ArticleJournal of animal science2025
Spectral sensing for forage nutritive value determination of cool season, grass pastures during the grazing season.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Management surveys suggest that few cow-calf producers in the Southeastern United States submit forage samples for laboratory analysis due to time and labor constraints. Although tools like near infrared reflectance spectroscopy have helped reduce costs associated with nutritive value determination in stored feeds, their performance for pasture analysis has been limited. Our objective was to explore the efficacy of spectral sensing in predicting the dry matter (DM), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and crude protein (CP) of fresh forages during the growing season. Weekly from May through October, two random samples were collected from each of 12 fields. Spectral readings were taken above canopy level in-field and again in-lab, followed by bench chemistry analyses of DM, ADF, NDF, and CP. Chemistry results and spectral readings were aligned by field, sample, and date. The 18 individual light spectra and lidar-measured distance were used as features in a random forest regression fit to predict each nutrient and separate models were developed for in-field and in-lab spectral readings. Data were randomly split for hyperparameter tuning (15%), model training (55%), and independent evaluation (30%). The root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE), calculated on the independent evaluation data, was used to explore the viability of this system to predict forage nutritive value. The in-field and in-lab models performed similarly for each forage nutritive value. To evaluate the prediction capability of the system under various atmospheric conditions, cloud cover was added as a feature in each in-field regression. The RMSPE of DM, ADF, NDF, and CP with cloud cover were 21.8%, 9.88%, 10.1%, and 21.9%, respectively. These models were also evaluated on new, unseen data from nine subplots and used to explore the implications of the prediction errors. The NASEM (2018) Beef Cattle Nutrient Requirements model was used to simulate diet nutritional adequacy using forage nutritive value estimated from the spectral sensor compared with forage nutritive value measured by bench chemistry. These forage nutritive value estimation methods resulted in a 4.48% and 3.03% difference in metabolizable energy and metabolizable protein allowable gain, respectively. Considerable future data collection and model refinement efforts are necessary to determine the value of the spectral sensing system in supporting low-cost, in-field nutritive value monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.