Effects of Corn Silage and Alfalfa Hay on Production and Nitrogen Excretion in Lactating Dairy Cows

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MANUSCRIPT TITLE: Effects of Corn Silage and Alfalfa Hay on Production and Nitrogen Excretion in Lactating Dairy Cows

MANUSCRIPT ID: Nitrogen-3556493

ABSTRACT:

1 - In which animal species and category were the variables mentioned evaluated?

2 - Lines 13 to 16: I suggest that the authors describe the results in more detail and less generically (“influenced”, “affected”, “better”)

3 – Lines 19 to 21: I suggest that the authors review the writing of the conclusion of the work in relation to what was described in topic 45 of the article's conclusions. 

KEYWORDS:

1 - Although acronyms have been used in the abstract, I suggest removing the acronyms from the keywords.

2 – I suggest organizing the keywords in alphabetical order

 

INTRODUCTION:

1 – Line 26: add the meaning of the acronym CS in the text in parentheses, just as it was done with alfalfa

2 – Lines 27 to 30: I suggest describing in numerical form what the levels of crude protein, starch and energy content, and neutral detergent fiber levels exist in alfalfa and corn silage.

3 – Lines 30-31: How do nutrient content and inclusion levels influence dry matter intake and rumen environment in order to make forage sources important? How are milk production and feed efficiency influenced?

4 – Lines 32-33: what are variable proportions? What values were evaluated? In addition, I suggest that the meaning of the acronym NEFF be inserted in the text.

5 – Why over the years has there been a change in the ratio of CS to ALF in the diets of dairy cows?

6 – Line 40 : I suggest that the authors inserted the meanings of the acronyms MY and ECM in the introduction.

7 – General considerations of the introduction: I suggest that the authors go deeper into the topic by highlighting the existing gaps or more relevant results regarding the effects of the use of corn silage or alfalfa hay on milk production and nitrogen excretion in lactating dairy cows.

8- the authors need to describe better the objectives of the current study.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

1- Lines 47 to 65: I suggest that the information mentioned be divided into smaller paragraphs

2- Table 1a: it is necessary to cite other abbreviations at the bottom of the table: min, max and N

3- Table 1b: just like table 1a, in the footer of table 1b it is necessary to mention other abbreviations: min, max and N. In addition, I suggest mentioning a separate acronym for CS, ALF or OTHER, to make the footer with fewer Lines and less repetitive describing the same information already mentioned. Another point to be mentioned is that "other" was described in the footer of the table as either "other ingredients" or "other sources". I suggest standardizing this information.

4- Lines 92 to 95: what is the formula used to calculate the MTP variable?

5- Lines 109-122: I suggest describing the information in smaller paragraphs for a better understanding of the text.

 

RESULTS:

In general, the authors made an adequate description of the results obtained in this study. However, corrections are necessary for a better understanding of the information mentioned, as described below:

 

Table 2: I suggest making the following corrections:

• Title: a parenthesis remains to be inserted after the acronym ALF.
• Meanings of acronyms or abbreviations used in the table: MY, CI, P, BW, CPI, DMI, CS, ALF, OTHER, RUPOI, NDFI, PubID. Although some of them have already been cited in the text or previous tables, it is suggested that the tables be self-explanatory and describe all the acronyms used.

 

Lines 126-138:

• I suggest that the information be described in smaller paragraphs
• Line 126: first sentence can be rewritten in another way mentioning how many models were obtained to estimate milk production, as was done in the nitrogen efficiency paragraphs (Line 149).
• Table 3: As suggested in table 2, some acronyms were not mentioned in the footnote in this table. Thus, it is necessary to enter this information to make it self-explanatory.
• Tables 4, 5 and 6: as suggested in table 2, some acronyms were not mentioned in the footnotes in these tables. Thus, it is necessary to enter this information to make it self-explanatory.

 

DISCUSSION:

• Lines 190-191: I suggest inserting values to mention higher starch contents and lower CP and NDF contents, as done earlier.
• Lines 192-193: why does maturity not affect starch levels but influences CP and NDF levels? I suggest describing and adding reference to support the information cited.
• Lines 195-196: what do the authors mean as "nutrient profiles"? And what effects are important to determine?
• Line 203: what would be the specific nutrients? and, what would be the impacts on MY and ECM?
• Lines 204 and 205: I suggest replacing words like higher, lower with values;
• Line 206: How can nutrient intakes be changed, and what would these nutrients be?
• Lines 208 to 220: I suggest dividing the information into smaller paragraphs for a better understanding of the text. In addition, the authors mentioned some studies and results but it was not justified why such effects were found and what similarity or difference with effect observed in this study.
• Line 220: what is appropriate CPI to meet the requirements of cows? I suggest adding value and some citation to support the information.
• Lines 224 to 242: long text. I suggest dividing it into smaller paragraphs. Similarly, I suggest subdividing the following paragraphs into smaller texts for a better understanding of the information (Lines: 243 to 255, Lines: 256 to 278, Lines: 303 to 316).

 

CONCLUSION:

• Authors need to review the writing of the conclusions in the conclusions section of the abstract, and in item 5 of the article. The information was not mentioned in the same way.
• In addition, it is necessary to describe the following terms more objectively and precisely: "distinct influences", "affect", "different effects".

 

ABBREVIATIONS:

• In the template of the article made available by the journal, there is the need to insert the list of abbreviations. As different abbreviations were mentioned, I suggest inserting them in the article.

 

REFERENCES:

• The authors mentioned that in this study studies between the years 2018 and 2023 were evaluated. However, of the 54 references cited in the article, only 8 references are related to works within the evaluated period. In addition, Figure 1 shows that 193 studies were taken into account in this review. I would like the authors to explain more about the number of studies taken into account and the references cited.
• I suggest the authors review the formatting of the references as described in the guideLines. Not all of them were formatted correctly as requested by the journal.
• In the article template made available by the journal, there is the need to insert the DOI of the articles, when they exist. I suggest that authors make these corrections as described in the standards.
• After the references, the following information appears in the article template: Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Therefore, I suggest that authors add the text to the manuscript as suggested in the guideLines.

 

 

Author Response

 

We thank you for your valuable feedback. All comments have been addressed, and the corresponding changes have been incorporated into the manuscript. For clarity, all modifications are highlighted in yellow throughout the revised document.

ABSTRACT:

1 - In which animal species and category were the variables mentioned evaluated?

AU: Thank you for pointing this out. We added the requested information in Line 11.

 

2 - Lines 13 to 16: I suggest that the authors describe the results in more detail and less generically (“influenced”, “affected”, “better”)

AU: Thank you for the suggestion. We agree that providing more detail in describing the results would improve clarity. However, the abstract is limited to 200 words, and adding detail would require removing other key aspects of the study. We prioritized a broad overview of the main findings rather than detailed descriptions of specific results.

 

3 – Lines 19 to 21: I suggest that the authors review the writing of the conclusion of the work in relation to what was described in topic 45 of the article's conclusions. 

AU: Thank you for pointing this out. I revised the wording in the abstract to better align with the conclusion and improve clarity. Regarding your reference to “topic 45,” I was not sure what you meant, if you were referring to Section 5 (Conclusion), that is the section I reviewed and updated accordingly. (Line 20)

 

KEYWORDS:

1 - Although acronyms have been used in the abstract, I suggest removing the acronyms from the keywords.

AU: Thank you. I removed them.

 

2 – I suggest organizing the keywords in alphabetical order

AU: I reordered them alphabetically. (Lines 22-23)

 

INTRODUCTION:

1 – Line 26: add the meaning of the acronym CS in the text in parentheses, just as it was done with alfalfa

AU: Done. Thank you for catching this. (Line 26)

 

2 – Lines 27 to 30: I suggest describing in numerical form what the levels of crude protein, starch and energy content, and neutral detergent fiber levels exist in alfalfa and corn silage.

AU: The numerical nutrient composition of both forages has been added in Lines 29-31

 

3 – Lines 30-31: How do nutrient content and inclusion levels influence dry matter intake and rumen environment in order to make forage sources important? How are milk production and feed efficiency influenced?

AU: We have addressed this by adding two sentences in lines 33–38 that explain how differences in nutrient content of alfalfa and corn silage can influence dry matter intake, the rumen environment, milk production, and nitrogen efficiency.

 

4 – Lines 32-33: what are variable proportions? What values were evaluated? In addition, I suggest that the meaning of the acronym NEFF be inserted in the text.

AU: Thank you for your comment. We believe this information is more appropriately addressed in the Materials and Methods section, where it is presented in Table 2. Our meta-regression included all treatments from each study that used any amount of alfalfa and/or corn silage. The proportions of alfalfa and corn silage varied across studies; specifically, DMI from corn silage ranged from 1.13 to 14.67 kg/d, and from alfalfa from 0.11 to 13.26 kg/d.

We have also defined the acronym N_EFF (nitrogen efficiency) where it first appears (Line 38).

 

5 – Why over the years has there been a change in the ratio of CS to ALF in the diets of dairy cows?

AU: We agree this is an important point and have added a brief explanation in Lines 40–46. While there is no single explanation in the published literature, the shift in the use of ALF to CS in lactating dairy cow diets appears to be influenced by reduced alfalfa acreage. This reduction is largely driven by agronomic and economic factors rather than differences in nutritive value alone.

Additionally, particularly in the western U.S., we've observed a growing use of alternative forage sources such as triticale, wheat, and barley, often used as cover crops, which may also contribute to the changes in forages used in diets, consequently reduced reliance on alfalfa. However, as this observation is based more on field trends than formal research, we chose not to include it in the manuscript, as it falls outside the scope of the study.

 

6 – Line 40 : I suggest that the authors inserted the meanings of the acronyms MY and ECM in the introduction.

AU: Added. (Lines 35 and 50)

 

7 – General considerations of the introduction: I suggest that the authors go deeper into the topic by highlighting the existing gaps or more relevant results regarding the effects of the use of corn silage or alfalfa hay on milk production and nitrogen excretion in lactating dairy cows.

AU: We have revised a substantial portion of the Introduction to better highlight the relevance of the topic and clarify the current gaps in knowledge. (Lines 26–53)

 

8- The authors need to describe better the objectives of the current study.

AU: We revised the objectives to provide a clearer and more detailed description of the study goals. (Lines 54–60).

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

1- Lines 47 to 65: I suggest that the information mentioned be divided into smaller paragraphs

AU: Done

 

2- Table 1a: it is necessary to cite other abbreviations at the bottom of the table: min, max and N

AU: Done

 

3- Table 1b: just like table 1a, in the footer of table 1b it is necessary to mention other abbreviations: min, max and N. In addition, I suggest mentioning a separate acronym for CS, ALF or OTHER, to make the footer with fewer Lines and less repetitive describing the same information already mentioned. Another point to be mentioned is that "other" was described in the footer of the table as either "other ingredients" or "other sources". I suggest standardizing this information.

AU: Thank you for your detailed suggestions. We accepted all of them

 

4- Lines 92 to 95: what is the formula used to calculate the MTP variable?

AU: The milk true protein (MTP) values were not calculated by us but rather reported directly from the original studies. These values were not used in the meta-regression. Instead, when necessary, we converted MTP to milk crude protein (MProtein) using the equation provided in the manuscript (Line 99), and MProtein was used in the statistical analysis.

 

5- Lines 109-122: I suggest describing the information in smaller paragraphs for a better understanding of the text.

AU: done.

 

RESULTS:

In general, the authors made an adequate description of the results obtained in this study. However, corrections are necessary for a better understanding of the information mentioned, as described below:

 

Table 2: I suggest making the following corrections:

• Title: a parenthesis remains to be inserted after the acronym ALF.
• Meanings of acronyms or abbreviations used in the table: MY, CI, P, BW, CPI, DMI, CS, ALF, OTHER, RUPOI, NDFI, PubID. Although some of them have already been cited in the text or previous tables, it is suggested that the tables be self-explanatory and describe all the acronyms used.

AU: Thank you for pointing these out. We have corrected the missing parentheses in the table title and added definitions for all acronyms and abbreviations to ensure the table is fully self-explanatory. These updates were made to Table 2 and consistently applied across all other tables as well.

 

Lines 126-138: I suggest that the information be described in smaller paragraphs

AU: We have restructured the text into shorter, more focused paragraphs to improve readability and flow.

 

Line 126: first sentence can be rewritten in another way mentioning how many models were obtained to estimate milk production, as was done in the nitrogen efficiency paragraphs (Line 149).

AU: Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the sentence to explicitly state the number of models used to estimate milk production. This clarification was added in Lines 130 and 145.

 

Table 3: As suggested in table 2, some acronyms were not mentioned in the footnote in this table. Thus, it is necessary to enter this information to make it self-explanatory.

AU: Done

 

Tables 4, 5 and 6: as suggested in table 2, some acronyms were not mentioned in the footnotes in these tables. Thus, it is necessary to enter this information to make it self-explanatory.

AU: Done

 

DISCUSSION:

Lines 190-191: I suggest inserting values to mention higher starch contents and lower CP and NDF contents, as done earlier.

AU: Thank you for the suggestion. It can be found in Lines 199-202.

 

Lines 192-193: why does maturity not affect starch levels but influences CP and NDF levels? I suggest describing and adding reference to support the information cited.

AU: This observation is based on data from NASEM (2021), which indicates that starch levels in alfalfa remain relatively stable across different maturity stages, while CP and NDF levels vary. To reflect the variability and lack of a clear pattern, we have added the phrase “appear to” in Line 202. Additionally, we have included a reference on forage maturity effects for clarity (Line 203).

 

Lines 195-196: what do the authors mean as "nutrient profiles"? And what effects are important to determine?

AU: We have revised the wording to provide more clarity. (Lines 204-207)

 

Line 203: what would be the specific nutrients? and, what would be the impacts on MY and ECM?

AU: The specific nutrients in question are CP, RDP, and NDF. Their impacts on MY and ECM are explored in the subsequent sentences.

 

Lines 204 and 205: I suggest replacing words like higher, lower with values;

AU: We acknowledge the importance of providing quantitative data, however, specific differences in forage maturity levels were not measured in this study. Therefore, we have retained qualitative descriptions for the sake of discussion.

 

Line 206: How can nutrient intakes be changed, and what would these nutrients be?

AU: we discuss potential variations in CP, NDF, and starch intake as possible explanations for observed effects. These considerations are based on existing literature and are mentioned to provide context.

 

Lines 208 to 220: I suggest dividing the information into smaller paragraphs for a better understanding of the text. In addition, the authors mentioned some studies and results but it was not justified why such effects were found and what similarity or difference with effect observed in this study.

AU: Thank you for your suggestion. We recognize that the paragraph is dense, and we revisited the section to assess whether breaking it up could improve readability. While we found it challenging to split the text without disrupting the logical flow of the discussion, we made minor edits to improve clarity and added transitions to help guide the reader.

 

Line 220: what is appropriate CPI to meet the requirements of cows? I suggest adding value and some citation to support the information.

AU: We have expanded this section to include specific CPI) values required to meet the nutritional needs of lactating dairy cows, supported by relevant references. (Lines 232–236).

 

Lines 224 to 242: long text. I suggest dividing it into smaller paragraphs. Similarly, I suggest subdividing the following paragraphs into smaller texts for a better understanding of the information (Lines: 243 to 255, Lines: 256 to 278, Lines: 303 to 316).

AU: Thank you for the suggestion. We reviewed the paragraphs, but found no natural breaking point that would improve clarity without disrupting the flow of ideas. For consistency and readability, we did revise other parts of the discussion to create smaller, clearer paragraphs where appropriate.

 

CONCLUSION:

Authors need to review the writing of the conclusions in the conclusions section of the abstract, and in item 5 of the article. The information was not mentioned in the same way.

AU: Thank you for pointing this out. We have matched the language in both places to ensure the conclusions are expressed identically. Specifically, we updated the final sentences in the abstract and at the beginning of the conclusion in (Lines 19-21 and 342–345).

 

In addition, it is necessary to describe the following terms more objectively and precisely: "distinct influences", "affect", "different effects".

AU: Thank you for this suggestion. We have replaced the general phrases with precise descriptors, ensuring clarity without repeating the results in the Conclusion.

 

ABBREVIATIONS:

In the template of the article made available by the journal, there is the need to insert the list of abbreviations. As different abbreviations were mentioned, I suggest inserting them in the article.

AU: We confirmed that the journal does not require a separate list of abbreviations (“Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form”.). Instead, we have defined every acronym or abbreviation in full at first use in the abstract, main text, and first figure/table, and made minor formatting tweaks to match the template.

 

REFERENCES:

The authors mentioned that in this study studies between the years 2018 and 2023 were evaluated. However, of the 54 references cited in the article, only 8 references are related to works within the evaluated period. In addition, Figure 1 shows that 193 studies were taken into account in this review. I would like the authors to explain more about the number of studies taken into account and the references cited.

AU: Thank you for your comments. The 193 studies included in the meta-regression database were published between 2018 and 2023 and met our selection criteria. These are distinct from the references cited in the manuscript, which also include additional literature used to contextualize and interpret our findings. Some of the cited references are among the 193 studies in the database, while others are not.

 

I suggest the authors review the formatting of the references as described in the guideLines. Not all of them were formatted correctly as requested by the journal.

AU: We also reviewed and updated the reference formatting to comply with the journal’s guidelines, including the addition of DOIs where available. We were previously using an outdated version of the MDPI citation style, which has now been corrected.

 

In the article template made available by the journal, there is the need to insert the DOI of the articles, when they exist. I suggest that authors make these corrections as described in the standards.

AU: Done

 

After the references, the following information appears in the article template: Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Therefore, I suggest that authors add the text to the manuscript as suggested in the guidelines.

AU: As recommended, we have added the required Disclaimer/Publisher's Note to the end of the manuscript (Lines 508–510).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The management and availability of feed resources, particularly for forage feed, influences animal production efficiency and contributes to agricultural sustainability. According to the manuscript in title of “Effects of Corn Silage and Alfalfa Hay on Production and Nitrogen Excretion in Lactating Dairy Cows”. Both writing and the organization was thoroughly meet the researching goal. The paper has to be improved, in my opinion, and those are explained in detail below.

 

• Abstract:
  • It may be showing statistical value and resulted from regression model and reliability as the study goal.
• Introduction part,
  • It is observed that the author may limiting to provided information in dept on the impact in both of the ALF and CS to nitrogen emission and all of the literature reviews are included in the section on other dairy ruminant animals that has nothing associated with the heading title.
• M&M
  • Regarding TMR or separation feeding, all of the animals in the dataset were fed on ALF and CS. Why didn't the author choose to use day in Mike as a criteria for the shorting dataset in Table 1a? All the data collected from animals that were fed mixed both CS and ALF? Additionally, table 1b shows that the animal was fed other that was not allowed in the model or the author's specified concentration.
  • Even if each N efficiency was not explained in the calculations, why didn't the author include a rationale and explanation for your choice of fecal and manure N?
  • The funnel plot, which is a scatter of sample size and effect size (effect size), can be used to visualize the distribution of size, impact, and results of the study (distribution of effect sizes). How much is it?
• Result and discussions:
  • What was the difference between those models in the table of 3-5?
  • Line 191: Since forage typically has a higher fiber content when harvested later, why is CS different? It also could be determination on MY or ECM event when author not shorting dataset by day in milk or energy intake as show in line 199-205.
  • Because RUP is possibly related to protein and nitrogen utilization, which it incorporates to minimize fecal and urine N excretion, it is noted that the author does not discuss it.
• Conclusion:
  • It seems to be dealing with your research objective, which emphasized ALF and CS on MY, ECM and N efficiency. The author has to summarize with significant results.
• Please double-check the references in the list of references, as instructed in the journal guide, particularly italic latter of journal’s an abbreviation.

Author Response

The management and availability of feed resources, particularly for forage feed, influences animal production efficiency and contributes to agricultural sustainability. According to the manuscript in title of “Effects of Corn Silage and Alfalfa Hay on Production and Nitrogen Excretion in Lactating Dairy Cows”. Both writing and the organization was thoroughly meet the researching goal. The paper has to be improved, in my opinion, and those are explained in detail below.

AU: Thank you for your feedback. We carefully revised the manuscript to address all reviewer comments and believe that the overall quality of the manuscript has improved as a result. All comments have been addressed, and the corresponding changes are highlighted in yellow throughout the revised document for clarity.

 

• Abstract:

It may be showing statistical value and resulted from regression model and reliability as the study goal.

AU: Thank you for the suggestion. We  agree that including statistical figures would strengthen the abstract. However, due to the 200-word limit, we prioritized providing a broad description of the main findings. Including statistical details would require omitting other important information from the methods and results and would narrow the overall scope of the summary.

 

• Introduction part,

It is observed that the author may limiting to provided information in dept on the impact in both of the ALF and CS to nitrogen emission and all of the literature reviews are included in the section on other dairy ruminant animals that has nothing associated with the heading title.

AU: We have rewritten the introduction to address the comments from both reviewers, and now it provides a more in-depth information of the effects of ALF and CS on nitrogen emissions. (Lines 26–53)

 

• M&M

Regarding TMR or separation feeding, all of the animals in the dataset were fed on ALF and CS. Why didn't the author choose to use day in Mike as a criteria for the shorting dataset in Table 1a? All the data collected from animals that were fed mixed both CS and ALF? Additionally, table 1b shows that the animal was fed other that was not allowed in the model or the author's specified concentration.

AU: Thank you for bringing this up. We collected all available information reported in the publications and included days in milk (DIM) as one of the variables in our database. Although DIM was initially included in the stepwise model selection, it was not retained in the final models due to a lack of statistical significance. This may be explained by inconsistencies in how DIM was reported across studies. Most papers reported DIM at the beginning of the trial, and while in some cases it was possible to calculate DIM corresponding to the production and intake data, in others cases, particularly when data were averaged over longer experiments or across experimental periods (e.g. Latin squares), this was not feasible. This inconsistency in reporting likely contributed to DIM not being a significant predictor in our models.

All studies included diets containing CS, ALF, or both. We categorized dietary nutrient intake into three ingredient sources: CS, ALF, and OTHER (which includes all other dietary ingredients). Table 1b summarizes the nutrient intake from each of these sources in the whole database. Nutrient intakes from all three were included in the stepwise modeling process, but the statistical significance of each varied depending on the model.

 

Even if each N efficiency was not explained in the calculations, why didn't the author include a rationale and explanation for your choice of fecal and manure N?

AU: This is a valuable point. We now describe how N_EFF was calculated. (Lines 109-110)

Regarding nitrogen excretion, N_MANURE refers to the sum of nitrogen excreted in urine and feces. This was the most commonly reported form in the papers in our database. In cases where urine and fecal nitrogen were reported separately, we calculated N_MANURE by summing the two values.

We selected this combined measure of nitrogen excretion because it is directly relevant for estimating environmental nitrogen losses in dairy systems, especially under practical feeding scenarios.

 

The funnel plot, which is a scatter of sample size and effect size (effect size), can be used to visualize the distribution of size, impact, and results of the study (distribution of effect sizes). How much is it?

AU: We recognize that funnel plots are valuable for visualizing study effects and potential publication bias in traditional meta-analyses (i.e., effect-size). However, because our study employs a meta-regression framework, where we explicitly model study to explain heterogeneity, funnel plots of raw effect sizes can be misleading. Instead, we rely on other regression diagnostics (e.g., tests of residual heterogeneity) to assess model fit and detect any remaining study effects. For these reasons, we have chosen to retain our original statistical approaches rather than include a funnel plot.

 

• Result and discussions:

What was the difference between those models in the table of 3-5?

AU: Thank you for the question. The primary difference among the models in Tables 3, 4, and 5 lies in the response variables: Table 3 presents models for energy-corrected milk (ECM), Table 4 for nitrogen efficiency (N_EFF), and Table 5 for milk urea nitrogen (MUN). Your question also helped us catch a labeling error in Table 5, which we have now corrected. Thank you!!!

 

Line 191: Since forage typically has a higher fiber content when harvested later, why is CS different? It also could be determination on MY or ECM event when author not shorting dataset by day in milk or energy intake as show in line 199-205.

AU: Thank you for this observation. The discussion about forage maturity primarily refers to its influence on MY, ECM, and other responses. In our study, nutrient intake from ALF affected pretty much all evaluated variables. Although it is reasonable to think that days in milk or energy intake might influence the outcomes, those variables were not consistently reported across studies, as previously mentioned, and were therefore not included in the final models.

 

Because RUP is possibly related to protein and nitrogen utilization, which it incorporates to minimize fecal and urine N excretion, it is noted that the author does not discuss it.

AU: Thank you for raising this important point. RUP from CS, ALF, and OTHER was not statistically significant in relation to fecal or urine nitrogen excretion in our models, which is why it was not discussed in that context. Interestingly, RDPI from all three sources was significant. Although it is biologically plausible that RUP would influence nitrogen excretion, particularly through its role in protein utilization, our results did not support this association statistically.

 

• Conclusion:

It seems to be dealing with your research objective, which emphasized ALF and CS on MY, ECM and N efficiency. The author has to summarize with significant results.

AU: Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised the conclusion to better align with our objective by summarizing the significant results related to ALF and CS effects on MY, N_EFF, N_MANURE. (Lines 342–349).

 

Please double-check the references in the list of references, as instructed in the journal guide, particularly italic latter of journal’s an abbreviation.

AU: Thank you for pointing this out. I reviewed the reference list and corrected several formatting errors, including proper italicization of journal abbreviations, adding DOIs, following the journal’s guidelines.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very well done

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very well done

 

AU: Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your time and thoughtful review of our manuscript.