Length Distribution and Other Dimensional Parameters of Chopped Forage by Image Analysis
Abstract
Traditional particle size analysis of chopped forage is done by mechanical sieving, thereby providing mass distribution of one dimension. Recent studies have shown that long and narrow particles can tip during shaking and slide through holes smaller than the longest particle dimension. Meanwhile, well calibrated image analysis is definitely more accurate than screening in measuring true dimensions of chopped particles. An experiment was carried out with chopped alfalfa and corn harvested at three theoretical lengths of cut (TLOC = 4.8, 9.5, and 11.1 mm). Particles were initially sorted by the ASABE standard screening method. Particles within each screen were spread on a flat surface and photographed. Pictures were processed with the Image Analysis Toolbox in MATLAB, providing total pixel area, vector length (greatest distance between two points on the periphery), and an estimate of width for individual particles. All particles per picture were weighed, providing an estimate of volume and the third dimension (thickness). The ASABE standard method underestimated particle length as measured by image analysis by an average of 31%. Width was not significantly different for alfalfa particles at three TLOC, as expected, but it increased for corn as TLOC increased, indicating breakage in two dimensions (length and width) due to the bulky nature of corn. Image analysis and mass measurements provided detailed information on total outer surface area per unit mass, with an average of 218…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Traditional sieving analysis underestimated particle length by 31% compared with image analysis.
“Results indicated that traditional sieving analysis underestimated particle length by 31% compared with image analysis.”
From Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for whole-plant and fractionated corn silage harvesting (2018) · cites this paper as Savoie et al. (2014)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ferraretto, L. F., Shaver, R. D., & Luck, B. D. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13728 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
- Authors
- Savoie, P., Audy-Dubé, M.-A., Pilon, G., & Morissette, R.
- ORCID
- René Morissette
- Venue
- Transactions of the ASABE
- Published
- 2014-12-18
- Pages
- 1549-1555
- ISSN
- 2151-0032 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-0040
- OpenAlex
- W2235089447
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transactions of the ASABE (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Leaf Properties and Growth Measurement
- Keywords
- image analysis, mechanical sieving, alfalfa, maize, particle breakage, forage particle size
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