Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gravimetric Determination of Amylase-Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds with Refluxing in Beakers or Crucibles: Collaborative Study

Mertens, David R, Collaborators:, Allen, M, Carmany, J, Clegg, J, Davidowicz, A, Drouches, M, Frank, K, Gambin, D, Garkie, M, Gildemeister, B, Jeffress, D, Jeon, C-S, Jones, D, Kaplan, D, Kim, G-N, Kobata, S, Main, D, Moua, X, Paul, B, Robertson, J, Taysom, D, Thiex, N, Williams, J, Wolf, M·2002·Journal of AOAC International

Abstract

As an important constituent of animal feeds, fiber represents the portion of feeds that is bulky and difficult to digest. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) method, developed over 30 years ago, is the method of choice for measuring total fiber in forages and other feeds. Several modifications that were made to improve its general applicability to all feeds and others developed in individual laboratories often resulted in variability among laboratories in measuring NDF. The amylase-treated NDF (aNDF) method, therefore, was developed as an accurate and precise method of measuring total insoluble fiber in feeds. A collaborative study was conducted to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the aNDF method over the full range of animal feed materials. Twelve laboratories representing research, feed company, regulatory, and commercial feed testing laboratories analyzed 11 materials as blind duplicates. The materials represented feed matrixes, including animal products; high-protein, high-fat, and high-pectin feeds; oil seeds; grains; heated by-product feeds; and legume and grass hays and silages. Materials selected varied in chemical composition and contained 0–90% aNDF, 1–16% ash, 1–20% crude fat, 1–40% crude protein, and 0–50% starch. Correcting results for changes in blanks and reporting results as ash-free aNDF organic matter (aNDFom) improved the repeatability and reproducibility of results when aNDF was <25%. The within-laboratory repeatability standard deviation (sr) for percentage aNDFom in feeds varied from 0.21 to 1.82 and among-laboratory reproducibility standard deviation (sR) varied from 0.37 to 2.24. The HORRAT was <2 for all materials except feed materials containing >10% fat. However, standard deviations of repeatability and reproducibility for feeds with >10% fat were similar to those of other materials. It is recommended that the aNDF method be accepted for Official First Action status.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 2,622

Metadata

Authors
Mertens, D. R., Collaborators:, Allen, M., Carmany, J., Clegg, J., Davidowicz, A., Drouches, M., Frank, K., Gambin, D., Garkie, M., Gildemeister, B., Jeffress, D., Jeon, C.-S., Jones, D., Kaplan, D., Kim, G.-N., Kobata, S., Main, D., Moua, X., Paul, B., Robertson, J., Taysom, D., Thiex, N., Williams, J., & Wolf, M.
Venue
Journal of AOAC International
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
85
Issue
6
Pages
1217-1240
ISSN
  • 1060-3271 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7922
OpenAlex
W1529137672
Cited by
2,622
References
2
FWCI
7.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gravimetric Determination of Amylase-Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds with Refluxing in Beakers or Crucibles: Collaborative Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217
The paper
Mertens, D. R., Collaborators:, Allen, M., Carmany, J., Clegg, J., Davidowicz, A., Drouches, M., Frank, K., Gambin, D., Garkie, M., Gildemeister, B., Jeffress, D., Jeon, C.-S., Jones, D., Kaplan, D., Kim, G.-N., Kobata, S., Main, D., Moua, X., . . . Wolf, M. (2002). Gravimetric Determination of Amylase-Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds with Refluxing in Beakers or Crucibles: Collaborative Study. Journal of AOAC International. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.