Abstract
Near-infrared-reflectance spectra (1.4 to 2.4 µm) were recorded for 87 samples of ground dry forages. Temperate forage species analyzed were alfalfa, tall fescue and alfalfa bromegrass mixtures preserved as hay, silage and fresh frozen forages. Tropical species included bermudagrass and pangola digitgrass. Laboratory analysis of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), lignin (L) and in vitro dry matter disappearance (IVDMD), as well as in vivo digestibility (DMD), dry matter intake (DMI) and digestible energy intake (DEI) were determined for these same samples. Reflectance (R) spectra were recorded as log (1/R) vs wavelength and transformed to the second derivative of log (1/R) vs wavelength for correlation with compositional and nutritional data. Multiple-linear-regression techniques were used to determine the optimum wavelengths for predicting each of the chemical in vitro and in vivo analyses. By use of up to nine wavelengths points for the prediction equations, the correlation coefficients were .99 for CP, .98 for NDF, .96 for ADF, .96 for L, .95 for IVDMD, .88 for DMD, .80 for DMI and .85 for digestible energy intake (DEI). Calibration equations generated from the odd-numbered samples predicted the values for the even-numbered samples within a standard error of ± .95% for CP, ± 3.1% for NDF, ± 5.1% for DMD and ± 7.9 g for DMI. We concluded that infrared reflectance has the potential for use in rapid evaluation of forage quality.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted crude protein of forages with a correlation coefficient of .99.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.99 for CP”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted NDF of forages with a correlation coefficient of .98.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.98 for NDF”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted ADF of forages with a correlation coefficient of .96.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.96 for ADF”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted lignin of forages with a correlation coefficient of .96.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.96 for L”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted in vitro dry matter disappearance of forages with a correlation coefficient of .95.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.95 for IVDMD”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted in vivo dry matter digestibility of forages with a correlation coefficient of .88.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.88 for DMD”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted dry matter intake of forages with a correlation coefficient of .80.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.80 for DMI”
Claim · model-written summary
Near-infrared reflectance predicted digestible energy intake of forages with a correlation coefficient of .85.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“the correlation coefficients were”
e2“.85 for digestible energy intake (DEI)”
Claim · model-written summary
Calibration equations from odd-numbered samples predicted even-numbered samples for CP within a standard error of ± .95%.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“within a standard error”
e2“± .95% for CP”
Claim · model-written summary
Calibration equations from odd-numbered samples predicted even-numbered samples for NDF within a standard error of ± 3.1%.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“within a standard error”
e2“± 3.1% for NDF”
Claim · model-written summary
Calibration equations from odd-numbered samples predicted even-numbered samples for DMD within a standard error of ± 5.1%.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“within a standard error”
e2“± 5.1% for DMD”
Claim · model-written summary
Calibration equations from odd-numbered samples predicted even-numbered samples for DMI within a standard error of ± 7.9 g.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“within a standard error”
e2“± 7.9 g for DMI”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that infrared reflectance has potential for rapid evaluation of forage quality.
Verbatim
e0“samples of ground dry forages”
e1“infrared reflectance has the potential for use in rapid evaluation of forage quality”