Printer Friendly

The effects of docking on growth traits, carcass characteristics and blood biochemical parameters of Sanjabi fat-tailed lambs.

INTRODUCTION

Fat-tail removal (docking) of lambs is an important management practice in commercial sheep production (Snyman et al., 2002; Cloete et al., 2004). The results of many investigations have shown that docking decreases metabolizable energy (ME) requirement due to lower fat deposition, has a positive impact on reproductive performance and produces more uniform and blocky lambs in appearance (Wohlt et al., 1982; Shelton 1990; Snayman, 2002). Lambs are cleaner and less prone to infection and external parasites (Wohlt et al., 1982). Therefore, it is beneficial in improving daily live weight gain, fattening trait and carcass characteristics for consumers (Bingoal et al., 2006). The fat deposited in the body or tail is laid down at a much higher cost in terms of feed energy than lean meat.

Dressed lamb carcasses have a neater appearance and thus receive higher market prices (Gokdal et al., 2003). Also, consumers in many instances show an increasing preference for lean meat (Emam Jom-e Kashan et al., 2005).

Approximately 64% of the sheep population in Iran consists of fat-tailed breeds. The fat tailed sheep are characterized by adaptation to harsh environments i.e. extreme temperatures and poor feeding conditions (Emam Jom-e Kashan et al., 2005). The Sanjabi is a dual-purpose (mutton and wool) native breed which has a high growth rate with good meat quality. Since this breed is classified as a long fat-tail family, propagation of docking may lead to good economical benefits for the sheep husbandry in this region. Changes in consumer preferences favoring leaner meat, the growing awareness of the danger of high fat diets, as well as the availability of alternative cheaper and healthier fat sources have resulted in a reduced demand for sheep with a fat-tail. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of docking on growth traits, fattening performance, carcass characteristics and some biochemical parameters of fat-tailed Sanjabi male lambs. This investigation is the first report on the effect of docking on economic traits and blood biochemical parameters of Sanjabi sheep.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This experiment was conducted in a large commercial Sanjabi herd located at Kermanshah province in the west of Iran. A total of 24 fat-tail Sanjabi single-born male lambs were used in this study. The lambs were born in June 2007 and immediately were randomly divided into two groups. One group (n = 12) were docked at two days of age with rubber-rings using an elastrator. The second group (n = 12) were left intact. The lambs were allowed to stay with their dams for 3 months until weaning. All lambs were moved to rustic rangelands after the weaning period for 40 days. Lamb weights were recorded weekly and normal inoculation, drenching and tick control programs were also followed during the experiment. Then, all lambs were placed on a fattening diet for 60 days. The lambs were housed in two groups and fed with concentrate and forage (Table 1) for the duration of the fattening period. At the beginning and end of the fattening period, live weights of all lambs were recorded. The following growth traits were recorded: initial weight, final weight, total weight gain and average daily gain (ADG) in the pre-weaning and fattening periods.

Carcass traits

Four docked lambs and four intact ones were slaughtered immediately after the fattening period. Lambs were killed by exsanguination using conventional humane procedures. The body was divided into individual components which were then weighed separately as internal organs (liver, heart, lungs and trachea, kidneys, testes and spleen), head (disarticulated at the occipito-atlantoid articulation), feet (disarticulated at the tarso-metatarsal and the carpo-metacarpal articulations), and carcass. Visceral fat (separable fat in the body cavity) was separated at the time of harvest and weighed. The kidney fat was also physically separated from both sides and weighed. All carcasses were weighed hot (approximately 1 h. after harvest) and then chilled (-4[degrees]C) for approximately 24 h. After chilling, the carcasses were weighed again and then longitudinally halved with a band saw. Records of carcass components included carcass measurements (cm) (Chest dept, Leg dept, Chest width, shoulder width, rump width, leg width, leg length, carcass length), Carcass weight (kg) and dressing percentage (%) i.e.; Slaughter weight, cold carcass weight (CCW), offal items (head, 4 feet, skin, heart, lung, liver, testes, kidney, spleen, kidney and pelvic fat, internal fat and tail weights). The cold carcass was split along the backbone according to the procedure of Colomer-Rocher et al. (1987). The left half of the carcass was separated into five anatomically defined cuts (Fernands et al., 2008).

Chemical analysis

The whole soft tissue (fat and lean meat) of the left side of the carcass was ground and passed twice through a plate with a 4 mm orifice. After fine grinding of the small, frozen pieces and thorough homogenization, representative samples were taken for determination of moisture, dry matter (DM), crude protein, ash and lipid contents using AOAC (1990) procedures.

Blood parameters

Blood samples from all lambs were collected at four and one weeks before slaughter from the jugular vein (5 ml) into sterile vacuum tubes Venoject[R] (BD Vacutainer system, Plymouth, UK). Following standing at room temperature for 20 min., blood samples were centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 10 min. and the serum samples stored at -25[degrees]C until analyzed. Serum urea, uric acid, total protein, triglyceride, LDL, HDL, cholesterol and blood glucose concentrations were determined with commercial kits (Chimi Daro, Coulter Company, Iran). These components were determined via Utoanalyser Hitachi.

Data analysis

The mathematical model for the analysis of growth traits, slaughter and carcass characteristics, proportional yields, blood parameters, and proximate chemical composition included the fixed effects due to treatment (intact and docked lambs) and residual error (SAS 2002, Windows, 9.0). Student's unpaired t-test was used to determine significant differences between mean values according to the model:

[Y.sub.ij] = [mu][T.sub.i]+[e.sub.ij]

Where [y.sub.ij] = dependent variable; [mu] = overall mean; Ti = fixed effect of the [i.sup.th] treatment; and [e.sub.ij] = random residual.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Growth traits

Body weights of intact and docked lambs during the experiment are presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences in growth traits of docked and intact lambs during the weaning period. These results are in accordance with those reported by Joubert and Ueckermann (1971) who found no difference in weight gain and live weight from tail docking to slaughter weight at 100 days of age in Namaqua Afrikaner, Pedi and Blackhead Persian ewes. Similarly, for Karakul and KarakulxRambouillet lambs Shelton et al. (1991), Al Jasssim et al. (2002) and Mari and Behgat (2003) reported that tail docking had no effect (p>0.05) on lamb growth from birth to weaning.

Based on the data from Table 2, the docked lambs had significantly higher weight, ADG and total weight gain during the fattening period than intact lambs (p<0.05). Total weight gains during the fattening period were 6.355 [+ or -] 0.895 and 7.200 [+ or -] 0.915 kg for the intact and docked lambs with corresponding estimates for daily gain of 0.235 [+ or -] 33 and 0.266 [+ or -] 33 kg, respectively (p<0.05). These results are in accordance with those reported by Bicer et al. (1992), Al Jassim et al. (2002), Gokdal et al. (2003), Bingol et al. (2006), and Moharrery (2007) who found significant difference in final weight between docked and intact lambs and that the docking operation resulted in higher ADG and total weight gain in the fattening period than in intact animals. In contrast, El Karim (1980) and Bingoal et al. (2005) reported that growth traits in the fattening period (average daily gain, final body weight) were not significantly different between intact and docked lambs. Also, they found no significant differences between docked (0.171.428 [+ or -] 11.203 kg) and intact lambs (0.156.503 [+ or -] 14.067 kg) in ADG and total weight gain over the total period from birth to the end of fattening.

Slaughter and, carcass characteristics

The slaughter and carcass characteristics for intact and docked lambs are summarized in Table 3, and proximate analysis on meat cuts of the left half of the carcass (hind leg, loin, ribs, fore leg and neck) are summarized in Table 4. Comparison between the two groups of lambs for carcass measurement (cm) showed that fat-tail docking had an effect on chest depth (p<0.01) and leg width (p<0.05), but had no effect (p>0.05) on the other carcass parameters. These results are in good agreement with reports by Gokdal et al. (2003) for Karakas lambs and Bingoal et al. (2005) for fat-tailed Norduz sheep.

The results in Table 3 show slaughter weight, CCW and dressing percentage of control lambs were lower than in docked lambs, although the difference were not significant (p>0.05). Docking lambs resulted in 14.30%, 15.80% and 5.26% higher untailed warm and cold carcass weight, and untailed dressing percentage (p<0.05), respectively, compared with the control lambs.

These findings are consistent with those of Shelton et al. (1991), Gokdal et al. (2003), Mari and Bahgat (2003) and Bingol et al. (2005) who found that the carcass weight and dressing percentage of docked were higher than for intact lambs. Similar results for slaughter weight, warm and cold carcass weights were reported by El Karim (1980) for Dubasi sheep.

In the present study, docked lambs had greater weights (kg) for offal items (head, heart, lungs and liver, testes, and spleen) (p<0.05), and docking had no effect (p>0.05) on the weights of the four feet, pelt, kidney fat and internal fat of the ram lambs. Weight of the fat-tail and fat around the tail differed between intact and docked animals (1.760 [+ or -] 0.196 kg vs. 0.495 [+ or -] 0.033 kg) (p<0.01). Al Jassim et al. (2002), Mari and Behgat (2003), Gokdal et al. (2003) and Bingol et al. (2005) also reported a lower offal item weight (kg) for intact than docked lambs, although there was little difference between their results and ours. In all reports, docked fat-tail weight was higher than intact lambs (p<0.01).

The wholesale cuts of the left half carcass (5 cuts) are presented in Table 3. The hind leg weight (p<0.05) and ribs weight (p<0.01) were heavier for docked lambs. Similarly, other cuts (loin, fore leg and neck weight) were higher in docked than intact lambs but there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). It has been reported that docking of fat-tail sheep increased the weights of valuable wholesale cuts in the carcass of these breeds (Gursoy et al., 1992; Bingol et al., 2002; Gokdal et al., 2003) and Bingol et al. (2005).

Proportions of wholesale cuts and organs of the carcass are summarized in Table 3. There were significant differences in proportional yields of heart, lung and liver, testes, ribs (p<0.05), spleen and fat-tail percent (p<0.01) between the docked and intact lambs. An increase in fat around internal organs in response to docking and a decrease in the fat-tail portion have been reported by Biyikoglu et al. (1977), Cengiz and Arik (1994), Bingol et al. (2002 and 2005) and Gokdal et al. (2003). The results of the present study are in accordance with the report by Cengiz and Arik (1994) that docking reduced significantly the amount of total fat in the body lambs. From the results of Moharrery (2007), it is evident that docking of Iranian Badghisian lambs after birth improved amounts of high price carcass fragments in the whole body.

Carcass chemical composition

The chemical composition, including DM, crude protein, lipid and ash, of the five carcass cuts are presented in Table 4 for the two groups. The fat-tail docking had no effect on chemical composition of the five cuts (p>0.05). The DM of all five cuts was higher for intact than docked lambs (p>0.05). Quantities of crude protein in the five parts of the left half of the carcass were higher for docked than intact lambs (p>0.05). The lipid component of these five parts was higher for docked than intact lambs (p>0.05), but lipid content of the ribs part was significantly different (p<0.05). In accordance with the results of Snyman et al. (2002), in this investigation ash content of the carcass of docked lambs was higher than intact lambs (p>0.05).

It has been reported that docking of fat-tail sheep had no significant effect on chemical composition of the carcass (Bingol et al., 2005; Moharrery, 2007). Moharrery (2007) showed that docked lambs had higher fat and lower protein and moisture percentage in meat (p<0.05), and a decreased (p<0.05) carcass fat content.

Blood parameters

The blood parameters of the two groups during the fattening period are presented in Table 5. Urea, total protein, triglycerides, and HDL were higher (p>0.05) in the intact group than in the docked group at the start of fattening. Interestingly, decrease of the two parameters cholesterol and LDL was an important event in the docked group (p<0.05). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in cholesterol level between intact and docked lambs at the end of fattening. No report has been published in the literature on the effect of docking on blood parameters.

IMPLICATIONS

From the results of this study, docking of Sanjabi lambs at the second day after birth using rubber rings had no effect on early growth traits during the weaning period compared with intact lambs. During the fattening period, docking increased growth rate, live body weight, carcass weight and edible carcass offal (liver, lungs, heart and kidney). In conclusion, docking of fat-tailed Sanjabi sheep improves their fattening performance, desirable carcass characteristics and marketing. This practical management is of benefit to both herd managers and consumers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks to the staff of the Department of laboratory of Medical biology-research center of Kermanshah, Veterinary College of Razi University. This research was financially supported by Razi University.

Received August 3, 2008; Accepted December 5, 2008

REFERENCES

Al Jassim, R. A. M., G. Brown, E. D.Salman and A. Abodabos. 2002. Effect of tail docking in Awassi lambs on metabolizable energy requirements and chemical composition of carcasses. Anim. Sci. 75:359-366.

AOAC. 1990. Official methods and analysis 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.

Bicer, O. 1988. An investigation on fattening performance and carcass traits of Awassi lambs. Ph.D. Thesis. Cukurova Univ. Fen Bil. Enst. Zootekni ABD, pp. 128. Adana, Turkey.

Bicer, O., E. Pekel and O. Guney. 1992. Effect of docking on growth performance and carcass characteristics of fat -tailed Awassi ram lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 8:352-357.

Bingol, M., T. Aygun, O. Gokdal and A. Yilmaz. 2002. The effects of docking on fattening ferformance and carcass characteristics of male Norduz lambs. The research report.

Bingol., M., T. Aygun,, O.Gokdal and A. Yilmaz. 2006. The effects of docking on fattening performance and carcass characteristics in fat-tailed Norduz male lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 64:101-106.

Biyikoglu, K., A. Cakir and O. Yazgan. 1977. The effects of docking of Morkaramans on growth, meat yield and quality in Eastern Anatolia. Ataturk Univ. Yay. 495, Zir.Fak.Yay. 232, Arastirma Serisi. 149, 40.

Brenner, K. V. and P. Reinhard. 1976. Photometric determination and stability of free fatty acids in plasma and serum of cattle, Monath. Vet. Med. 18:707-711.

Cengiz, F. and I. Z. Arik. 1994. Effects of tail docking on fattening performance and carcass characteristics of Akkaraman lambs. Scientific Research and Studies Vol. 750, Publ. no.1356, Publication of Agric. Faculty, Ankara University.

Cloete, J. J. E., L. C. Hoffman, S. W. P. Cloete and J. E. Fourie. 2004. A comparison between the body composition, carcass characteristics and retail cuts of South Africa mutton Merino and Dormer sheep. South Africa J. Anim. Sci. 34:44-51.

El-karim, A. I. A. 1980. Effect of docking on growth and carcass characteristics of Dubasi desert sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 5:15-17.

Fernandes, M. H. M. R., K. T. Resende, L. O. Tedeschi, Jr. J. S. Fernandes, I. A. M. A. Teixeira, G. E. Carstens and T. T. Berchielli. 2008. Predicting the chemical composition of the body and the carcass of 3/4Boerx1/4Saanen kids using body components. Small Rumin. Res. 75:90-98.

Gokdal, O., T. Aygun, M. Bingoal and F. karakus. 2003. The effect of docking on performance and carcass characteristics of male Karakas lambs. South African J. Anim. Sci. 33(3):185-192.

Kashan, N. E. J., G. H. Manafi Azar, A. Afzalzadeh and A. Salehi. 2005. Growth performance and carcass quality of fattening lambs from fat-tailed and tailed sheep breeds. Small Rumin. Res. 60:267-271.

Littell, R. C., R. J. Freud and P. C. Spector. 1991. SAS-system for linear models, 3rd Ed., Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Inc. pp. 137198.

Mari, I. F. and L. B. Bahgat. 2003. Fat-tailed sheep traits as affected by docking. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 35:351-363.

Moharrery, A. 2007. Effect of docking and energy of diet on carcass fat characteristics in fat-tailed Badghisian sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 69:208-216.

Obeidat, Belal S., Abdullah Y. Abdullah, Mofleh S. Awawdeh, Rami T. Kridli, Hosam H. Titi and Rasha I. Qudsieh. 2008. Effect of methionine supplementation on performance and carcass characteristics of Awassi ram lambs fed finishing diets. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 21(6):831-837.

Sarwar M., M. Aasif Shahzad and Mahr-un-Nisa 2007. Nutrient intake, acid base status and growth performance of Thalli lambs fed varying level of dietary cation-anion difference. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20(11):1713-1720.

SAS. 2002. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Software Release 9.0., SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.

Shelton, M. 1990. Influence of docking fat-tail (Karakul) sheep on lamb production. Small Rumin. Res. 3:73-76.

Shelton, M., T. Willingham, P. Thompson and E. M. Roberts. 1991. Influence of docking and castration on growth and carcass traits of fat-tailed Karakul, Rambouillet and crossbred lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 4:235-243.

Snyman, M., A. M. van Heerden, B. R. King and J. A. N. Cloete. 2002. The eeffect of ddocking on growth, carcass quality, fat distribution and reproductive performance of Namaqua Afrikaner sheep. Grootfontein ADI, Private Bag X529, Middelburg EC, 5900. http://gadi.agric.za/articles/Snyman_MA /stertaf.htm. Wohlt, J. E., T. D. Wrigh., V. S. Sirois, D. M. Kniffen and L. Lelkes. 1982. Effect of docking on health, blood cell and metabolites and growth of Dorset lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 54:2328.

E. Nooriyan Sarvar, M. M. Moeini (1), *, M. Poyanmehr and E. Mikaeli (1) Department of Nutrition, Veterinary Faculty, Razi University, Kermanshah, 6715685415, Iran

* Corresponding Author: M. Moeini. E-mail: mmoeini2008@yahoo.com

(1) Animal Science Department, Agricultural Faculty, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
Table 1. Ingredients and nutrient composition of diet

Components %

Alfalfa hay 27
Barley grain 20
Wheat straw 17
Wheat barn 6
Corn grain 7
Beet pulp 11.6
Limestone 0.5
Salt 0.9
Premix 0.6

Nutrient composition %

 DM 90.3
 ME (Mcal/kg) 2.45
 CP 15.5
 NDF 25
 Ca 0.75
 P 0.32

Table 2. Mean ([bar.x] x [+ or -]SE) growth traits of intact and
docked lambs

 Groups

Trait (kg)

 Intact lambs Docked lambs

Weaning period

 Initial weight 4.225 [+ or -] 0.209 4.650 [+ or -] 0.272
 Final weight 14.620 [+ or -] 1.063 13.670 [+ or -] 0.618
 ADG 0.130 [+ or -] 0.012 0.117 [+ or -] 0.007
 Total weight gain 10.040 [+ or -] 0.958 9.020 [+ or -] 0.587
 at weaning

Fattening period
 Initial weight 25.395 [+ or -] 1.942 27.450 [+ or -] 1.478
 Final weight 31.750 [+ or -] 1.703 34.650 [+ or -] 1.612
 ADG 0.235.37 [+ or -] 33.14 0.266.66 [+ or -] 33.90
 Total weight gain 6.355 [+ or -] 0.895 7.200 [+ or -] 0.915
 at fattening

 Groups

Trait (kg)

 Sig.

Weaning period

 Initial weight 0.252
 Final weight 0.45
 ADG 0.376
 Total weight gain 0.376
 at weaning

Fattening period
 Initial weight 0.411
 Final weight 0.045 *
 ADG 0.049 *
 Total weight gain 0.044 *
 at fattening

* Within rows differences were statistically significant at p<0.05.

Table 3. Mean ([bar.x] [+ or -] SE) carcass characteristics and
proportional yield of intact and docked lambs

Traits Intact

Carcass measurement (cm)
 Chest depth 26.00 [+ or -] 0.500
 Chest width 17.333 [+ or -] 1.014
 Leg depth 34.000 [+ or -] 1.000
 Leg length 37.667 [+ or -] 1.333
 Leg width 13.167 [+ or -] 0.928
 Shoulder width 17.333 [+ or -] 1.093
 Rump width 16.500 [+ or -] 1.258
 Carcass length 57.000 [+ or -] 1.527

Carcass weight (kg)
 Slighter weight 28.830 [+ or -] 0.182
 WCW with fat-tail 13.373 [+ or -] 0.434
 Untailed WCW 11.613 [+ or -] 0.333
 Cold carcass weight 13.126 [+ or -] 0.478
 Untailed CCW 11.688 [+ or -] 0.667

Dressing percentage (%)
 Dressing percentage 46.378 [+ or -] 1.338
 Untailed dressing 39.717 [+ or -] 1.257
 percentage

Offal items weight (kg)
 Head 1.668 [+ or -] 0.033
 4 feet 0.792 [+ or -] 0.037
 Pelt 2.845 [+ or -] 0.265
 Heart, lungs and 0.948 [+ or -] 0.017
 liver
 Testes 0.070 [+ or -] 0.013
 Kidney 0.335 [+ or -] 0.257
 Spleen 0.107 [+ or -] 0.006
 Kidney fat 0.035 [+ or -] 0.010
 Internal fat 0.0816 [+ or -] 0.036
 Tail 1.760 [+ or -] 0.196

Wholesale cuts of left
half carcass weight (kg)
 Hind leg 2.080 [+ or -] 0.083
 Loin 0.717 [+ or -] 0.036
 Ribs 1.255 [+ or -] 0.055
 Fore leg 1.186 [+ or -] 0.076
 Neck 0.560 [+ or -] 0.046

Proportion of wholesale
cuts and organs (%)
 Heart, lungs and liver 0.711 [+ or -] 0.003
 Testes 0.005 [+ or -] 0.001
 Kidney 0.026 [+ or -] 0.021
 Spleen 0.007 [+ or -] 0.000
 Kidney fat 0.003 [+ or -] 0.000
 Internal fat 0.006 [+ or -] 0.003
 Tail 0.131 [+ or -] 0.012
 Hind leg 0.155 [+ or -] 0.004
 Loin 0.053 [+ or -] 0.003
 Ribs 0.094 [+ or -] 0.007
 Fore leg 0.088 [+ or -] 0.002
 Neck 0.042 [+ or -] 0.003

Traits Docked

Carcass measurement (cm)
 Chest depth 29.667 [+ or -] 0.333
 Chest width 20.000 [+ or -] 0.577
 Leg depth 34.333 [+ or -] 0.882
 Leg length 37.333 [+ or -] 0.333
 Leg width 17.167 [+ or -] 0.601
 Shoulder width 17.833 [+ or -] 1.424
 Rump width 19.000 [+ or -] 0.288
 Carcass length 57.666 [+ or -] 1.202

Carcass weight (kg)
 Slighter weight 30.150 [+ or -] 0.683
 WCW with fat-tail 14.046 [+ or -] 0.342
 Untailed WCW 13.552 [+ or -] 0.316
 Cold carcass weight 13.386 [+ or -] 0.340
 Untailed CCW 13.882 [+ or -] 0.365

Dressing percentage (%)
 Dressing percentage 46.623 [+ or -] 1.401
 Untailed dressing 44.983 [+ or -] 1.363
 percentage

Offal items weight (kg)
 Head 1.888 [+ or -] 0.025
 4 feet 0.885 [+ or -] 0.018
 Pelt 2.253 [+ or -] 0.107
 Heart, lungs and 1.123 [+ or -] 0.421
 liver
 Testes 0.165 [+ or -] 0.028
 Kidney 0.086 [+ or -] 0.003
 Spleen 0.167 [+ or -] 0.007
 Kidney fat 0.567 [+ or -] 0.011
 Internal fat 0.173 [+ or -] 0.024
 Tail 0.495 [+ or -] 0.033

Wholesale cuts of left
half carcass weight (kg)
 Hind leg 2.368 [+ or -] 0.056
 Loin 0.817 [+ or -] 0.024
 Ribs 1.736 [+ or -] 0.071
 Fore leg 1.298 [+ or -] 0.031
 Neck 0.676 [+ or -] 0.037

Proportion of wholesale
cuts and organs (%)
 Heart, lungs and liver 0.079 [+ or -] 0.001
 Testes 0.0117 [+ or -] 0.002
 Kidney 0.006 [+ or -] 0.000
 Spleen 0.012 [+ or -] 0005
 Kidney fat 0.004 [+ or -] 0.007
 Internal fat 0.012 [+ or -] 0.002
 Tail 0.035 [+ or -] 0.002
 Hind leg 0.168 [+ or -] 0.004
 Loin 0.058 [+ or -] 0.003
 Ribs 0.123 [+ or -] 0.003
 Fore leg 0.093 [+ or -] 0.004
 Neck 0.048 [+ or -] 0.002

Traits Sig.

Carcass measurement (cm)
 Chest depth 0.004 **
 Chest width 0.084
 Leg depth 0.815
 Leg length 0.820
 Leg width 0.022 *
 Shoulder width 0.749
 Rump width 0.125
 Carcass length 0.749

Carcass weight (kg)
 Slighter weight 0.135
 WCW with fat-tail 0.291
 Untailed WCW 0.013 *
 Cold carcass weight 0.681
 Untailed CCW 0.045 *

Dressing percentage (%)
 Dressing percentage 0.905
 Untailed dressing 0.047 *
 percentage

Offal items weight (kg)
 Head 0.006 **
 4 feet 0.087
 Pelt 0.108
 Heart, lungs and 0.018 *
 liver
 Testes 0.039 *
 Kidney 0.39
 Spleen 0.003 **
 Kidney fat 0.231
 Internal fat 0.105
 Tail 0.003 **

Wholesale cuts of left
half carcass weight (kg)
 Hind leg 0.046 *
 Loin 0.083
 Ribs 0.006 **
 Fore leg 0.245
 Neck 0.122

Proportion of wholesale
cuts and organs (%)
 Heart, lungs and liver 0.059 *
 Testes 0.030 *
 Kidney 0.386
 Spleen 0.002 **
 Kidney fat 0.242
 Internal fat 0.108
 Tail 0.001 **
 Hind leg 0.084
 Loin 0.369
 Ribs 0.018 *
 Fore leg 0.489
 Neck 0.104

**, * Within rows differences were statistically significant
at p<0.01 and p<0.05 respectively.

Table 4. Mean ([bar.x] [+ or -]SE) five wholesale cuts of carcass of
intact and docked lambs

 Lambs groups

Traits (%)

 Intact Docked Sig.

Hind leg
 DM 26.402 [+ or -] 1.182 24.172 [+ or -] 1.899 0.375
 Crude 41.596 [+ or -] 2.425 42.967 [+ or -] 3.861 0.899
 protein
 Lipids (EE) 11.267 [+ or -] 1.256 14.114 [+ or -] 2.321 0.322
 Ash 2.161 [+ or -] 0.824 2.965 [+ or -] 0.261 0.405

Lion
 DM 31.855 [+ or -] 2.311 23.065 [+ or -] 1.139 0.027 *
 Crude 43.619 [+ or -] 4.277 44.830 [+ or -] 6.754 0.960
 protein
 Lipids (EE) 14.610 [+ or -] 2.356 17.615 [+ or -] 1.526 0.138
 Ash 3.184 [+ or -] 1.277 3.010 [+ or -] 1.297 0.928

Ribs
 DM 27.147 [+ or -] 2.994 26.052 [+ or -] 1.854 0.771
 Crude 40.849 [+ or -] 5.794 45.935 [+ or -] 4.574 0.735
 protein
 Lipids (EE) 15.010 [+ or -] 2.652 19.214 [+ or -] 2.315 0.031 *
 Ash 3.761 [+ or -] 1.478 2.477 [+ or -] 1.609 0.520

Fore leg
 DM 29.047 [+ or -] 4.289 26.308 [+ or -] 2.756 0.620
 Crude 42.004 [+ or -] 6.850 45.753 [+ or -] 1.977 0.627
 protein
 Lipids (EE) 12.511 [+ or -] 2.514 14.715 [+ or -] 1.812 0.888
 Ash 1.940 [+ or -] 0.661 4.432 [+ or -] 1.658 0.235

Neck
 D.M 29.777 [+ or -] 3.702 24.538 [+ or -] 2.003 0.281
 Crude 51.543 [+ or -] 4.319 55.534 [+ or -] 3.307 0.765
 protein
 Lipids (EE) 12.411 [+ or -] 1.258 13.652 [+ or -] 1.648 0.345
 Ash 1.459 [+ or -] 0.541 4.219 [+ or -] 1.556 0.350

* Within rows differences were statistically significant at p<0.05.

Table 5. Mean ([bar.x] [+ or -] SE) blood parameters of intact and
docked Sanjabi lambs during fattening period

Blood parameters Lamb groups
(mg/dl)

 Intact Docked

At the start
of fattening
 Urea 29.600 [+ or -] 1.368 26.700 [+ or -] 1.044
 Total protein 7.020 [+ or -] 0.12 6.990 [+ or -] 0.105
 Glucose 70.800 [+ or -] 2.768 72.400 [+ or -] 2.642
 Triglycerides 7.700 [+ or -] 1.738 5.100 [+ or -] 1.479
 Cholesterol 69.300 [+ or -] 3.858 58.100 [+ or -] 3.497
 LDL 25.00 [+ or -] 1.896 19.300 [+ or -] 1.711
 HDL 39.500 [+ or -] 1.892 35.500 [+ or -] 1.586

At the end
of fattening
 Urea 46.300 [+ or -] 1.819 45.600 [+ or -] 1.400
 Total protein 6.840 [+ or -] 0.151 6.850 [+ or -] 0.121
 Glucose 72.800 [+ or -] 2.375 73.000 [+ or -] 4.784
 Triglycerides 11.400 [+ or -] 1.904 8.400 [+ or -] 3.041
 Cholesterol 69.300 [+ or -] 3.858 58.100 [+ or -] 3.497
 LDL 15.970 [+ or -] 1.253 13.810 [+ or -] 1.293
 HDL 31.400 [+ or -] 0.792 28.400 [+ or -] 1.904

Blood parameters Lamb groups
(mg/dl)

 Sig.

At the start
of fattening
 Urea 0.109
 Total protein 0.853
 Glucose 0.681
 Triglycerides 0.270
 Cholesterol 0.045 *
 LDL 0.039 *
 HDL 0.123

At the end
of fattening
 Urea 0.764
 Total protein 0.959
 Glucose 0.931
 Triglycerides 0.141
 Cholesterol 0.045 *
 LDL 0.246
 HDL 0.163

* Within rows differences were statistically significant at p<0.05.
COPYRIGHT 2009 Asian - Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Sarvar, E. Nooriyan; Moeini, M.M.; Poyanmehr, M.; Mikaeli, E.
Publication:Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAN
Date:Jun 1, 2009
Words:4793
Previous Article:Synergistic effect of dexamethasone and prolactin on VEGF expression in bovine mammary epithelial cells via p44/p42 MAP kinase.
Next Article:Chemical composition of some tropical foliage species and their intake and digestibility by goats.
Topics:


Related Articles
Growth performance and carcass evaluation of Jeju native cattle and its crossbreds fed for long fattening period.
Effect of monensin and live yeast supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, carcass characteristics and ruminal fermentation...
Effects of dietary copper source and level on performance, carcass characteristics and lipid metabolism in lambs *.
Effect of methionine supplementation on performance and carcass characteristics of awassi ram lambs fed finishing diets.
Effects of chromium yeast on performance, insulin activity, and lipid metabolism in lambs fed different dietary protein levels *.
Maternal and direct genetic parameters for production traits and maternal correlations among production and feed efficiency traits in Duroc pigs.
Effect of different raising techniques on in vivo performance and carcass and meat traits of Ischia grey rabbit.
Effects of dietary energy intake levels on growth performance and body composition of finishing barrows and gilts.
Possible muscle fiber characteristics in the selection for improvement in porcine lean meat production and quality.
Influence of sugar cane diets and a high fibre commercial diet on growth and carcass performance in local Caribbean pigs.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2015 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters