2017
DOI: 10.1080/09064710.2017.1278782
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of nutritive values, morphology and agronomic characteristics in forage maize using two applications of NIRS spectrometry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It appears from the literature that calibrations based on a narrow range of species tend to have lower RPD values. Examples include 1.7 for grass silages (De Boever et al 1996), 1.8 for sagebrush and 2.3 for forage maize (Hetta et al 2017). In the present study, the RPD values for in vitro DMD of annual grasses, and mixed perennial grasses and legumes could be further improved with grouping before calibration development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It appears from the literature that calibrations based on a narrow range of species tend to have lower RPD values. Examples include 1.7 for grass silages (De Boever et al 1996), 1.8 for sagebrush and 2.3 for forage maize (Hetta et al 2017). In the present study, the RPD values for in vitro DMD of annual grasses, and mixed perennial grasses and legumes could be further improved with grouping before calibration development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…There are many examples of NIRS calibrations to predict the nutritional value of forages, such as whole cereal plants (Deaville et al 2009;Stubbs et al 2010), lucerne (alfalfa, Medicago sativa) (Halgerson et al 2004;Brogna et al 2009), perennial grasses (Myer et al 2011;Burns et al 2013), forage maize (Zea mays; Hetta et al 2017) and even woody forage shrubs, such as tagasaste (Cytisus proliferus; Flinn et al 1996) and sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata; Olsoy et al 2016). These examples are all characterised by narrow taxonomic diversity with only one or two plant species within the calibration set.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NIRS or other spectral techniques are most accurate when using dried and homogenized (i.e., milled) plant material. For example, starch has been accurately quantified on dried cotton leaves or dry forage maize using NIRS (R 2 > 0.9; Hattey et al, 1994;Hetta et al, 2017;Lu et al, 2017). Estimating chemical compounds with spectral measurements on fresh leaf tissue is often less reliable due to masking effects of light absorption by the cuticle or the leaf water content (Curran et al, 1992;Fourty and Baret, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…milled) plant material. For example, starch has been accurately quantified on dried cotton leaves or dry forage maize using NIRS ( R2 > 0.9) [19,[23][24][25]. Estimating chemical compounds with spectral measurements on fresh leaf tissue is often less reliable due to masking effects of light absorption by the cuticle or the leaf water content [26,27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%