Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:34:46.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of total body tissue weights in Scottish Blackface ewes using computed tomography scanning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N.R. Lambe ,
M.J. Young ,
K.A. McLean ,
J. Conington  and
G. Simm
N.R. Lambe*
Affiliation:
SAC, Hill and Mountain Research Centre, Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, West Perthshire FK20 8RU, UK
M.J. Young
Affiliation:
Sheep Improvement Ltd, PO Box 66, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
K.A. McLean
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J. Conington
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. Simm
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: n.lambe@ed.sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Thirty cull Scottish Blackface ewes were scanned three times over a period of 1 week using X-ray computed tomography (CT). Cross-sectional CT reference scans were taken at seven anatomical sites per ewe: ischium (ISC), femur (FEM), hip (HIP), 5th lumbar vertebra (LV5), 2nd lumbar vertebra (LV2), 8th thoracic vertebra (TV8) and 6th thoracic vertebra (TV6). Ewes were then slaughtered and dissection measurements collected.

Results of multiple regression analyses suggested that five reference scans allow accurate prediction of total weights of bone, muscle and fat (carcass and internal). The most informative cross-sectional scans were ISC, HIP, LV5, LV2 and TV8, from which prediction equations were derived. Fat and muscle weights were predicted accurately (R2 = 80 to 99%) but bone weight was predicted less accurately (R2 = 56%). Repeatabilities were high for the CT measurements used to predict fat and muscle (0•82 to 0•99) but lower for those used to predict bone (0•19 to 0• 86).

Keywords

body compositioncomputed tomographyewes.
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 191 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Afonso, J. and Thompson, J. M. 1996. Changes in body composition of sheep selected for high and low backfat thickness, during periods of ad libitum and maintenance feeding. Animal Science 63: 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conington, J., Bishop, S. C., Waterhouse, A. and Simm, G. 1995. A genetic analysis of early growth and ultrasonic measurements in hill sheep Animal Science 61: 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. and Mackay, T. F. C. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, fourth edition. Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar
Glasbey, C. A. and Robinson, C. D. 2002. Estimators of tissue proportions from X-ray CT images. Biometrics 58: 928–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jopson, N. B., Kolstad, K. and Vangen, O. 1994. In search of genetic variation in biological components of efficiency: examples from various species. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Edinburgh, p. 141.Google Scholar
Jopson, N. B., McEwan, J. C., Young, M. J., Stuart, S. K., Veenvliet, B. A., Littlejohn, R. P. and Suttie, J. M. 1998. Body composition and growth hormone profiles in first-cross progeny of genetically lean and fat sheep. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 24, pp. 157–160.Google Scholar
Jopson, N. B., Thompson, J. M. and Fennessy, P. F. 1997. Tissue mobilization rates in male fallow deer (Dama dama) as determined by computed tomography: the effects of natural and enforced food restriction. Animal Science 65: 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolstad, K., Jopson, N. B. and Vangen, O. 1996. Breed and sex differences in fat distribution and mobilization in growing pigs fed at maintenance. Livestock Production Science 47: 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P. W. and Payne, R. W. 1996. Genstat for windows: an introductory course, second edition. Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
McClelland, T. H., Bonaiti, B. and St C. S., Taylor 1976. Breed differences in body composition of equally mature sheep. Animal Production 23: 281–293.Google Scholar
Roberts, N., Cruz-Orive, L.M, Reid, N. M. K., Brodie, D. A., Bourne, M. and Edwards, R. H. T. 1993. Unbiased estimation of human body composition by the Cavalieri method using magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Microscopy 171: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, A. J. F., Gunn, R. G. and Doney, J. M. 1968. Components of weight loss in pregnant hill ewes during winter. Animal Production 10: 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sehested, E. 1984. Computerised tomography of sheep. In In vivo measurement of body composition in meat animals (ed. Lister, D.), pp. 67–74. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Wegner, O. H. 1993. Whole body computed tomography, second edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D. 1982. Factors controlling fat deposition in meat animals. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 42: 113–116.Google Scholar
Young, M. J., Garden, K. L. and Knopp, T. C. 1987. Computer aided tomography – comprehensive body compositional data from live animals. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 47: 69–71.Google Scholar
Young, M. J., Jay, N. P. W. and Jopson, N. B. 1999. Repeatability of computer tomography scan measurements in sheep. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, M. J., Nsoso, S. J., Logan, C. M. and Beatson, P. R. 1996. Prediction of carcass tissue weight in vivo using live weight, ultrasound or x-ray computed tomography measurements. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 56: 205–211.Google Scholar