Original research paper

Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy

2018, Vol. 26(1) 44–52

Use of LOCAL algorithm with near infrared ! The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
spectroscopy in forage resources for grazing DOI: 10.1177/0967033517746900
journals.sagepub.com/home/jns
systems in Colombia

C Ariza-Nieto1, OL Mayorga1, B Mojica2, D Parra1 and G Afanador-Tellez2

Abstract
This study used a total of 2020 Colombian forage resources of three families (Grass forages, legume forages, and other
forage plants) to develop near infrared spectroscopy calibrations for predicting the nutritional value. Spectra were collected
at 2 nm increments using a scanning visible/near infrared spectrometer. The reference data used for each forage were crude
protein, crude ash, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, acid detergent lignin, measured according to the Association
of Official Analytical Chemists. Two chemometric tools for developing near infrared spectroscopy prediction models were
compared: the GLOBAL modified partial least squares, and the calibration strategy known as LOCAL. The LOCAL procedure is
designed to select, from a large database, samples with spectra resembling the sample being analyzed. Selected samples
were used as calibration sets after one-tenth of the samples were selected for validation from each database. Predictions of
nutrition indicators in validation samples using generic and specific calibrations were compared with both GLOBAL and
LOCAL procedures. For all predicted forages, LOCAL resulted in a significant improvement in both standard error of pre-
diction and bias values compared with GLOBAL. Determination coefficient values (r2) also improved using the LOCAL
algorithm, exceeding 0.9 for most forage sets. LOCAL calibration was then used with only one database (n 2020) comprising
all the forage samples and SEP and r2 were similar to those obtained in the three databases using LOCAL algorithm.
Therefore, LOCAL can accurately predict the composition of different forages using only one database, and could offer a
practical way to develop robust equations taking into account the biodiversity of Colombian forages.

Keywords
Colombian forages, chemometric, GLOBAL, LOCAL, calibration, near infrared
Received 28 September 2017; accepted 16 November 2017

topography; the characterization of tropical environ-

Introduction
In Colombia, Forage-based livestock production plays
a key role in national and regional economies, for food
security and poverty alleviation. Additionally, forages
are the cheapest nutrient resources to feed ruminants,
and the amount of forage ingested by an animal is the
most determinant on its nutritional value, which
depends on its availability, palatability, and digestibil-
ity.1–3 The production and conservation of high-quality
forages contribute to reduce the costs of production of
meat and milk and restrict under grazing conditions,
the use of concentrates and supplements for animals.
Forage resources of grasses and legumes play an
important role as a substitute for cereal grains in feed-
ing systems for meat and milk cattle, especially in
developing countries, such as Colombia.
Ruminant production systems are closely associated
with the respective agro-ecological zones associated
with its complex pattern of climate, soil, and
ments presents general patterns of climate and soils.
This environmental condition affects the nutritional
composition of the forages; these zones included: (1)
The Eastern Savannahs have a low carrying capacity
and the natural herbage has a low nutritional value
associated with low digestibility energy; (2) The
Andean Valleys hare more variable forages than in
the eastern reflecting a different endowment of
resources and a different socio-economic context,
although pasture-based, is more intensive that in
1
Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research CORPOICA, Department
of Animal Science, Bogota, Colombia
2
Colombian National University, Department of Animal Science, Bogota
Colombia
Corresponding author:
C Ariza-Nieto, Corporacion Colombiana de Investigacion Agropecuaria, Km
14 Via Mosquera Bogota, Cundinamarca 7984, Colombia.
Email: cariza@corpoica.org.co
Ariza-Nieto et al.
eastern Colombia; (3) Caribbean lowlands equals the
inter-Andean valleys in importance in terms of its
stock of cattle, but production systems are more diver-
sified than elsewhere in the country, since extensive beef
breeding operations coexist with dual purpose systems.
Pastures, both sown and natural, differ considerably
from those in the other regions of the country and a
great diversity of species can be found, depending on
soil drainage and fertility; (4) The Andean plateau near
Bogotá (Sabana de Bogotá) is characterized by fertile
soils with abundant organic matter; the area is used for
high value crops, such as flowers and horticulture, but
also for intensive, pasture-based dairying with high
grade Holstein cattle; and (5) Amazon basin, dual pur-
pose production systems evolved based almost exclu-
sively on pastures, currently dominated by Brachiaria
decumbens which alternates with degraded paddocks
with a variety of low quality naturalized grasses.4
These classifications have been used effectively to
analyze the range of adaptation of different tropical
forage resources. Thus, the genus Panicum adapts to
fertile soils with a wide range of precipitation, while
the genus Pennisetum is associated with fertile soils
and humid climates. The genus Cynodon has been
established particularly in fertile soils with humid envir-
onments, while the genus Brachiaria adapts to acid soils
with a low fertility.5 This relationship of the tropical
grasses with the environment has allowed its expansion
and even naturalization, when they have been intro-
duced to different microregions of Colombia. On the
other hand, tropical forage legumes have special adap-
tation requirements associated in some cases with the
effective fixation of nitrogen and in others by competi-
tion with aggressive pastures and defoliation by grazing
of the animals. However, tropical legumes increase the
protein supply of the diet, the rate of passage and sub-
sequently the animal performance when they are
associated with forage grasses.6
Fertilization is required in tropical conditions to
maintain high levels of animal production, since most
soils, especially those located in the humid tropics, have
low fertility.7,8 In these conditions a lot of nutrients are
removed and must be continually replaced. On the
other hand, proper management of grazing is essential
for an efficient use of forage produced and to ensure
long-term pasture productivity. Seasonal variations
(rainfall, drought) affect the growth of forages and a
solution to the abundance of forage resources produced
during the period of rapid growth is the conservation of
forages through the production of hay or silage. The
composition of hay or silage is similar to that of green
forage, although 10%–20% of nutrients may be lost
during processing.9
In order to monitor the great variability of the chem-
ical characteristics of tropical forages in accordance
with the previously described scenarios, analytical
methods of wet chemistry (proximal analysis and fiber
analysis) are used, which are characterized by a great
amount of time and resources from a laboratory;
45
additionally, these procedures use polluting chemicals.
In this context, alternative methods should be gener-
ated that overcome the disadvantages of wet chemical
methods and allow the analysis of a large number of
samples associated with the dynamics of the decision-
making processes that producers take to optimize milk
and meat production based on strategic management of
forages available on farms.
The near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is a physical
method, which depends on the measurement of the
absorption by a sample of wavelengths in the NIR
region (780–2500 nm) of the electromagnetic spectrum.
NIR technology has been utilized for the analysis of
animal feeds because of its potential benefits under rou-
tine conditions of rapidity, comprehension and low
cost.10 To obtain a satisfactory result of the nutrient
content of animal feed by NIR spectroscopy, it is neces-
sary to calibrate the apparatus against standard refer-
ence samples, which have been analyzed by traditional
methods of wet chemistry.
The first report on the use of the NIR spectroscopy
to evaluate forage quality was made in 197611 with
subsequent studies conducted in Chile,12 France,13
Uruguay,14 and Belgium.1 The literature on NIR appli-
cations focused primarily on three types of local
approaches: comparative analysis using structured
and constituted data (CARNAC), locally weighted
regressions (LWR), and the LOCAL algorithm used
in this study.
The objective of this study was to compare the reli-
ability of the NIR spectroscopy approaches: LOCAL
(linear PLS on selected samples) and GLOBAL MPLS
to predict the chemical characteristics of forage
resources used in grazing systems in Colombia. The
study used a biodiverse database to predict chemical
characteristics associated with the nutritional value of
forage resources and also to test the influence of this
type of validation on the parameters used to evaluate
the prediction performance of the two approaches.
Material and methods
Samples and reference methods
The study used a total of 2020 of forage resources avail-
able in feeding systems from different types of cattle
production in Colombia that were collected from
2012 to 2016. Colombia is a country with a large
plant biodiversity associated with its complex pattern
of climate, soil, and topography Three geographic
regions were characterized: the Andean Highlands,
consisting of the three Andean ranges and intervening
valley lowlands; the Caribbean lowlands coastal region,
and the Eastern region, the great plain that lies to the
east of the Andes and that includes the Amazon basin.
In Colombia, climate is tropical and isothermal and its
differences are related to altitude. Tropical rainforest is
in the Amazon basin and central Magdalena Valley
River, which is marked by an annual rainfall greater
46
than 2500 mm, with an average annual temperature
above 23 C. A tropical monsoon climate, which is char-
acterized by one or two periods of summer during the
year, is located on the coast of the Caribbean region
and in some areas of the Andean region. Tropical
savannahs are located in the lowlands of the
Caribbean region where wet and dry seasons alternate
during the year. This climate is also found in the plains
of the East and the upper part of the Magdalena River
with rainfall of 1000–1800 mm. In general, forage sam-
ples were taken during dry and rainy seasons at differ-
ent days of regrowth; previously, the samples
were analyzed for wet chemistry. Forage samples were
grouped by family in three databases: (1) grass forage
(n ¼ 1418); (2) legume forage (n ¼ 320); (3) other forage
plants (n ¼ 282).
Chemical analysis: Samples were oven-dried at 65 C
for 48 h to a constant weight, and then ground through a
1 mm screen. They were stored in ambient laboratory
conditions. The chemical composition was determined
by AOAC15 reference methods: Dry matter (DM)
105 C by AOAC2001.12 method; ashes by 942.05
AOAC984.13 method; crude protein (CP) by
AOAC984.13 method; neutral-detergent fiber (NDF)
by AOAC2002.04 method; acid-detergent fiber (ADF)
by AOAC973.18, and acid-detergent lignin (ADL) con-
centrations was determined from the acid detergent
insoluble residue treated with 12 M sulfuric acid.16
Samples were measured twice and the standard error
of the laboratory (SEL) was estimated according to the
equation SEL ¼ sqrt((sum(r1  r2)2)/2k) where r1 ¼ rep-
licate 1, r2 ¼ replicate 2, and k ¼ number of samples).
NIR spectroscopy analysis: After sample homogen-
ization, dry and round forage samples were placed in a
50 mm diameter ring cup and were scanned from 400 to
1098 and from 1100 to 2498 nm, in 2 nm increments,
using a scanning VIS/NIR spectrometer (Foss
NIRSystems model 6500; www.foss.com). Spectra
were recorded with the WinISI 4.7.0 (www.foss.com).
Every sample was measured twice and the average of
the replicated spectra, obtained as log (1/R), was used
in the calibration analysis.
Calibrations and validations: Calibrations were devel-
oped using WinISI 4.7.017 software. The CENTER
algorithm was applied before calibration development,
samples were ranked according to their Mahalanobis
distance (H) to the average sample. Samples with H
values greater than 3 were considered outliers and dis-
carded. The validation files were generated by selecting
every 10th sample of the center file, with the remaining
samples making up the calibration data set. Four data-
base calibration and validation sets were generated: A
generic database (n ¼ 1817 and n ¼ 203, respectively)
that included all the forage samples, grass forage
(n ¼ 1276 and n ¼ 142, respectively), legume for-
age (n ¼ 288 and n ¼ 32, respectively) and, other
forage plants (n ¼ 253 and n ¼ 29, respectively).
The modified partial least squares (MPLS) regres-
sion method was used to obtain equations for all the
Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 26(1)
studied parameters in the GLOBAL approach.18 After
developing MPLS equations, cross-validation was per-
formed to select the optimal number of factors and to
avoid overfitting. Calibration performance for each
model was assessed by standard error of calibration
(SEC), coefficient of determination of calibration
(R2C ), standard error of cross-calibration (SECV), coef-
ficient of determination in cross-validation (R2CV ), resi-
dual predictive deviation (RPD).19
All the equations were obtained using the standard
normal variate and detrend (SNVD) methods for
scatter correction. Four mathematical treatments
were tested (1,4,4,1; 1,8,8,1; 2,4,4,1; and 2,8,8,1), in
which the first digit is the number of the derivative,
the second digit is the gap over which the derivative is
calculated, the third digit is the number of data points
in the first smoothing and the fourth digit is the
number of data points in the second smoothing. No
outlier elimination was performed during calibration,
and the best predictive model obtained with each
database was subsequently subjected to external
validation.
In the LOCAL approach the specific factors for each
model were optimized according to the software
WinISI 4.7.0. The aim of the optimization was to
build models with the best prediction performance in
terms of standard error of prediction corrected for
mean bias (SEPc) to minimize the under and over fit-
ting of the model. These factors were the optimum
number of selected samples and the minimum and max-
imum PLS components for the LOCAL prediction
models.20
In order to evaluate the predictive capacity of the
calibrations four strategies of validations were
performed: (1) GLOBAL generic ¼ global equations
using the entire forage database, (2) GLOBAL
specific ¼ global equations using each single product
database, (3) LOCAL generic ¼ local procedure using
the entire forage database, (4) LOCAL specific ¼ local
procedure using each single product database.
Results and discussion
The number of samples, mean, standard deviation,
standard error of laboratory (SEL), minimum, and
maximum values of the chemical composition variables
for both calibration and validation sets in the generic
database are given in Table 1. The database with all
forages contained large range of values for each con-
stituent. For instance, CP ranged from 2.3% DM to
36.0% DM, CA ranged from 2.8% DM to 19.4%
DM, NDF ranged from 18.7% DM to 76.2% DM,
ADF ranged from 5.2% DM to 50.3% DM, ADL
ranged from 0.8% DM to 12.3% DM. Differences
between minimum and maximum values of all the ref-
erence methods confirmed that the calibration set was
constructed with a diverse set of Colombian forages
that were collected in different geographic regions, alti-
tude, seasons (dry and wet), at different days of
Ariza-Nieto et al. 47

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the chemical characteristics of samples used in the calibration and validation sets for the generic
database.

Calibration set (n ¼ 1817) Validation set (n ¼ 203)

N Minimum Maximum Mean s.d. SEL n Minimum Maximum Mean s.d.

DM % 1237 84.2 97.8 92.1 1.9 3.19 139 84.4 96.9 92.0 2.1
CP % DM 1550 2.3 36.0 14.4 6.4 0.50 180 2.4 33.4 15.3 7.0
CA % DM 1279 2.8 19.4 10.1 2.5 0.20 148 4.0 15.7 10.2 2.3
NDF % DM 1768 18.7 76.2 54.1 10.8 1.55 201 18.7 72.2 54.2 10.5
ADF % DM 1714 5.2 50.3 26.5 6.7 1.45 194 6.3 49.7 26.5 7.3
ADL % DM 606 0.8 12.3 4.8 2.2 1.23 78 0.9 11.5 4.6 2.0
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; n: number of samples;
s.d.: standard deviation; SEL: standard error of laboratory.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the chemical characteristics of samples used in the calibration and validation sets for the specific
databases: grass forage, legume forage and other forage plants.

Nutrient n Minimum Maximum Mean s.d. n Minimum Maximum Mean s.d.

Calibration set (n ¼ 1276) Validation set (n ¼ 142)

Grass forage
DM % 804 84.2 97.8 92.1 2.0 90 84.4 96.9 91.9 2.3
CP % DM 1156 2.3 35.2 13.1 6.2 132 2.4 33.4 14.2 6.6
CA % DM 884 2.8 17.9 10.2 2.5 100 4.0 15.7 10.4 2.3
NDF % DM 1247 33.8 76.2 59.0 6.6 140 39.9 72.2 58.6 6.5
ADF % DM 1223 12.0 40.6 27.4 4.8 136 14.1 38.2 27.0 4.8
ADL % DM 337 1.7 12.3 5.3 2.5 46 2.0 11.5 4.9 2.2
Calibration set (n ¼ 288) Validation set (n ¼ 32)
Legume forage
DM % 230 86.3 97.0 92.3 1.7 26 88.5 96.5 92.6 1.9
CP % DM 211 6.9 31.3 19.2 5.4 26 8.3 31.8 18.7 6.5
CA % DM 201 4.4 15.0 9.4 2.2 25 5.8 15.4 9.0 2.3
NDF % DM 274 28.3 72.5 44.5 10.1 32 32.7 66.4 46.4 10.5
ADF % DM 262 9.3 50.3 27.2 9.2 31 14.0 49.7 27.4 11.0
ADL % DM 124 1.7 9.0 4.7 1.7 12 3.0 7.7 5.0 1.5
Calibration set (n ¼ 253) Validation set (n ¼ 29)
Other forage plants
DM % 203 87.7 94.8 91.9 1.3 23 89.0 94.2 91.9 1.2
CP % DM 183 6.2 36.0 17.0 5.7 22 6.8 33.1 18.1 7.9
CA % DM 194 5.6 19.4 10.8 2.8 23 7.2 14.1 10.2 2.0
NDF % DM 247 18.7 72.4 39.9 9.2 29 18.7 65.6 41.7 11.1
ADF % DM 229 5.2 48.3 21.0 9.1 27 6.3 45.8 23.1 10.8
ADL % DM 145 0.8 8.0 3.8 1.6 20 0.9 6.6 3.5 1.6
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; N: number of samples;
s.d.: standard deviation.

regrowth. The reduction of the database to smaller
data sets (by family) generated more homogenous
matrices. The mean, minimum, maximum and stand-
ard deviation values of the calibration set were also
similar to those of the validation set for the family of
grass forages, legume forages and other forage plants
(Table 2).
GLOBAL calibrations were developed to predict the
nutritional value of Colombian forages. Tables 3 to 6
show the calibration statistics of the different calibra-
tion sets evaluated (grass forage, specific legume forage,
specific other forage plants and generic forages data-
base, respectively), together with the math treatments
and the number of PLS factors used. According to the
48 Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 26(1)

Table 3. Equation development statistics of GLOBAL using a specific grass forage database with different math treatments.

Calibration Cross-validation

Nutrient Math PLS terms n s.d. SEC R2C SECV R2CV RPD

DM % 2441 9 804 2.05 1.12 0.70 1.24 0.63 1.65

CP % DM 2881 10 1156 6.16 0.84 0.98 0.86 0.98 7.12
CA % DM 2441 10 884 2.46 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.85 2.63
NDF % DM 2441 9 1247 6.56 2.20 0.89 2.32 0.88 2.83
ADF % DM 2881 9 1223 4.83 1.90 0.85 1.97 0.83 2.45
ADL % DM 2441 9 337 2.48 0.77 0.90 0.91 0.86 2.72
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; N: number of samples;
s.d.: standard deviation; SEC: standard error of calibration; R2C : coefficient of determination in calibration; SECV: standard error of cross-calibration; R2CV :
coefficient of determination in cross-validation; RPD: residual predicted deviation.

Table 4. Equation development statistics of GLOBAL using a specific legume forage database with different math treatments.

Calibration Cross-validation

Nutrient Math PLS terms n s.d. SEC R2C SECV R2CV RPD

DM % 2881 6 230 1.68 0.95 0.68 1.02 0.63 1.64

CP % DM 2881 10 211 5.38 0.77 0.98 0.87 0.97 6.17
CA % DM 2441 8 201 2.24 0.90 0.84 1.15 0.74 1.95
NDF % DM 1441 8 274 10.09 2.79 0.92 3.13 0.90 3.23
ADF % DM 2441 8 262 9.18 1.95 0.96 2.49 0.93 3.68
ADL % DM 2441 6 124 1.72 0.78 0.80 1.00 0.66 1.73
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; N: number of samples;
s.d.: standard deviation; SEC: standard error of calibration; R2C : coefficient of determination in calibration; SECV: standard error of cross-calibration; R2CV :
coefficient of determination in cross-validation; RPD: residual predicted deviation.

Table 5. Equation development statistics of GLOBAL using a specific other forage plants database with different math treatments.

Calibration Cross-validation

Nutrient Math PLS terms n s.d. SEC R2C SECV R2CV RPD

DM % 2881 7 203 1.23 0.68 0.70 0.77 0.60 1.58

CP % DM 2881 10 183 5.66 0.77 0.98 0.94 0.97 6.05
CA % DM 2441 10 194 2.77 0.79 0.92 1.06 0.85 2.62
NDF % DM 2441 7 247 9.19 2.76 0.91 3.23 0.88 2.85
ADF % DM 2441 5 229 9.09 2.05 0.95 2.32 0.93 3.93
ADL % DM 2881 6 145 1.60 0.61 0.85 0.74 0.80 2.17
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; N: number of samples;
s.d.: standard deviation; SEC: standard error of calibration; R2C : coefficient of determination in calibration; SECV: standard error of cross-calibration; R2CV :
coefficient of determination in cross-validation; RPD: residual predicted deviation.

results, when using the generic calibration with the entire
forage database, spectral variations had a low correl-
ation with DM (R2CV 0.58 and RPD 1.55) values, while
in the specific calibration of each database, DM correl-
ations improved in the grass forage (R2CV 0.63 and RPD
1.65), legume forage (R2CV 0.63 and RPD 1.64), and
other forage plants (R2CV 0.60 and RPD 1.58). The
ADL in the generic forage calibration also showed a
low correlation (R2CV 0.78 and RPD 2.14); however, in
the specific calibration of grass forage database and in
the specific other forage plants database, the correlation
improved (R2CV 0.86 and RPD 2.72; R2CV 0.80 and RPD
2.17), but in the legume forage database, this value was
lower (R2CV 0.66 and RPD 1.73), whereas CP, NDF,
ADF, and CA calibration equations explained more
than 80% the variance of the nutritional value of
Colombian forages, except for CA in the legume
forage calibration equation (R2CV 0.74).
The math treatment of the best predictive models
obtained with each database was subsequently sub-
jected to external validation. For the specific grass
forage database math treatment selected and PLS fac-
tors used for each nutrient were: DM (2441 and 9),
CP (2881 and 10), CA (2441 and 10), NDF (2441
and 9), ADF (2881 and 9), ADL (2441 and 9)
(Table 3). For the specific legume forage database
Ariza-Nieto et al. 49

Table 6. Equation development statistics of GLOBAL using a generic forages database with different math treatments.

Calibration Cross-validation

Nutrient Math PLS terms n s.d. SEC R2C SECV R2CV RPD

DM % 2441 8 1237 1.88 1.17 0.61 1.21 0.58 1.55

CP % DM 2441 10 1550 6.42 0.89 0.98 0.93 0.98 6.91
CA % DM 2441 9 1279 2.51 1.02 0.83 1.07 0.82 2.34
NDF % DM 2441 9 1768 10.83 3.01 0.92 3.13 0.92 3.46
ADF % DM 2441 9 1714 6.71 2.55 0.86 2.68 0.84 2.50
ADL % DM 2441 9 606 2.24 0.93 0.83 1.05 0.78 2.14
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; N: number of samples;
s.d.: standard deviation; SEC: standard error of calibration; R2C : coefficient of determination in calibration; SECV: standard error of cross-calibration; R2CV :
coefficient of determination in cross-validation; RPD: residual predicted deviation.

Table 7. Monitoring statistics of the validation set of the grass forage database using GLOBAL and LOCAL.

Nutrient Math n Bias SEPc r2 Best locala Bias SEPc r2

Global generic Local generic

DM % 2441 90 0.16 1.20 0.73 1,501,010 0.20 0.77 0.89

CP % DM 2441 132 0.10 0.89 0.98 250,810 0.09 0.82 0.99
CA % DM 2441 100 0.06 1.08 0.78 2001,010 0.02 0.95 0.84
NDF % DM 2441 140 0.06 2.63 0.84 200,810 0.04 1.72 0.93
ADF % DM 2441 136 0.17 2.18 0.80 150,110 0.09 1.52 0.90
ADL % DM 2441 46 0.11 0.98 0.80 100,510 0.09 0.69 0.90
Global specific Local specific

DM % 2441 90 0.15 1.04 0.79 150,910 0.18 0.81 0.88

CP % DM 2881 132 0.11 0.91 0.98 250,910 0.08 0.75 0.99
CA % DM 2441 100 0.19 0.98 0.82 20,039 0.02 0.89 0.85
NDF % DM 2441 140 0.11 2.15 0.89 10,069 0.08 1.75 0.93
ADF % DM 2881 136 0.08 1.57 0.90 150,110 0.04 1.51 0.90
ADL % DM 2441 46 0.14 0.90 0.83 10,017 0.18 0.71 0.89
a
Local settings: number of selected samples, number of PLS factors (minimum number, maximum number).
Generic: calibration using the entire forage database. Specific: calibration using the single grass forage database. DM: dry matter; CP: Crude protein; CA:
crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; n: number of samples; SEPc: standard error of prediction
corrected for bias; r2: coefficient of determination.

math treatments and PLS factors used were: DM
(2881 and 6), CP (2881 and 10), CA (2441 and 8),
NDF (1441 and 8), ADF (2441 and 8), ADL (2441
and 6) (Table 4). For the specific other forage plants
database math treatments selected and PLS factors
used in each parameter were: DM (2881 and 7), CP
(2881 and 10), CA (2441 and 10), NDF (2441 and 7),
ADF (2441 and 5), ADL (2881 and 6) (Table 5). In
the generic forage database, the math treatment
selected and PLS factors used for each nutrient
were: DM (2441 and 8), CP (2441 and 10), CA
(2441 and 9), NDF (2441 and 9), ADF (2441 and
9), ADL (2441 and 9) (Table 6).
In the GLOBAL calibration, the selection of the
samples is a critical step with greater effects on the pre-
cision and accuracy of the process. In this sense, the
selection of samples for calibration should include all
possible sources of variation encountered during the
prediction in order to increase the robustness of the
calibration, although this usually reduces the predic-
tion.20 As could be expected, the GLOBAL generic cali-
brations of each database had the largest SEPc values
in the majority of nutrients evaluated, when compared
to specific GLOBAL calibrations, but in the case of the
grass forage database, the GLOBAL generic for the CP
nutrient was slightly lower compared to the GLOBAL
specific (0.89% DM vs. 0.91% DM) (Table 7). For the
legume forage database, a similar behavior was
observed for the CA nutrient (1.12% DM vs. 1.50%
DM) (Table 8).
Within the LOCAL algorithm, in the generic and
specific calibrations, SEPc values varied in each nutri-
ent depending on the database used. In the grass forage
database DM, NDF, and ADL presented lower SEPc
in the generic LOCAL calibration compared to the spe-
cific LOCAL calibration, while, in the other nutrients
50 Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 26(1)

Table 8. Monitoring statistics of the validation set of the legume forage database using GLOBAL and LOCAL.

Nutrient Math n Bias SEPc r2 Best locala Bias SEPc r2

Global generic Local generic

DM % 2441 26 0.04 1.39 0.45 10,099 0.02 1.25 0.56

CP % DM 2441 27 0.10 1.32 0.96 15,088 0.03 0.96 0.98
CA % DM 2441 25 0.06 1.12 0.77 10,057 0.07 0.89 0.86
NDF % DM 2441 32 0.94 4.41 0.83 10,099 0.75 3.08 0.92
ADF % DM 2441 31 0.90 2.63 0.95 10,099 0.81 1.53 0.98
ADL % DM 2441 12 0.56 0.73 0.80 5012 1.04 0.80 0.73
Global specific Local specific

DM % 2881 26 0.07 1.32 0.52 15,066 0.01 1.22 0.59

CP % DM 2881 27 0.03 0.83 0.98 10,099 0.09 0.83 0.98
CA % DM 2441 25 0.01 1.50 0.59 10,044 0.07 1.25 0.71
NDF % DM 1441 32 0.21 3.36 0.90 10,088 0.05 3.38 0.90
ADF % DM 2441 31 0.20 1.79 0.98 10,099 0.55 1.47 0.98
ADL % DM 2441 12 0.18 0.64 0.84 5058 0.07 0.67 0.83
a
Local settings: number of selected samples, number of PLS factors (minimum number, maximum number).
Generic: Calibration using the entire forage database. Specific: Calibration using the single legume forage database.
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; n: number of samples;
SEPc: standard error of prediction corrected for bias; r2: coefficient of determination.

higher SEPc values were obtained when using the spe-
cific LOCAL calibration (Table 7). In the legume
forage database all the nutrients presented lower
SEPc values in the specific LOCAL calibration,
except for CA and NDF that showed a lower SEPc
value when using the generic LOCAL calibration
(0.89% DM vs. 1.25% DM and 3.08% DM vs.
3.38% DM, respectively) (Table 8). In the other
forage plants database CA (0.66% DM vs. 0.74%
DM), NDF (3.16% DM vs. 3.35% DM), and ADF
(2.31% DM vs. 2.49% DM) had lower SEPc values
in the generic LOCAL calibration, while DM (0.90%
DM vs. 0.79% DM) and ADL (1.09% DM vs. 0.57%
DM) had lower SEPc values when using the generic
LOCAL calibration, CP presented similar SEPc
values in both calibrations (Table 9).
The use of the LOCAL algorithm obviates the need
to select between precision and robustness of a calibra-
tion; Consequently, when the algorithm is used for an
unknown sample, it must be predicted that a specific
equation is obtained from a group of samples selected
from a database based on its spectral similarity to the
unknown sample, which allows obtaining a high degree
of accuracy in prediction; On the other hand, robust-
ness is achieved by building a comprehensive database
that must have thousands of samples.21 In this study,
the accuracy of LOCAL algorithm, was tested on the
validation files using only the entire forage database
(Table 10). Again, LOCAL SEPc values were lower
than those reported by the GLOBAL calibration and
the r2 value also was improved with the LOCAL
algorithm. The greatest increases were observed in the
estimates of DM (r2 0.65 vs. r2 0.81), CA (r2 0.78 vs. r2
0.86), ADF (r2 0.87 vs. r2 0.95) and ADL (r2 0.78 vs.
r2 0.88) and the lowest increase was for the CP variable
(r2 0.98 vs. r2 0.99).
The specific LOCAL calibration using samples in the
grass forage database showed lower SEPc values com-
pared to using samples in the only one database; how-
ever, SEPc values with the only one database were
lower than those obtained using the specific LOCAL
calibration of the legume forage, except for CP
(0.87% DM vs 0.83% DM). Using samples in the
other forage plants database, SEPc values were lower
using the only one database compared to the specific
LOCAL approach for CP (0.87% DM vs. 0.91% DM),
NDF (2.40% DM vs. 3.35% DM), and ADF (1.71%
DM vs. 2.49% DM).
The comparison of the bias values between the
GLOBAL and LOCAL algorithm showed lower
values for the nutrients evaluated in the whole forage
database (Tables 10). Lower values were more consist-
ent for nutrients related to fiber fractions of forage
resources: NDF (0.26% DM vs. 0.13% DM), ADF
(0.10% DM vs. 0.07% DM), and ADL (0.14%
DM vs. 0.07% DM). On the other hand, considering
that the total errors of a prediction by NIR spectros-
copy can be divided in the sum of the errors,22 it can be
inferred that the greater precision of the LOCAL algo-
rithm is attributable to a considerable reduction in the
error due to the chemometric model used.
NIR spectroscopy calibration studies have tradition-
ally used what are known as the GLOBAL equations
by which a GLOBAL calibration group is used to
obtain predictive models; however, the potential of
using a local algorithm was evident in the literature,
but the major limitation was initially the large
number of computations required for the prediction
Ariza-Nieto et al. 51

Table 9. Monitoring statistics of the validation set of the other forage plants database using GLOBAL and LOCAL.

Nutrient Math n Bias SEPc r2 Best locala Bias SEPc r2

Global generic Local generic

DM % 2441 23 0.16 1.14 0.21 1,501,010 0.09 0.90 0.43

CP % DM 2441 23 0.14 1.15 0.98 150,410 0.32 0.91 0.99
CA % DM 2441 23 0.15 1.10 0.71 50,410 0.01 0.66 0.89
NDF % DM 2441 29 0.47 4.11 0.87 15,022 0.52 3.16 0.92
ADF % DM 2441 27 0.04 4.26 0.85 150,510 0.23 2.31 0.96
ADL % DM 2441 20 0.03 1.02 0.65 10,058 0.02 1.09 0.84
Global specific Local specific

DM % 2881 23 0.13 0.94 0.39 10,055 0.07 0.79 0.57

CP % DM 2881 23 0.04 0.90 0.99 10,068 0.19 0.91 0.99
CA % DM 2441 23 0.25 0.84 0.82 5077 0.01 0.74 0.87
NDF % DM 2441 29 0.49 3.35 0.91 10,015 0.82 3.35 0.92
ADF % DM 2441 27 0.26 2.95 0.93 10,066 0.17 2.49 0.95
ADL % DM 2881 20 0.12 0.68 0.84 10,034 0.15 0.57 0.87
a
Local settings: number of selected samples, number of PLS factors (minimum number, maximum number).
Generic: Calibration using the entire forage database. Specific: Calibration using the single other forage plants database.
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; n: number of samples;
SEPc: standard error of prediction corrected for bias; r2: coefficient of determination.

Table 10. Monitoring statistic of the validation set using GLOBAL and LOCAL calibrations with the entire forage database.

Global Local

Nutrient Math n Bias SEPc r2 Best locala Bias SEPc r2

DM % 2441 139 0.07 1.23 0.65 1,501,010 0.10 0.92 0.81

CP % DM 2441 182 0.08 0.99 0.98 150,810 0.04 0.87 0.99
CA % DM 2441 148 0.05 1.08 0.78 1,001,010 0.04 0.89 0.86
NDF % DM 2441 201 0.26 3.21 0.91 150,110 0.13 2.40 0.95
ADF % DM 2441 194 0.10 2.62 0.87 100,110 0.07 1.71 0.95
ADL % DM 2441 78 0.14 0.96 0.78 100,910 0.07 0.71 0.88
a
Local settings: number of selected samples, number of PLS factors (minimum number, maximum number).
DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; CA: crude ash; NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; n: number of samples;
SEPc: standard error of prediction corrected for bias; r2: coefficient of determination.

of routine analyses.23–25 This limitation was overcome
when the LOCAL algorithm was presented, which was
able to carry out fast and accurate predictions.13,20 In
this study, the ability of LOCAL to select forage sam-
ples was not affected by the number and variety of for-
ages include in the database because diverse forage
families were included in the only one database. This
is because the LOCAL algorithm selects forage samples
and creates a unique calibration equation for a single
sample, in addition is not necessary to identify the type
of sample that is going to be analyzed, however accur-
acy of the prediction is guaranteed because if the GH
and NH of the unknown forage sample are within spe-
cifications the analytical result can be reliable.
Conclusions
The accuracy of prediction of LOCAL algorithm has
proved to predict the nutritional value of Colombian
forages better than using the GLOBAL approach. In
this sense, LOCAL can accurately predict the compos-
ition of different forages using only one database, and
could offer a practical way to develop a robust equation
taking into account the biodiversity of Colombian
forages.
The LOCAL algorithm combines the advantages of
the GLOBAL strategy as it uses a simple database that
covers all the expected variability of the population
sample under study with an accuracy that is obtained
through specific calibrations. Therefore, a greater pre-
cision and accuracy of the predictions of the quality of
forages using the LOCAL algorithm is obtained by
evaluating the averages of the statistical data for SEP,
bias, and r2 compared to the predictions obtained using
GLOBAL calibrations.
The LOCAL algorithm has proven to be an invalu-
able strategy to minimize errors in calibration equa-
tions to predict the nutritional value of forages given
52
the complexity of the process and the wide range of feed
resources used in ruminant production processes.
NIR spectroscopy technology provides a rapid
sensor for the routine analysis of the nutritional quality
dynamics of grasses, legumes and other forage
resources used in grazing feeding systems across a
broad spectrum of the tropical landscape.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support from livestock Network of
Corpoica for sending the forage samples. We are also grateful
to Alipio Loaiza, Doris Montañez and Enrique Castro for
their technical support in the chemical and spectral analysis.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: We acknowledge funding from Agriculture Minister
of Colombia.
References
1. Decruyenaere V, Planchon V, Dardenne P, et al.
Prediction error and repeatability of near infrared reflect-
ance spectroscopy applied to faeces samples in order to
predict voluntary intake and digestibility of forages by
ruminants. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005; 205: 49–59.
2. Hanna WW, Dujardin M and Monson WG. Using diverse
species to improve quality and yield in the Pennisetum
genus. In: Proc. XVI Int. Grassl. Congr. Nice, France,
1989.
3. Tassone S, Masoero G and Peiretti PG. Vibrational spec-
troscopy to predict in vitro digestibility and the maturity
index of different forage crops during the growing cycle
and after freeze- or oven-drying treatment. J. Anim Feed
Sci Technol 2014; 194: 12–25.
4. Vera RR. Country pasture/forage resource profiles,
Colombia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/
counprof/PDF%20files/Colombia-English.pdf, 2006
(accessed 1 November 2017).
5. Pitman WD Environmental constraints to tropical forage
plant adaptation and productivity. In: Sotomayor-Rios A;
Pitman WD, (eds.) Tropical forage plants: Development
and use. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 2000, p. 17–
23. DOI: 10.1201/9781420038781.ch2.
6. Aiken GE, Pitman WD, Chambliss CG, et al. Responses
of yearling steers to different stocking rates on a subtrop-
ical grass-legume pasture. J. Anim Sci 1991; 69: 3348.
7. de Sant-Anna AC, Jantalia CP, Sá JM, et al. Changes in
soil organic carbon during 22 years of pastures, cropping
or integrated crop/livestock systems in the Brazilian
Cerrado. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 2017; 108: 101–120.
8. Vicente-Chandler J. Fertilization of humid tropical grass-
lands. In: Mays DA (ed) Forage fertilization., ASA,
Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 26(1)
CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 277–300. 1974.
DOI:10.2134/1974.foragefertilization.c13.
9. Gallaher RN and Pitman WD. Conservation of forages
in the tropics and subtropics. In: Sotomayor-Rios A and
Pitman WD (eds) Tropical forage plants: development and
use, 2001.
10. Workman J and Weyer L (eds.) In: Practical guide to
interpretive near infrared spectroscopy. Boca Raton:
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2008.
11. Norris KH, Barnes RF, Moore JE, et al. Predicting
forage quality by infrared reflectance spectroscopy.
J Anim Sci 1976; 43: 889–897.
12. Alomar D, Fuchslocher R, Cuevas J, et al. Prediction of
the composition of fresh pastures by near infrared reflect-
ance or interactance-reflectance spectroscopy. J. Chilean
J Agric Res 2009; 69: 198–206.
13. Andueza D, Picard F, Jestin M, et al. NIRS prediction of
the feed value of temperate forages: efficacy of four cali-
bration strategies. J Anim 2011; 5: 1002–1013.
14. Cozzolino D, Acosta YG and Garcı́a J. Application of
near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to forage
evaluation in Uruguay. In: International grasslands con-
gress, 19, San Pedro, 2001, Proceedings. Piracicaba:
FEALQ, p. 370.
15. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 19th
ed. 2012, Official Journal of the European Communities,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
16. Van Soest PJ and Robertson JB. Analysis of forages and
fibrous foods a laboratory manual for animal science.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1985.
17. Shenk JS and Westerhaus MO. The application of near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) to forage ana-
lysis. In: Fahey GC Jr. (ed.) Forage quality, evaluation and
utilization. Madison: Soil Science Society of America/
American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of
America, 1994, pp.406–449.
18. Shenk JS and Westerhaus MO. Calibration system for
spectrographic analyzing instruments. U.S. Patent
5798526, 1998.
19. Workman J and Mark H. Choosing the best regression
model. J. Spectrosc 2015; 30.
20. Shenk JS, Westerhaus MO and Berzaghi P. Investigation
of a LOCAL calibration procedure for NIR instruments.
J. Near Infrared Spectrosc 1997; 5: 223–232.
21. Berzaghi P, Shenk JS and Westerhaus MO. LOCAL pre-
diction with near infrared multi-product databases. J.
Near Infrared Spectrosc 2000; 8: 1–9.
22. Mark H and Workman J. Statistics in spectroscopy. New
York: Academic Press, 1991.
23. Davies AM, Britcher HV, Franklin JG, et al. The appli-
cation of Fourier-transformed near-infrared spectra to
quantitative analysis by comparison of similarity indices
(CARNAC). J Microchimica Acta 1988; 94: 61–64.
24. Naes T, Isaksson T and Kowalski B. Locally weighted
regression and scatter correction for near-infrared reflect-
ance data. J Anal Chem 1990; 62: 664–673.
25. Aastveit AH and Marum P. Near-infrared reflectance
spectroscopy: different strategies for local calibrations
in analyses of forage quality. J Appl Spectrosc 1993; 47:
463–469.