Solid-State Fermentation Using Bacillus licheniformis-Driven Changes in Composition, Viability and In Vitro Protein Digestibility of Oilseed Cakes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The concept and presentation of the results are clear throughout the manuscript. The paper may be accepted for publication after addressing the following observations
1. The quantity of material taken for the SSF is observed to be less (i.e 300 g for each of the tested oil cake). However, relatively a larger quantity of material required for the feed industry. The authors can cite the available literature on, comparison between the performance of SSF at lab scale and at industrial scale with their prospects and constraints.
2. In Table 1. Crude fat results were presented twice (or else CF might be mentioned as crude fat instead of crude fibre). It shall be corrected.
3. Sampling period for the proximate and other analysis need to be specified in the methodology section. For instance, results pertaining to the proximate composition and fatty acids profiles were presented for the initial sample and sample drawn after 72 hours, whereas other parameters such as pH, reducing sugars, IVPD, etc were presented at three different intervals (24h, 48h, 72h). Results shall be presented uniformly to understand the changes in the composition at specified intervals.
4. In fatty acids profile, some of the contents were not detected in the initial samples (eg. Pentadecanoic and Heptadecanoic in FSC; Heptadecenoic in PSC and FSC), but after fermentation period of 72 hours, the values were presented. Is there any particular reason for this trend or does the SSF has effect on these parameters. It shall be discussed with the supporting literature.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find our responses to your comments and suggestions in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Line numbers 54 - 62: Why SSF was chosen for the study (how does it relate to gut conditions)?
Section 2.3:
Line 99: Elaborate the procedure. For eg., how OD was (OD 4.5 is too high) measured?
L104: “pH according to 2.3” – please check and revise
L136: “GS-FID” Please check and correct
How do you ensure that the samples are representative in solid state fermentation which is highly heterogeneous?
In Table 1, units are not mentioned. What units are used? Are the methods of estimations used mutually exclusive for fats, proteins, carbohydrates and fibers? CF is mentioned as Crude Fat in footnote. But there is a separate row for crude fat. Which is correct?
Figure 1. What is the reason for the increase in pH during fermentation. Give possible reaction mechanisms.
Section 3.3. Did the authors control pH & temperature??
In many places “proximal” composition is used. Suggest to use “proximate” composition
Conclusion: “ a board over-view “ should be “a broad over-view”
Line 462 change “a suitability” to “suitable”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English can be improved
Author Response
Thanks for taking the time to review our manuscript. We've addressed your feedback and provided our responses in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript (MS) studied the effect of solid state fermentation on the composition and nutrition of oil seed cakes, which provides an approach to improve the value of agro-industrial by-products in the feed industry. But there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.
(1) Please introduce reports about (solid state) fermentation on OSC or other agro-industrial by-products by Bacillus licheniformis or other strains in the Introduction Section.
(2) Introduce what has been done in the MS in the last paragraph of the Introduction Section.
(3) In line 19, add the complete spelling of NAF and ADF.
(4) Please explain why select the strain Bacillus licheniformis ATCC 21424?
(5) In line 104, change 2.3 to 2.4.
(6) Add unit (maybe gram) for the values in Table 1.
(7) If the unit of values in Table 1 is gram, please also use absolute content other than relative content in Table 2 and Figure 2. Because the dry matter was changing during fermentation.
(8) In section 3.4, percentage and mg/g were used to express the content of soluble protein and peptide, which were difficult to follow. Please use one form corresponding to the figure.
(9) From Figure 6, the protein digestibility (31.28%, 34.73%......) cannot be read.
(10) The two sentences in lines 425-434 were too long, which are difficult to understand.
(11) It is better to compare the soluble protein and digestibility result with bibliography, to evaluate the effect of SSF.
(12) Add error bars for figure 1. Explain the meaning of NA in Table 2.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We appreciate your review of our manuscript. Please find our responses included in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors addressed most of the queries.
But, still, I find some minor issues as indicated below:
1. The relevance of solid-state fermentation with respect to gut conditions is not yet clear. Better elaborate on this part.
2. Table 1. If the results are presented in %, we expect that the reported values add up to a sum of 100%. There is an ambiguity in the table. Present your results clearly.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A grammar check can be run to improve the language.
Author Response
We would want to thank to Reviewer 2 for helpful recommendations that helped us improving our manuscript. Please find the responses in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
All the comments have been replied.
Author Response
We extend our gratitude to Reviewer 3 for dedicating their time and effort to providing valuable feedback that has contributed to the enhancement of our manuscript.
