1982
DOI: 10.2527/jas1982.554971x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of Forage Quality Using Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy on Esophageal Fistula Samples from Cattle on Mountain Range

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For all calibrations, SEP values were comparable with SEC or slightly higher, because SEP includes both the error associated with chemical analysis and the error associated with the NIRS equipment (Holechek et al, 1982). The accuracy of the calibration can be evaluated based on the RPD and the RER statistics, and this confirms the high precision of the equations developed, with values larger than the minimum recommended for prediction uses (RER over 10 and RPD over 3) according to Williams and Sobering (1996).…”
Section: Developed Nirmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…For all calibrations, SEP values were comparable with SEC or slightly higher, because SEP includes both the error associated with chemical analysis and the error associated with the NIRS equipment (Holechek et al, 1982). The accuracy of the calibration can be evaluated based on the RPD and the RER statistics, and this confirms the high precision of the equations developed, with values larger than the minimum recommended for prediction uses (RER over 10 and RPD over 3) according to Williams and Sobering (1996).…”
Section: Developed Nirmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…The standard error of prediction (SEP) was comparable to SEC or even smaller. This may be explained by the fact that the SEP includes, as well as the error associated with wet chemical analysis, the error associated with the NIRS (Holechek et al, 1982). However the SEP did not exceed the SEC by 33% as suggested by Shenk et al (1981).…”
Section: Nirs Analysismentioning
confidence: 93%
“…This analytical technique has been used in the last decade in ecological studies to predict the C and N concentration in soils (Dalal and Henry 1986;Morra et al 1991), the nitrogen and carbon fraction (lignin and cellulose) concentration in forest foliage (Card et al 1988;Wessman et al 1988;McLellan et al 1991b;Meuret et al 1993; Lacaze and Jore 1994;Martin and Aber 1994;Bolster et al 1996), and in decaying litter (McLellan et al 1991a;Jore et al 1992). NIRS can also be used to predict certain functional properties of plant material, such as digestibility (Holechek et al 1982;Duncan et al 1987;Meuret et al 1993), the calori®c value (Gillon et al 1997), litter decomposability (according to Gillon et al 1999), or the stage of litter decomposition (Gillon et al 1993). Physicochemical properties of soils, such as percent clay and cation exchange capacity (Ben-Dor and Banin 1995), and biological properties (Nilsson et al 1992;Fritze et al 1994) can also be predicted by NIRS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%