| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Gado de Corte. |
|
Data corrente: |
07/03/2013 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
07/03/2013 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
GOMES, R. da C.; MEYER, P. M.; CASTRO, A. L. de; NETTO, A. S.; RODRIGUES, P. H. M. |
|
Afiliação: |
RODRIGO DA COSTA GOMES, CNPGC; Paula Marques Meyer, IBGE; Ari Luiz de Castro, Departamento de Nutrição e Produção Animal, FMVZ/USP.; Arlindo Saran Netto, Departamento de Zootecnia, FZEA/USP; Paulo Henrique Mazza Rodrigues, Departamento de Nutrição e Produção Animal, FMVZ/USP. |
|
Título: |
Accuracy, precision and robustness of different methods to obtain samples from silages in fermentation studies. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2012 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.41, n.6, p.1369-1377, 2012. |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The objective of this study was to evaluate accuracy, precision and robustness of two methods to obtain silage samples, in comparison with extraction of liquor by manual screw-press. Wet brewery residue alone or combined with soybean hulls and citrus pulp were ensiled in laboratory silos. Liquor was extracted by a manual screw-press and a 2-mL aliquot was fixed with 0.4 mL formic acid. Two 10-g silage samples from each silo were diluted in 20 mL deionized water or 17% formic acid solution (alternative methods). Aliquots obtained by the three methods were used to determine the silage contents of fermentation end-products. The accuracy of the alternative methods was evaluated by comparing mean bias of estimates obtained by manual screw-press and by alternative methods, whereas precision was assessed by the root mean square prediction error and the residual error. Robustness was determined by studying the interaction between bias and chemical components, pH, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and buffer capacity. The 17% formic acid method was more accurate for estimating acetic, butyric and lactic acids, although it resulted in low overestimates of propionic acid and underestimates of ethanol. The deionized water method overestimated acetic and propionic acids and slightly underestimated ethanol. The 17% formic acid method was more precise than deionized water for estimating all organic acids and ethanol. The robustness of each method with respect to variation in the silage chemical composition, IVDMD and pH is dependent on the fermentation end-product at evaluation. The robustness of the alternative methods seems to be critical at the determination of lactic acid and ethanol contents. MenosThe objective of this study was to evaluate accuracy, precision and robustness of two methods to obtain silage samples, in comparison with extraction of liquor by manual screw-press. Wet brewery residue alone or combined with soybean hulls and citrus pulp were ensiled in laboratory silos. Liquor was extracted by a manual screw-press and a 2-mL aliquot was fixed with 0.4 mL formic acid. Two 10-g silage samples from each silo were diluted in 20 mL deionized water or 17% formic acid solution (alternative methods). Aliquots obtained by the three methods were used to determine the silage contents of fermentation end-products. The accuracy of the alternative methods was evaluated by comparing mean bias of estimates obtained by manual screw-press and by alternative methods, whereas precision was assessed by the root mean square prediction error and the residual error. Robustness was determined by studying the interaction between bias and chemical components, pH, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and buffer capacity. The 17% formic acid method was more accurate for estimating acetic, butyric and lactic acids, although it resulted in low overestimates of propionic acid and underestimates of ethanol. The deionized water method overestimated acetic and propionic acids and slightly underestimated ethanol. The 17% formic acid method was more precise than deionized water for estimating all organic acids and ethanol. The robustness of each method with respect to variation in the si... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Thesagro: |
Silagem. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/78416/1/0000007017-Gomes-et-al-2012-RBZ.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02292naa a2200181 a 4500
001 1952505
005 2013-03-07
008 2012 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aGOMES, R. da C.
245 $aAccuracy, precision and robustness of different methods to obtain samples from silages in fermentation studies.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2012
520 $aThe objective of this study was to evaluate accuracy, precision and robustness of two methods to obtain silage samples, in comparison with extraction of liquor by manual screw-press. Wet brewery residue alone or combined with soybean hulls and citrus pulp were ensiled in laboratory silos. Liquor was extracted by a manual screw-press and a 2-mL aliquot was fixed with 0.4 mL formic acid. Two 10-g silage samples from each silo were diluted in 20 mL deionized water or 17% formic acid solution (alternative methods). Aliquots obtained by the three methods were used to determine the silage contents of fermentation end-products. The accuracy of the alternative methods was evaluated by comparing mean bias of estimates obtained by manual screw-press and by alternative methods, whereas precision was assessed by the root mean square prediction error and the residual error. Robustness was determined by studying the interaction between bias and chemical components, pH, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and buffer capacity. The 17% formic acid method was more accurate for estimating acetic, butyric and lactic acids, although it resulted in low overestimates of propionic acid and underestimates of ethanol. The deionized water method overestimated acetic and propionic acids and slightly underestimated ethanol. The 17% formic acid method was more precise than deionized water for estimating all organic acids and ethanol. The robustness of each method with respect to variation in the silage chemical composition, IVDMD and pH is dependent on the fermentation end-product at evaluation. The robustness of the alternative methods seems to be critical at the determination of lactic acid and ethanol contents.
650 $aSilagem
700 1 $aMEYER, P. M.
700 1 $aCASTRO, A. L. de
700 1 $aNETTO, A. S.
700 1 $aRODRIGUES, P. H. M.
773 $tRevista Brasileira de Zootecnia$gv.41, n.6, p.1369-1377, 2012.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Gado de Corte (CNPGC) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Soja. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com valeria.cardoso@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Soja. |
|
Data corrente: |
19/01/2024 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
15/02/2024 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 2 |
|
Autoria: |
COELHO, A. E.; SANGOI, L.; SAPUCAY, M. J. L. da C.; BRATTI, F.; BALBINOT JUNIOR, A. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
ANTONIO EDUARDO COELHO, UNIVERSIDADE DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA; LUIS SANGOI, UNIVERSIDADE DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA; MORYB JORGE LIMA DA COSTA SAPUCAY, UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE LONDRINA; FELIPE BRATTI, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARANÁ; ALVADI ANTONIO BALBINOT JUNIOR, CNPSO. |
|
Título: |
Soybean yield and profitability are affected by the spatial distribution of seeds in rows and seeding rate. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2023 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Agronomy Journal, 2023. |
|
DOI: |
10.1002/agj2.21492 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Notas: |
First online. |
|
Thesagro: |
Espaçamento; Semente; Soja. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Seeds; Soybeans; Spatial distribution. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
X Pesquisa, Tecnologia e Engenharia |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 00721naa a2200253 a 4500
001 2161058
005 2024-02-15
008 2023 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $a10.1002/agj2.21492$2DOI
100 1 $aCOELHO, A. E.
245 $aSoybean yield and profitability are affected by the spatial distribution of seeds in rows and seeding rate.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2023
500 $aFirst online.
650 $aSeeds
650 $aSoybeans
650 $aSpatial distribution
650 $aEspaçamento
650 $aSemente
650 $aSoja
700 1 $aSANGOI, L.
700 1 $aSAPUCAY, M. J. L. da C.
700 1 $aBRATTI, F.
700 1 $aBALBINOT JUNIOR, A. A.
773 $tAgronomy Journal, 2023.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Soja (CNPSO) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
