Next Article in Journal
Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems as an Alternative for Biogas Upgrading: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Ferulic Acid and Clinoptilolite Affect In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Characteristics and Bacterial Abundance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ordered Changes in Methane Production Performance and Metabolic Pathway Transition of Methanogenic Archaea under Gradually Increasing Sodium Propionate Stress Intensity
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Three-Stage Solid-State Fermentation Technology for Distillers’ Grain Feed Protein Based on Different Microorganisms Considering Oxygen Requirements

Fermentation 2024, 10(11), 550; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110550
by Songlin Kong 1,†, Shilei Wang 1,†, Yun He 1, Nan Wang 1,2, Zhi Wang 1, Longfei Weng 1, Dong Liu 3, Xiaoling Zhao 1, Jinmeng Chen 1, Jingliang Xu 1, Yafan Cai 1,* and Hanjie Ying 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Fermentation 2024, 10(11), 550; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110550
Submission received: 23 August 2024 / Revised: 12 October 2024 / Accepted: 23 October 2024 / Published: 26 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application and Research of Solid State Fermentation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an innovative three-step fermentation technology for producing animal feed proteins from distiller's grains, utilizing Aspergillus niger, yeasts, and lactic acid bacteria. The stages include aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic conditions, with results showing improvements in reducing sugar concentration, protein content, and feed flavor. However, while the article addresses a relevant issue regarding protein shortages in China and offers an interesting solution, it would benefit from more specific data on China's protein needs and their impact on the livestock industry. The materials section is detailed, but it lacks precision regarding the storage duration of distiller's grains and the potential impact on sample quality. Additionally, the methodological choices are described without justification, and some methods are mentioned without appropriate references. Finally, the article does not separate the results from the discussion (with only a results section where the results are also discussed), which is a significant flaw for clarity. A clear separation between these sections is crucial for assessing the quality of the article, as it is required for journal publications.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The crrent study explored the feasibility of converting distillers’ grains into feed protein. Three different microorganisms (fungus, yeast, and LAB) were used at different stages to hydrolyze crude cellulose and protein. The highest sugar concentration of 36.9 mg g⁻¹ was obtained after pretreatment with Aspergillus niger. In the microaerophilic stage, the natural exchange of oxygen achieved the best true protein enhancement (from 10.8% to 16.4%) among the three oxygen supply modes. Exogenous supplementation with lactic acid bacteria had a positive impact on feed protein preservation and flavor enhancement. The submission can be accepted after major revision.

  1. What is the purpose of removing crude cellulose from grain waste? Can this be achieved through rumination? A comparison must be made.
  2. The enzyme activities at all stages, including cellulase, protease, and amylase, should be presented.
  3. What is the pH change after LAB supplementation?
  4. Figure 2: A more thorough discussion of Day 2 is expected.
  5. The significance of differences should be indicated in all figures and tables.
  6. Is there a plan to conduct an animal study? What are the potential benefits of the new fermented feed?
Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision is needed.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has successfully addressed several points raised in the article, which is appreciated. However, the results section remains poorly structured and creates confusion with the discussion. It is essential to improve this section by organizing it more clearly and in line with the expected standards for a scientific article.

Additionally, it would be preferable to update the references, prioritizing those published in the last three years to reflect recent advancements in the field.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the revision now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am happy with the revision now.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop