ArticleAnimal bioscience2024
Application of near-infrared spectroscopy for hay evaluation at different degrees of sample preparation.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiyear evaluation of agronomic traits, nutritional quality, macro and microelement profiles of white maize genotypes (Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA study was conducted to quantify the performance differences of the nearinfrared spectroscopy (NIRS) calibration models developed with different degrees of hay sample preparations.
methodsA total of 227 imported alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and another 360 imported timothy (Phleum pratense L.) hay samples were used to develop calibration models for nutrient value parameters such as moisture, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, crude protein, and in vitro dry matter digestibility. Spectral data of hay samples prepared by milling into 1-mm particle size or unground were separately regressed against the wet chemistry results of the abovementioned parameters.
resultsThe performance of the developed NIRS calibration models was evaluated based on R2, standard error, and ratio percentage deviation (RPD). The models developed with ground hay were more robust and accurate than those with unground hay based on calibration model performance indexes such as R2 (coefficient of determination), standard error, and RPD. Although the R2 of calibration models was mainly greater than 0.90 across the feed value indexes, the R2 of cross-validations was much lower. The R2 of cross-validation varies depending on feed value indexes, which ranged from 0.61 to 0.81 in alfalfa, and from 0.62 to 0.95 in timothy. Estimation of feed values in imported hay can be achievable by the calibrated NIRS. However, the NIRS calibration models must be improved by including a broader range of imported hay samples in the modeling.
conclusionAlthough the analysis accuracy of NIRS was substantially higher when calibration models were developed with ground samples, less sample preparation will be more advantageous for achieving rapid delivery of hay sample analysis results. Therefore, further research warrants investigating the level of sample preparations compromising analysis accuracy by NIRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.