Group Performance Report - 2021-2022 Season
 

Cumulative Season Group Performance Report 2021-2022 Season

 Excellent
 Good
 Satisfactory
 Non-compliant
 Justifiable Reason
 

Grade A or Excellent compliance means there is a very close correlation between submitted results and wet chemistry results (a z-score of less than 1). Grade B or Good compliance means there is close correlation with minor variations which can be fully explained (a z-score of 1-2). Grade C or Satisfactory compliance means that there is some correlation between submitted and wet chemistry results with some larger variations which require further investigation and potential corrective actions to improve. Grade F or Non-compliant status means that there is a large variation between results submitted and wet chemistry (a z-score of greater than 3).  Grade F can also reflect that no data was submitted by a member laboratory for that month’s Proficiency Test. Grade P is awarded if there is a Justifiable Reason why results have not been submitted by group members. Awarded at the discretion of the Group Technical Secretary, this occurs only in the event of an unforeseen circumstance such as equipment failure, damage to laboratory etc

Group Performance Report - Close of Season Summary

As the 2021-22 season has now been completed, the FAA Technical Group reviews all the data from the season and reports to the Group as a whole, making recommendations for amendments or changes as necessary. Reviews of performance as a Group and individual members are completed and reports issued as required.


May 2022


The final round of the season was maize silage. This sample round contained some which were fibrous in nature resulting in a higher B grade level for NDF analysis. This is reflected in the overall grades of A (37%) and B (44%) compared to the two previous rounds, but still totalling 81% combined grades and continuing to evidence consistent analysis across the group. Two labs were unable to submit data for technical reasons and one failed to submit.


April 2022


The second round of whole crop silage was tested in April. 

87.5% of member laboratories achieved an A or B grade this month - 81% A, 6.5% B and no C grades on overall performance. One laboratory (6%) was unable to contribute data this month due to a technical issue and this is highlighted as a P grade on the graph and included in the overall performance grading calclulation.

One laboratory was grade F due to a poor result for NDF analysis, although Dry Matter and Starch were A grade for that laboratory.

Overall the performance level is similar to that of the first whole crop sample in January, indicating consistency in the results for key parameters of DM, Starch and NDF.



March 2022


The final round of this season’s grass silage samples were tested in March. The results were consistent with those from previous sampling rounds with 94% of member labs achieving an overall grade of A (31%) and B (63%). The grades for individual parameters for DM, CP and NDF show an even spread of A and B grades with just 1 C grade on DM and one F grade for non-submission of results.

The results on the 3 grass samples of the PT scheme provide evidence of consistent analysis to provide reliable results for users.


February 2022


Maize forage samples were tested in February. 94% of group members achieved an overall grade of A (56%) or B (38%) which demonstrates very good compliance with reference wet chemistry results. The previous maize sample in November scored 87%, indicating consistency of analysis and providing confidence for customers.


January 2022


The January PT scheme tested whole crop samples.  As in the last whole crop round, 87.5% of members scored A grade (75%) or B grade (12.5%) - a higher number of A grades achieved.  There were 2 F grades – one due to an error on a single parameter and the other did not submit results.

This month’s results demonstrate good repeatability of analysis on this forage type.


December 2021


The second round in the Proficiency Testing Scheme tested in December were grass silages.  There was a good range of Dry Matter content within the samples which helps demonstrate that accuracy of analysis is maintained across that range. Across the graded analysed parameters of dry matter, crude protein and ND Fibre, just under 94% of the Group members achieved an A (37.5%) or B (56%) grade meaning that their analysis was close to reference chemistry.  One member lab was graded as F as no data was supplied for inclusion in the Proficiency test.

Overall the results are similar to Grass sample 1 in September.  Both during and at the end of the PT season, the performance of each Group member for each silage type is reviewed and information provided to fine tune equipment to maintain good compliance with reference wet chemistry results.”


November 2021


Maize silage samples were tested in the Proficiency scheme in the November round.  Despite maize being a naturally variable material in terms of piece size and texture, excellent compliance was achieved across the FAA Group members with over 87% achieving an A (56%) or B (31%) grade meaning that their analysis was close to reference chemistry.  Two member labs were graded as F as no data was supplied for inclusion in the Proficiency test.

Starch analysis was particularly consistent which is important as the main energy component of maize silage.


October 2021


The first whole crop round of the Proficiency Test was completed in October.  87.5% of members scored A (62.5%) or B (25%).  There were no C grades and one lab scored an F as results were not submitted and one lab scored a P grade as they could not submit results. The overall grades show a very good degree of compliance within the PT scheme and across the group, particularly as whole crop silage, by nature, is a variable material when compared to grass silage.


September 2021


The new proficiency testing season started with a round of grass forage samples in September.
88% of participating labs achieved grades of A (50%) or B (38%), indicating good consistency of results across the range of samples provided, which included some at high dry matter. One lab failed the sample round as not all data for grading was provided and one lab was given a P grade due to experiencing technical issues at the time.
This is a good start to the new season of testing.


Our Contact Details

Forage Analysis Assurance Group
First Floor, Unit 4 The Forum
Minerva Business Park, Lynch Wood
Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE2 6FT
+44 (0)1733-385230

Find us on twitter:    Find us on LinkedIn: