Effect of Exogenous Fibrolytic Enzymes Supplementation or Functional Feed Additives on In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation of Chemically Pre-Treated Sunflower Heads
, Yosra Ahmed Soltan 5, Walid Soufan 6, Mohamad Isam Almadani 7, Mireille Chahine 8, Mario E. de Haro Marti 9, Mohammad K. Okla 10 and Mohamed Kamoun 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study evaluated different treatment effects on nutritional values and in vitro fermentation of sunflower byproduct. The study concept is clearly presented. The manuscript is well-written with nice explanations of the results, but there is still room for improvement. The authors provide a good introduction explaining the background and rationale for their study and their experimental objectives are clearly stated. I list below some comments for the authors’ consideration:
1) All the units used in the manuscript should be standard or correct, such as “µl” should be changed to “µL”.
2) All abbreviation should be the same across the whole manuscript, such as “FFA” in line 37.
3) “in vitro” and “P” represented significance should be italic.
4) Line 128, “one” changed to digit.
5) Line 165, the whole sentence was repeated with the former.
6) All the Tables should be prepared according to the guideline for authors.
7) It will be more intuitive to present the results of GP with figure than table.
8) In the conventional in vitro gas production method, SCFAs will be tested as volatile fatty acids directly, as well as dry matter and organic matter digestibility. Why did authors use estimated results?
9) Table 2 was doubled in the bottom.
10) Though authors attributed the increase of ADF content to solubilization of hemicellulose, the NDF content of the alkali and urea treated SFH was not increased.
Author Response
Thanks a lot for your time and valuable comments to improve our manuscript. It is appreciated by all authors.
Please find attached who we have addressed your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Reorganization of the title is warranted.
Materials and methods need further clarification.
A strong conclusion is recommended. Currently, the conclusion is a bit confusing.
Author Response
Thanks a lot for your time and valuable comments to improve our manuscript. It is appreciated by all authors.
Please find attached who we have addressed your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript aimed at investigating the effect of chemical pre-treatments of sunflower head with urea or NaOH and supplementation with fibrolytic enzymes or functional feed additive on in vitro ruminal fermentation of cows.
The manuscript has a great number of technical deficiencies and it was not properly checked before submission.
Furthermore, the title does not refer to the content; more precisely, the title contains word prebiotic, however, it does not appear anywhere in the manuscript and it is not explained through that aspect.
The results of calcium and phosphorus content are lacking in Table 1 even though the results were mentioned in section 3.1.
More importantly, the obtained results have a poor scientific value as it was established that using an untreated form of the sunflower head was more effective for ruminant feeding than using the chemical treatments, while only the use of commercial enzymes caused a slight improvement of in vitro fermentation.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your time and efforts reviewing our manuscript and making suggestions to improve it. Is is really appreciated by all authors. Please kindly find attached our response to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Fibrolytic enzymes or functional prebiotic for alkali or urea pre-treated sunflower byproduct" (ID: 1663331) has been thoroughly revised and improved.
Some minor suggestions for the authors can be found below:
P4, L 524-527: This paragraph is the same as that in L 519-523.
P5, L 655: in vitro should be italic.
P6, L 784: replace potentioal with potential.
P8, L 1255: Figure 2 and Table 4 instead of Table 4 and Figure 2.
P12, L 1861: use SFH instead of sunflower head byproduct.
Please style references number: 10,13, 26, 34, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49 according to the journal instructions.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Below are highlighted your recommendation point by point and the corresponding responses. The manuscript entitled "Fibrolytic enzymes or functional prebiotic for alkali or urea pre-treated sunflower byproduct" (ID: 1663331) has been thoroughly revised and improved.
Response: Thanks Some minor suggestions for the authors can be found below:
1/P4, L 524-527: This paragraph is the same as that in L 519-523:
Response: The repition is deleted.
2/P5, L 655: in vitro should be italic :
Response: the italic form of the word is done
3/P6, L 784: replace potentioal with potential.
Response: sorry it was a mistake, correction is done
4/P8, L 1255: Figure 2 and Table 4 instead of Table 4 and Figure 2:
Response: the order of both words is respected and mofication is done
5/ P12, L 1861: use SFH instead of sunflower head byproduct:
Response: the whole terms was deleted and substitued by the abbreviation
6/Please style references number: 10,13, 26, 34, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49 according to the journal instructions.
Response: References mentioned and others are reviewed according to the style of the Journal. The new version (reviewed one) with the suggested modification is herein attached. Thanks.
