Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the potential of NIRS to predict gas production (GP) kinetics for maize ear and stover. Two approaches were applied to characterize GP kinetics: 1. describing GP profi les by fi tting an exponential model and 2. by calculating GP for various incubation intervals. In the fi rst approach, NIRS pre dic tion equations could explain a high proportion of variability related to the fermen ta tion rate (c), the asymptotic GP (A), and the lag phase (L) of ear samples in the calibration sub set (R: 0.81-0.87), while for stover predictive ability was inferior. Validation showed satisfactory results only for the fermentation rate (R: 0.81-0.88). In the se cond approach NIRS calibration was acceptable for GP in several incubation inter vals, but validation showed satisfactory results for intervals 3-7, 7-12, and 7-16 h of sto ver samples only (R>0.74). Further research is required to elucidate potential sources of error before obtaining robust NIRS equations.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS equations explained a high proportion of variability in the fermentation rate, the asymptotic GP and the lag phase of ear samples in calibration.
- Organ / stage
- ear samplese1
- Outcome
- variability related to the fermentation rate (c), the asymptotic GP (A), and the lag phase (L)e1
- Value
- R: 0.81-0.87e1
- Qualifier
- in the calibration sub sete1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gas production (GP) kinetics for maize ear and stover”
e1“NIRS pre dic tion equations could explain a high proportion of variability related to the fermen ta tion rate (c), the asymptotic GP (A), and the lag phase (L) of ear samples in the calibration sub set (R: 0.81-0.87), while for stover predictive ability was inferior”
Claim · model-written summary
For stover, NIRS prediction ability was inferior to that for ear samples.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gas production (GP) kinetics for maize ear and stover”
e1“NIRS pre dic tion equations could explain a high proportion of variability related to the fermen ta tion rate (c), the asymptotic GP (A), and the lag phase (L) of ear samples in the calibration sub set (R: 0.81-0.87), while for stover predictive ability was inferior”
Claim · model-written summary
Validation showed satisfactory results only for the fermentation rate, with R of 0.81–0.88.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gas production (GP) kinetics for maize ear and stover”
e2“Validation showed satisfactory results only for the fermentation rate (R: 0.81-0.88)”
Claim · model-written summary
Validation showed satisfactory results for stover at incubation intervals 3-7, 7-12 and 7-16 h only, with R above 0.74.
- Organ / stage
- stovere3
- Outcome
- satisfactory results for intervals 3-7, 7-12, and 7-16 he3
- Value
- R>0.74e3
- Qualifier
- samples onlye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gas production (GP) kinetics for maize ear and stover”
e3“validation showed satisfactory results for intervals 3-7, 7-12, and 7-16 h of sto ver samples only (R>0.74)”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration was acceptable for gas production in several incubation intervals.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gas production (GP) kinetics for maize ear and stover”
e4“NIRS calibration was acceptable for GP in several incubation inter vals”