Silage: Trinamix, FBA & Neospectra

Author

RialtoLabs - Lishia Teh

Published

Apr 2025

This report summarizes the results of a silage quality analysis conducted using three different methods: Trinamix, FBA, and Neospectra. The analysis was performed on seven grass silage samples and two maize silage samples. The primary objective of this study was to compare the results obtained from the three methods.

About the data

The silage quality parameters analyzed by the three methods are shown in Table 1.

  • Eight silage quality parameters were measured by all three methods:: Dry Matter, Protein, D-value, NDF, Ash, ADF, WSC, and Starch.

  • Fat was measured by both Trinamix and Neospectra, while pH, Ammonia N, VFA, and Lactic Acid were measured by both FBA and Neospectra.

  • Some parameters are unique to specific method, including Digestible Energy and Net Energy Lactation (Trinamix), PDIN, PDIE, PDIA, UFL, LFU, PAL, and Fim Intake (FBA), and NCGD (Neospectra)

Table 1: Silage quality parameters as analyzed by different methods (Trinamix, FBA, Neospectra)
Unified.name Trinamix FBA Neospectra Description
Dry Matter Dry Matter Dry Matter Dry Matter The proportion of silage remaining after all water is removed; indicates feed concentration.
Protein Crude Protein Crude Protein Protein The total protein content in the silage, important for animal growth and milk production.
D-Value D-Value DMD D Value Percentage of dry matter that is digestible by the animal; higher values mean better feed quality.
NDF NDF NDF NDF Neutral Detergent Fibre; cell wall components affecting intake and rumen health.
Fat Fat (Ether Extract) Oil The lipid content of the silage, providing energy.
Ash Ash ASH Ash Total mineral content
ADF ADF ADF ADF Acid Detergent Fibre; measures cellulose and lignin, with high values reducing digestibility.
WSC Water Soluble Carbohydrates WSC WSC Water Soluble Carbohydrates; simple sugars needed for good fermentation and preservation.
Starch Starch Starch Starch Carbohydrate content, mainly from grains; important energy source.
Digestible Energy Digestible Energy Portion of gross energy in feed that is digestible by the animal.
Metabolizable Energy Metabolizable Energy ME Energy available to the animal after digestion losses; key for ration formulation.
Net Energy Lactation Net Energy Lactation Energy available specifically for milk production in dairy cows.
pH pH pH Measure of acidity; low pH indicates good fermentation and preservation.
Ammonia N Ammonia N NH3 - N Reflects protein breakdown during fermentation; high values indicate poor preservation.
PDIN PDIN Digestible protein in the small intestine when nitrogen limits microbial protein synthesis.
PDIE PDIE Digestible protein in the small intestine when energy limits microbial protein synthesis.
PDIA PDIA Dietary protein that escapes rumen degradation and is digested in the small intestine.
UFL UFL Feed unit for lactation; energy value for dairy cows based on 1 kg standard barley.
LFU LFU Livestock feed unit; energy value for beef cattle (meat production).
PAL PAL Potential acid load; indicates acid produced during rumen fermentation, affecting rumen health.
Fim Intake Fim Intake Estimated silage dry matter intake by animals (kg DM/day); higher values mean better intake.
VFA VFA VFA Volatile fatty acids produced during fermentation; high butyric acid indicates poor fermentation.
Lactic Acid Lactic Acid Lactic Acid Produced by lactic acid bacteria during fermentation; high levels indicate good preservation.
NCGD NCGD Neutral Cellulose Grain Digestibility; digestibility of the cellulose fraction, especially in grains.

Grass silage

A total of seven grass silage samples were analyzed using Trinamix, Neospectra, and the FBA laboratory. The FBA laboratory utilized Near-Infrared Reflectance (NIR) spectroscopy for the analysis, with the exception of two outlier samples (farmer_4 and farmer_7), which were analyzed using wet chemistry due to their values falling outside the expected range.

Given the limited sample size, this evaluation should be considered as a preliminary sanity check rather than a comprehensive analysis. Even within those constraints, the results from Neospectra aligned more closely with the FBA laboratory than with Trinamix, particularly for key parameters such as Dry Matter, Protein, D-value, pH, Ammonia-N, and VFA, and showed no significant systematic bias requiring correction. Based on these findings, the Grass Silage & Big Bale Silage – AUNIR calibration is recommended for use.

A comparison of the results, including a correlation matrix (upper triangle) and scatter plots (lower triangle), is presented below for each parameter that was analyzed by at least two methods. Correlation measure of how closely two variables are related, with values ranging from -1 (perfect negative correlation) to 1 (perfect positive correlation). A correlation closer to 1 or -1 indicates a strong relationship, while a value near 0 indicates little to no linear relationship between the two variables. A median bias is the median difference between two measurement methods. A smaller median bias (closer to 0) indicates that the two methods are more consistent with each other, suggesting better agreement and less systematic error.

Dry Matter

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 24.2 27.6 27.3
farmer_2 21.8 25.9 25.4
farmer_3 31.8 32.0 32.2
farmer_4 >77.1 72.2 79.3
farmer_5 24.9 28.8 30.6
farmer_6 23.1 26.6 24.8
farmer_7 >77.1 83.9 85.7

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: -0.31

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: -3.53

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: 3.08

Protein

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 12.8 11.9 12.9
farmer_2 16.8 14.9 15.3
farmer_3 13.3 13.5 13.5
farmer_4 11.7 13.7 13.0
farmer_5 14.3 14.1 15.4
farmer_6 15.8 13.9 14.7
farmer_7 8.4 8.8 10.3

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: 0.77

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: 0.22

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: 0.24

D-Value

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 63.3 67.1 66.2
farmer_2 61.6 74.6 70.2
farmer_3 65 70.9 65.9
farmer_4 >84.0 66.2 57.5
farmer_5 62 72.9 68.7
farmer_6 63 73.1 68.6
farmer_7 >84.0 59.6 47.4

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: -4.37

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: -10.14

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: 5.62

NDF

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 50.9 52.5 46.2
farmer_2 48.8 49.4 41.1
farmer_3 46.4 49.4 45.4
farmer_4 38.4 NA 42.5
farmer_5 52.1 48.6 41.5
farmer_6 49.1 47.1 41.8
farmer_7 53 NA 53.7

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: -6.24

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: -0.63

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: -7.26

Fat

sample Trinamix (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 3.5 3.6
farmer_2 3.2 4.0
farmer_3 3.3 3.5
farmer_4 4 2.4
farmer_5 3.3 3.9
farmer_6 3.3 3.8
farmer_7 3.7 2.1

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: 0.25

Ash

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 8.6 6.8 7.8
farmer_2 9.4 10.0 8.9
farmer_3 9 9.2 8.0
farmer_4 9.5 5.7 6.6
farmer_5 8.5 8.3 9.0
farmer_6 8.6 8.3 8.7
farmer_7 8.4 10.7 4.0

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: 0.39

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: 0.24

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: -0.8

ADF

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (%) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 30.8 NA 32.2
farmer_2 29.9 NA 29.4
farmer_3 31.2 NA 32.0
farmer_4 31.7 34.9 23.4
farmer_5 31.8 NA 30.1
farmer_6 30.3 NA 29.9
farmer_7 42.7 39.6 23.0

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: -0.48

WSC

sample Trinamix (%) FBA (per kg) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 6.9 3.1 1.9
farmer_2 7.6 2.4 1.4
farmer_3 9.5 2.8 2.7
farmer_4 >20.4 NA 6.6
farmer_5 8 2.5 1.6
farmer_6 7.5 1.5 1.4
farmer_7 >20.4 NA 5.6

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: -0.89

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: 5.51

Median bias between Neospectra and Trinamix: -6.19

Metabolizable Energy

sample Trinamix (MJ/kgDM) FBA (MJ/Kg)
farmer_1 8.7 9.6
farmer_2 8.8 10.8
farmer_3 8.8 10.2
farmer_4 NA 9.4
farmer_5 8.7 10.5
farmer_6 8.9 10.5
farmer_7 NA 8.4

Median bias between Trinamix and FBA: -1.64

pH

sample FBA (-) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 4.0 4.1
farmer_2 4.3 4.0
farmer_3 4.1 4.0
farmer_4 5.4 4.7
farmer_5 4.5 3.9
farmer_6 4.2 3.8
farmer_7 NA 5.7

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: -0.37

Ammonia N

sample FBA (% of Total N) Neospectra (%)
farmer_1 2.4 3.6
farmer_2 8.8 6.7
farmer_3 7.3 5.1
farmer_4 NA 1.8
farmer_5 8.5 7.4
farmer_6 7.3 4.9
farmer_7 NA -6.4

Median bias between Neospectra and FBA: -2.04

VFA

sample FBA (%) Neospectra (g/kg)
farmer_1 1.8 33.5
farmer_2 3.4 46.7
farmer_3 1.1 22.9
farmer_4 NA -8.2
farmer_5 3.8 46.5
farmer_6 2.8 34.2
farmer_7 NA -18.7

Median bias between Neospectra (converted to %) and FBA: 1.14

Lactic Acid

sample FBA (%) Neospectra (g/kg)
farmer_1 10.0 67.4
farmer_2 8.7 84.9
farmer_3 8.4 72.5
farmer_4 NA -7.4
farmer_5 5.0 90.1
farmer_6 8.2 88.1
farmer_7 NA -105.0

Median bias between Neospectra (converted to %) and FBA: -0.19

Maize silage

The results of the analyses for the two maize silage samples are presented below. A larger sample size will be required before any conclusions can be drawn.

Trinamix FBA Neospectra
Dry Matter
farmer_1 27.4 28.1 28.6
farmer_2 31.4 27.2 30.0
Protein
farmer_1 8.6 8.9 9.2
farmer_2 8.5 8.7 8.4
D-Value
farmer_1 60.4 NA 64.3
farmer_2 66.4 NA 64.8
NDF
farmer_1 52.0 42.8 48.6
farmer_2 46.1 43.1 47.3
Fat
farmer_1 3.0 NA NA
farmer_2 3.3 NA NA
Ash
farmer_1 5.7 4.6 3.2
farmer_2 5.3 3.2 3.0
ADF
farmer_1 30.3 NA NA
farmer_2 28.6 NA NA
Starch
farmer_1 22.4 24.7 27.0
farmer_2 29.9 23.1 28.0
Digestible Energy
farmer_1 12.3 NA NA
farmer_2 12.7 NA NA
Metabolizable Energy
farmer_1 10.5 11.5 NA
farmer_2 11.0 11.4 NA
Net Energy Lactation
farmer_1 6.6 NA NA
farmer_2 6.9 NA NA
pH
farmer_1 NA 3.8 4.5
farmer_2 NA 3.7 4.3
NCGD
farmer_1 NA NA 63.0
farmer_2 NA NA 63.8
Lactic Acid
farmer_1 NA NA 63.0
farmer_2 NA NA 63.8