All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The revised manuscript seems good. Check all references, figures and tables carefully.
The authors need to include suggestions given by reviewer 2.
No comment
No comment
The selection of varieties suitable for the region and the cutting height were appropriately determined.
See attached PDF
The authors need to check all my comments given in the attached manuscript PDF.
the manuscript has been revised according to my previous comments
the manuscript has been revised according to my previous comments
the manuscript has been revised according to my previous comments
the manuscript has been revised according to my previous comments
The authors need to include suggestions given by reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The experiment investigated the effect/influence of different harvesting time points on the yield and nutritional composition of sweet sorghum and sorghum Sudangrass hybrid varieties. The study interests the scientific community since it generates important information on sorghum as a forage crop. However, the author needs to pay attention to some of my comments to improve the quality of the manuscript for publication
General comment(s)
1. The English language should be improved throughout the entire manuscript to ensure readers understand the written texts clearly. I suggest the author use free online tools like Grammarly or seek assistance from a fluent English speaker familiar with scientific writing.
2. The title of the manuscript needs to be changed for clarity. For instance:
Influence of different cutting time-points on the yield and forage quality of sweet sorghum and sorghum Sudangrass hybrid varieties
Introduction
Sorghum x Sudan grass hybrids are indeed very important forage crops used in animal nutrition. However, the success of a forage crop in animal nutrition depends on several factors among which is lignin (Kir et al. 2019; Kaplan et al. 2019). The author needs to write a short paragraph on the influence of lignin content on forage quality of sorghum
Materials and methods
L77 – 81: The author needs to briefly describe how soil samples were obtained. For instance, were soil samples collected randomly from the field and pooled for analysis? How was the elemental composition (organic matter, phosphorous, and potassium determined?
L100 – 103: The experimental layout has been well described. However, it would be better if the author could illustrate with a schematic diagram of the layout. This will reduce the number of words written to describe the design.
L114: How many plants per variety were cut to obtain the yield? Although dry yields were reported, why didn’t the author report data on fresh yields? Fresh yield data is also important to help the reader know how much water each variety had and this correlates with the concentration of available nutrients within the forage crop.
Results
Figure 1: Please provide a better quality figure (300 dpi). The title of the figure should change to something that is clearer, such as; average temperature and precipitation values recorded during the experimental period.
Tables: The information in the tables has been presented well, however, there is a need to report results as means ± standard deviation (SD) or as means ± standard error of mean (SEM). This will help the reader to have a full picture of how the mean values deviated from the true mean or how they are close to the true mean. Likewise, the author should include legends on all the tables. Readers need to understand what the average values (means) with different or the same lower superscript letters mean. For instance, do average values (means) with different lower superscript letters significantly different?
Discussion
Generally, there is a need to improve the sentence structure and grammar throughout the discussion.
L382 – 388: What is the minimum crude protein content to indicate a good quality forage crop? More information is needed.
L435: The author reports on the mineral content of the tested varieties but the reader lacks an idea of which exact minerals were being discussed. The author should specify which mineral elements were being discussed and also present their results within the results section of the manuscript.
L444 – 449: The author should report the crops (scientific names) that were reported in other studies
Conclusion
The entire conclusion needs to be shortened (no need to report on the experimental design and aim of the study) and restructured to summarize the main results of the study. For instance, the author should report the varieties/variety with the highest dry yield, crude protein content of leaves and stalks, crude fat, C and N in plant tissues, and a variety or varieties that showed the lowest values. Likewise, the author should indicate the best plant growth stage at which the best forage qualities (crude protein, crude fat, etc.) were observed and any recommendations if any.
No comment
The results section is too lengthy and leads to an imbalance in the proportion of the entire article. The results should be streamlined and the discussion should be expanded appropriately. The literature cited in the article is too old. Try to cite the latest research articles or those in recent years.
Why was two years of data separated for statistical processing? It is desirable to perform statistical processing only on data presented as averages.
Although it is a material used as forage, there is no analysis of the forage quality associated with forage. Analysis of the fiber composition (ADF and NDF, etc.) must be presented.
None
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.