee et al. (1996) – not cited in References section;
Line 343 -Medeiros et al. (2012) - not cited in References section;
please follow the MDPI system of citation, use numbers in sequence of appearance in the text.
Author Response
Point 1: Therefore I am really confused of the fact that you cited Facebook as source of knowledge. I understand the reasons of your decision (local food, local receipts etc.) but on the other hand I have in mind that this information could not be verified in any way. Despite of the fact that I would have never referred FB posts as a scientific sources I leave this decision to leave or delete them to you.
Response 1: There is no or very limited scientific information regarding the potential of fermented food as biofertiliser. The fact that we used FB posts just to highlight that the practice is very popular among the local community. We understand the use of FB as source is quite controversial in the scientific writing but this is the only avenue for now due to limited information.
We have added some practice from scientific sources in the ‘introduction’ section at Line 111-113 that utilizes food waste instead of fermented food but have the same purpose proposed by this present manuscript.
Point 2: In my opinion you have not paid sufficient attention to problems of soil quality under effects of application of organic substances. I am not an expert in the field of fertilization of tropical soil but in Europe application of substances containing some active biological compounds (especially sugars and fat of different origin) is limited by their impact of soil (biological and chemical) not telling of hazard of introducing heavy metal into the soil. I would suggest adding some information about BFF effect on soil quality.
Response 2: In this manuscript approach, we are using fermented food which consists of a large number of good microbial flora. Sugars, carbohydrates and fats are the important components of biofertiliser as sources of energy for the microbial flora to degrade the food waste to release beneficial nutrients needed by the plant. In this case, the problem that arises might be due to the gas emitted during the degradation process. However, this is not the main concern in this manuscript and there is limited information on the effect of the application of BFF to the soil. Therefore, we have added a few discussions concerning these issues and suggested further research on the impact of soil in the ‘conclusion’ section at Line 406-418.
Point 3: Your manscript basically is a review so number of literature positions cited is really huge. Reviewer knows that in such a manuscript errors can be hardly avoided. I have to admit that generally this task have you fulfilled very well because all positions from Reference section were cited in the text. Anyway please look at:
Line 123 and in many other places – you have five times cited Author Joyoti P (without dot) Tamang whereas in Reference section (lines from 758 to 770) this Author is mentioned as Tamang Jyoti Prokash what is little bit confused for reader. I am not very familiar with Asian surnames but I would suggest to use the same system in the text and in References section;
Response 3: Revised accordingly since the citation changed to numbering order following journal format. However, please be informed that there are 5 different sources with Tamang. Reference for ‘Tamang, Jyoti Prakash’ are cited as ‘Jyoti Prakash Tamang’ while reference for ‘Tamang, Jyoti P’ is cited as ‘Jyoti P Tamang’. We just follow the name and citation suggestion stated in each of the manuscript.
Point 4: Line 213 – FAO in References section is dated 2018 (line 510) but in line 2013 is cited FAO dated 2012;
Response 4: Revised accordingly
Point 5: Line 239 – Huss 2007 – not cited in References section
Response 5: Revised accordingly.
Point 6: Line 270 – Naidu et al. 2012 – not cited in References section;
Response 6: Revised accordingly.
Point 7: Line 283 -Lee et al. (1996) – not cited in References section;
Response 7: Revised accordingly.
Point 8: Line 343 -Medeiros et al. (2012) - not cited in References section;
Response 8: Revised accordingly.
Point 9: please follow the MDPI system of citation, use numbers in sequence of appearance in the text.
Response 9: Thank you. We have rechecked and reformatting the references according to the journal.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript ,,The Potential of Fermented Food from Southeast Asia as Biofertiliser,, has been significantly improved and therefore can be accept in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all raised comments accordingly.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors, Thank you very much for your response and for corrections which have considerably improved manuscript. There are some points for scientific disscusion but I am accepting your arguments (limited resources of knowledge and citing FB and very fast turnover of organic substances in tropical soil). I wish you a lot of succeses.
