The aims of the study were to utilize vibrational spectroscopy as a rapid predictive tool of forage quality; to compare two preparation methods, freeze- (FD) vs. oven-dried (OD); to focus on the progression of intra- and inter-family maturity by adopting a multivariate crop maturity index (CMI) based on composition, digestibility and tillage traits. A panel of forages (n = 158) composed of 12 crops (borage, chia, false flax, flax, galega, hemp, perilla, quinoa, ravizzone, safflower, sunflower and white lupin) derived from 8 botanic families, sampled at different vegetative stages, and which were FD or OD, were examined. Two spectro- meters were used at different spectral regions: a Perkin Elmer IdentiCheckTM (PE, B-band, 714–1025 nm; C-band, 1026–2500 nm, D-band, 2501–3333 nm) and a portable Analyti- cal Spectral Device (ASD, A-band, 350–713 nm, UV–Vis; B-band, as above). The absorption spectra were constantly higher in the OD samples and showed very high discriminability. The average prediction response (RPD, defined as the performance-deviation ratio) was better with the PE instrument, because of its enhanced band capabilities. However, the response over the spectral regions differed on the basis of which instrument was used and according to the preparations. The ASD instrument was more efficient in the B-band, for the OD preparation and better than PE in the pooled calibration (RPD:1.63 vs. 1.20; P=0.0005). A significant superiority in the NIR C-band for the FD preparation was observed (RPD: 2.46 vs. 1.95; P=0.004), while, unexpectedly, the MIR D-band was 25% more performing (RPD: 2.78 vs. 2.21; P=0.0005). The ash, the neutral detergent fiber (NDFom) and its indi- gestible part (INDF) were placed at the highest prediction rank in both instruments, albeit at different precision levels, caused by the different instrumental capabilities, with an overall
Vibrational spectroscopy to predict in vitro digestibility and the maturity index of different forage crops during the growing cycle and after freeze- or oven-drying treatment
TASSONE, Sonia;
2014-01-01
Abstract
The aims of the study were to utilize vibrational spectroscopy as a rapid predictive tool of forage quality; to compare two preparation methods, freeze- (FD) vs. oven-dried (OD); to focus on the progression of intra- and inter-family maturity by adopting a multivariate crop maturity index (CMI) based on composition, digestibility and tillage traits. A panel of forages (n = 158) composed of 12 crops (borage, chia, false flax, flax, galega, hemp, perilla, quinoa, ravizzone, safflower, sunflower and white lupin) derived from 8 botanic families, sampled at different vegetative stages, and which were FD or OD, were examined. Two spectro- meters were used at different spectral regions: a Perkin Elmer IdentiCheckTM (PE, B-band, 714–1025 nm; C-band, 1026–2500 nm, D-band, 2501–3333 nm) and a portable Analyti- cal Spectral Device (ASD, A-band, 350–713 nm, UV–Vis; B-band, as above). The absorption spectra were constantly higher in the OD samples and showed very high discriminability. The average prediction response (RPD, defined as the performance-deviation ratio) was better with the PE instrument, because of its enhanced band capabilities. However, the response over the spectral regions differed on the basis of which instrument was used and according to the preparations. The ASD instrument was more efficient in the B-band, for the OD preparation and better than PE in the pooled calibration (RPD:1.63 vs. 1.20; P=0.0005). A significant superiority in the NIR C-band for the FD preparation was observed (RPD: 2.46 vs. 1.95; P=0.004), while, unexpectedly, the MIR D-band was 25% more performing (RPD: 2.78 vs. 2.21; P=0.0005). The ash, the neutral detergent fiber (NDFom) and its indi- gestible part (INDF) were placed at the highest prediction rank in both instruments, albeit at different precision levels, caused by the different instrumental capabilities, with an overall| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
dsy_nir_aperto.pdf
Accesso aperto
Tipo di file:
POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione
240.87 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
240.87 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



