Rapid Spectroscopic Analysis for Food and Feed Quality Control: Prediction of Protein and Nutrient Content in Barley Forage Using LIBS and Chemometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid and accurate assessment of nutritional quality, particularly crude protein content and essential nutrient concentrations, remains a major challenge in the food and feed industries. In this study, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) was combined with advanced chemometric modeling to predict the levels of crude protein and key macro- and micronutrients (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Fe, Mn, P, Zn) in 61 barley forage samples composed of whole aerial plant parts ground prior to analysis. LIBS offers a compelling alternative to traditional analytical methods by enabling real-time analysis with minimal sample preparation. To minimize interference from atmospheric nitrogen, nitrogen spectral lines were excluded from the protein calibration model in favor of spectral lines from elements biochemically associated with proteins. We compared the performance of Partial Least Squares (PLSR) regression and Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) using fivefold cross-validation. ELM outperformed PLS in terms of prediction, achieving a coefficient of determination (R2) close to 1 and a ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) exceeding 2.5 for proteins and several nutrients. These results underscore the potential of LIBS-ELM integration as a robust, non-destructive, and in situ tool for rapid forage quality assessment, particularly in complex and heterogeneous plant matrices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".