Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Integration in the Regular Monitorization of Pasture Nutritional Properties and Gas Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend you to significantly increase the abstract by adding more descriptions of the results obtained, because abstract is often the only thing read in an article and also abstract is the way you can get readers interested in your work

1. Usage of NIR spectroscopy in routine analisies of quality of feed stuff aquaried rom pastures.
2. I think that any methodical approach, that can be used quick and on-site will is a good idea. So, yes, I consider this topic quite relevant. I’m not sure this work can address some gap, but it will ease animal husbandry.
3. I think there is a big field with a lot of ways the can expand their work. For example, they should add more kinds of grasses. It's up to them.
4. The references appropriate, but i think there are to many «old» references (over 20 years). I guess in future works authors should use links, that not older than 10-15 years, if it is not nessessary to use such old works.
5. For figure 1, I’m not sure that this figure necessary.

 

Author Response

I am very thankful for all your feedback. Your suggestions have helped improve the article greatly.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors discuss in the manuscript the near-infrared spectroscopic method developed to monitor pastures and nutritional properties and gas production concerning dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent insoluble fiber, acid detergent, insoluble fiber, acid detergent lignin, ether extract, dry matter digestibility, and organic matter digestibility. It is a large-scale study. In general, the manuscript is well-written. The use of NIRS is well justified regarding its potential and valuable features. The PLSR models are properly assessed and tested using an independent set of samples. Conclusions are justified by the experimental data. I suggest a minor revision. 

1)     The authors should avoid acronyms in the article title and abstract section.

2)     The authors mentioned that: “NIR Spectroscopy proved to be useable on-site as a quick, non-destructive, and cost-effective technique to monitor forage quality on a regular basis, enabling forage management and diet design optimizations.”; however, the procedure requires drying samples. In this context what do you mean by “useable on-site”?

3)     Section 2.4. – before collecting spectra, samples were homogenized. Were they also sieved? What was the sample thickness and weight?

4)     Section 2.4.2. – how samples were selected to calibration and validation sets?

5)     To identify outliers, the authors should consider a robust model, for instance, partial robust M-regression. Outliers can be identified properly only if diagnostics include estimates from a robust model.

6)     To avoid confusion, the authors should define R^2, SEC, and RPD.

7)     Section 3.2.2. – decimal places must be separated by dots and not comas (0,87 – 0.87).

8)     The authors consider different preprocessing approaches. I wonder why they did not include the 1^st and the 2^nd derivative?

9)     Please provide a reference to PLSR.

10) Please reconsider the number of references.

Author Response

I am very thankful for all your feedback. Your suggestions have helped improve the article greatly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf