Abstract
Cowpea fodder has been one of the favored livestock forages for centuries in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Senegal. However, little research has been conducted on quantifying the nutritional quality of cowpea fodder because of the costly wet chemistry analysis. The main objective of this study was to develop predictive equations for a sustainable quantification of the nutritional quality of dual-purpose cowpea fodder using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and to investigate the influence of cropping system, fertilizer, genotype, and their interaction on biomass yield and cowpea forage nutritional value. In this study, 120 samples from a dual-purpose cowpea variety trial were used to develop NIRS equations to estimate forage quality parameters including concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and iron (Fe). Partial least squares (PLS) regression generated prediction equations using NIRS wavelength measurements, and reference wet chemistry analysis from calibration samples were developed. The PLS prediction equations for the different forage quality parameters had an R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively. Using these prediction equations, correlation of the predicted values of the calibration subset and the prediction test subset resulted in significant positive relationships, with R2 of 0.83, 0.74, 0.70, 0.63, 0.59, 0.75, and 0.83 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively. The corresponding RMSE of these relationships was 0.91, 2.68, 3.45, 0.23, 0.06, 0.11, and 100 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively. The range and mean concentrations of the calibration subset overlapped with that of the prediction subset for all parameters evaluated. Cross-validation procedures indicated good correlations between wet chemistry analysis and NIRS forage quality estimates. Results of the second experiment showed that the cropping system had no significant effect on cowpea forage yield and nutritive value. However, cowpea variety and fertilizer, both individually and their interaction, had a significant effect on fodder yield and cowpea forage quality. We conclude that the NIRS calibration equations developed can be used to accurately predict the cowpea forage quality parameters evaluated in this study.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted crude protein with R2 0.94.
- Taxon
- Cowpea
Vigna unguiculatat0 - Outcome
- CPe0
- Value
- 0.94e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted acid detergent fiber with R2 0.93.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- ADFe0
- Value
- 0.93e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted neutral detergent fiber with R2 0.88.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- NDFe0
- Value
- 0.88e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted calcium with R2 0.63.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- Cae0
- Value
- 0.63e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted phosphorus with R2 0.69.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- Pe0
- Value
- 0.69e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted potassium with R2 0.87.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- Ke0
- Value
- 0.87e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NIRS calibration equations predicted iron with R2 0.94.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- Fee0
- Value
- 0.94e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R2 of calibration 0.94, 0.93, 0.88, 0.63, 0.69, 0.87, and 0.94 for CP, ADF, NDF, Ca, P, K, and Fe, respectively”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Predicted and test values were significantly positively related across forage quality parameters.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- positive relationshipse0
- Comparator
- prediction test subsete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“correlation of the predicted values of the calibration subset and the prediction test subset resulted in significant positive relationships”
t0“Cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Cropping system had no significant effect on forage yield and nutritive value.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- cropping systeme0
- Outcome
- forage yield and nutritive valuee0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cropping system had no significant effect on cowpea forage yield and nutritive value”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea variety significantly affected fodder yield and forage quality.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Material
- varietye0
- Outcome
- fodder yield and cowpea forage qualitye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cowpea variety and fertilizer, both individually and their interaction, had a significant effect on fodder yield and cowpea forage quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer significantly affected fodder yield and forage quality.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- fertilizere0
- Outcome
- fodder yield and cowpea forage qualitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cowpea variety and fertilizer, both individually and their interaction, had a significant effect on fodder yield and cowpea forage quality”
Claim · model-written summary
The variety by fertilizer interaction significantly affected fodder yield and forage quality.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- fertilizere0
- Outcome
- fodder yield and cowpea forage qualitye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cowpea variety and fertilizer, both individually and their interaction, had a significant effect on fodder yield and cowpea forage quality”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.