Getting value out of your sensory testing - the difference from control test

Non-parametric difference tests such as triangle and duo-trio tests traditionally are used to establish differences or similarities between products. However they only supply the researcher with partial answers and often further testing is required to establish the nature, size and direction of differences. This paper looks at the advantages of the difference from control (DFC) test (also known as degree of difference test) and discusses appropriate applications of the test. The scope and principle of the test, panel composition and analysis of results are presented with the aid of suitable examples. Two of the major uses of the DFC test are in quality control and shelf-life testing. The role DFC takes in these areas and the use of other tests to complement the testing is discussed. Controls or standards are important in both these areas and the use of standard products, mental and written standards and blind controls are highlighted. The DFC test has applications in products where the duo-trio and triangle tests cannot be used because of the normal heterogeneity of the product. While the DFC test is a simple difference test it can be structured to give the researcher more valuable data and scope to make informed decisions about their product.

Satellite evidence of harmful algal blooms and related oceanographic features in the Bohai Sea during autumn 1998

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are truly global marine phenomena of increasing significance. Some HAB occurrences are different to observe because of their high spatial and temporal variability and their advection, once formed, by surface currents. A serious HAB occurred in the Bohai Sea during autumn 1998, causing the largest fisheries economic loss. The present study analyzes the formation, distribution, and advection of HAB using satellite SeaWiFS ocean color data and other oceanographic data. The results show that the bloom originated in the western coastal waters of the Bohai Sea in early September, and developed southeastward when sea surface temperature (SST) increased to 25-26 °C. The bloom with a high Chl-a concentration (6.5 mg m-3) in center portion covered an area of 60 × 65 km2. At the end of September, the bloom decayed when SST decreased to 22-23 °C. The HAB may have been initiated by a combination of the river discharge nutrients in the west coastal waters and the increase of SST; afterwards it may have been transported eastward by the local circulation that was enhanced by northwesterly winds in late September and early October.

A universal equation to predict methane production of forage-fed cattle in Australia

The methods for estimating methane emissions from cattle as used in the Australian national inventory are based on older data that have now been superseded by a large amount of more recent data. Recent data suggested that the current inventory emissions estimates can be improved. To address this issue, a total of 1034 individual animal records of daily methane production (MP) was used to reassess the relationship between MP and each of dry matter intake (DMI) and gross energy intake (GEI). Data were restricted to trials conducted in the past 10 years using open-circuit respiration chambers, with cattle fed forage-based diets (forage >70%). Results from diets considered to inhibit methanogenesis were omitted from the dataset. Records were obtained from dairy cattle fed temperate forages (220 records), beef cattle fed temperate forages (680 records) and beef cattle fed tropical forages (133 records). Relationships were very similar for all three production categories and single relationships for MP on a DMI or GEI basis were proposed for national inventory purposes. These relationships were MP (g/day) = 20.7 (±0.28) × DMI (kg/day) (R2 = 0.92, P < 0.001) and MP (MJ/day) = 0.063 (±0.008) × GEI (MJ/day) (R2 = 0.93, P < 0.001). If the revised MP (g/day) approach is used to calculate Australia’s national inventory, it will reduce estimates of emissions of forage-fed cattle by 24%. Assuming a global warming potential of 25 for methane, this represents a 12.6 Mt CO2-e reduction in calculated annual emissions from Australian cattle.