ARTICLE 52 FEED & ADDITIVE MAGAZINE April 2022 NIR, and the samples with low crude protein level, as well as other samples selected at random, were also analysed by wet chemistry to confirm the NIR results. The NIR and wet chemistry results are presented below, highlighted are the samples with different NIR and wet chemistry outcomes. Overall, no sample was accepted by the NIR when it should have been rejected. In other words, no “accept” NIR outcome occurred when wet chemistry outcome was “reject”, proving that NIR can be used as a reliable screening tool for soybean meal protein content. All disagreements between NIR and reference apart from one were within one standard error of the reference method, in these cases, the sample can be rapidly analysed again by HHNIR to validate the NIR result, which is easy, quick and cheap compared to re-analysis by wet chemistry. Dependent on supplier, an NIR result may be sufficient as proof for a claim. Alternatively, the samples identified as being rejected by NIR can be sent for wet chemistry analysis if further validation is required. This evaluation demonstrates that NIR can be used as a tool which allows instant decision making by characterising the quality of ingredients, and either accept or reject a load from a supplier or assign loads to different silos (Table 2). Table 2. NIR and Wet Chemistry crude protein results for 20 soybean meal samples Wet Chemistry Outcome Accept Accept Accept Reject Reject Accept Accept Reject Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Reject Reject Accept Accept Reject Reject NIR Outcome Reject Accept Accept Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Accept Reject Accept Reject Accept Reject Reject Reject Accept Reject Reject Wet Chemistry Result CP% 46.80 48.50 49.00 44.87 46.43 46.59 46.71 46.45 47.29 47.59 48.13 49.77 47.10 47.80 45.50 46.50 46.90 48.20 45.80 46.10 NIR Result CP% 46.27 47.83 47.64 45.90 46.10 46.16 46.03 45.37 46.45 46.88 46.36 47.34 46.48 46.68 46.49 45.99 46.05 46.67 46.36 46.43
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUxNjkxNQ==