Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T23:32:00.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of in-vivo measurements to estimate breast and abdominal fat content of a free-range broiler strain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. E. Melot ,
M. M. Motter ,
L. R. Morao ,
M. J. Huguet ,
Z. Canet  and
M. Miquel
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this work was to evaluate the ultrasound method as a tool for in-vivo breast and abdominal fat prediction on Campero-INTA broilers. Breast length (mm), width (mm), surface (mm2; ultrasound) and depth (mm; ultrasound), and abdominal fat depth (mm; ultrasound) were measured at 65-66 and 72-73 days of age on 96 males. At 79 days of age, the broilers were weighed and slaughtered. Breast and abdominal fat weights (g) were obtained. Multiple regression equations were fitted using live weight (g) and in-vivo measurements to predict breast and abdominal fat weights and proportions (g/g). The best model for each case was selected by the Stepwise procedure. Equations fitted were verified using another set of data. Breast weight prediction using live weight and breast length in the model was as accurate as using live weight and breast depth. The former is recommended for breeding work. Abdominal fat weight prediction using ultrasound measurements of fat was less accurate than breast weight prediction. Repeatabilities for ultrasound breast measurements were higher (0·72 to 0·73) than those for abdominal fat (0·51 to 0·52). Operator effect may be important when training levels are different.

Keywords

abdominal fatbreast musclebroilersrepeatabilityultrasound
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , August 2003 , pp. 23 - 31
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

Bochno, R., Rymkiewicz, J. and Szeremeta, J. 2000. Regression equations for in vivo estimation of the meat content of duck carcasses. British Poultry Science 41: 313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochno, R., Rymkiewicz, J., Szeremeta, J. and Brozowski, W. 1998. Regression equations for in vivo estimation of the meat content of duck carcasses. Proceedings of the 10th European poultry conference, Israel, vol. 3, p. 108.Google Scholar
Delpech, P. and Ricard, F. 1965. Relation entre les depots adipeux visceraux et les lipides corporels chez le poulet. Annales de Zootechnie 14: 181–189.Google Scholar
Dixson, S., Teeter, R., Bahr, R. and Powell, K. 2000. Using ultrasound to predict breast yield and abdominal fat weight in broiler breeder hens. Poultry Science 79: (suppl. 1) 58–59.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. 1989. An introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Chesire, London.Google Scholar
Grashorn, M. 1996. Real-time sonography an excellent tool for estimating breast meat yield of meat-type chicken in vivo . Proceedings of the XXth world’s poultry congress, New Delhi, vol. 4, pp. 60–61.Google Scholar
Hamlin, K., Green, R., Perkins, T., Cundiff, L. and Miller, M. 1995. Real-time ultrasonic measurement of fat thickness and longissimus muscle area. I. Description of age and weight effects. Journal of Animal Science 73: 1713–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, R. 1976. The analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics 32: 1–50.Google Scholar
Lavallee, S., Chavez, E. and Touchburn, S. 1998. Ultrasound measurements for maximum breast muscle thickness of Pekin breeder ducks at market age and progeny response. Proceedings of the 10th European poultry conference, vol. 2, pp. 664–668.Google Scholar
Le Bihan-Duval, E., Mignon-Gasteau, S., Millet, N. and Beaumont, C. 1998. Genetic analysis of a selection experiment on increased body weight and breast muscle weight as well as on limited abdominal fat weight. British Poultry Science 39: 346–356.Google Scholar
Melo, J. 2002. Evaluation of productivity criteria in Campero-INTA broilers. M.Sc. thesis, University of Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Melo, J., Castillo, J., Miquel, M. C., Lucilli, V., Erias, A. and Mirande, S. 2000. Preliminary study on ultrasound measures of abdominal fat thickness in broilers for the estimation of the weight and proportion. Proceedings of the XXI reunión Latinoamericana de producción animal, Montevideo, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Melo, J., Castillo, J., Miquel, M. C., Porteyro Ibarra, J. and Mirande, S. 2001a. Ultrasounds measures of abdominal fat thickness in broilers for the estimation of the weight and proportion. Investigación Agraria: Producción y Sanidad Animales 16: 127–134.Google Scholar
Melo, J., Castillo, J. L., Mallo, G., Ciacciariello, M., Canet, Z. and Miquel, M. C. 2001b. Evaluation of physical and ultrasound measurements to estimate the breast weight. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 3: 35–40.Google Scholar
Melo, J., Mallo, G., Villar, E., Miquel, M. C., Djian, G. and Cappelletti, C. 1996. Broilers phenotypic correlations between abdominal fat and different plasma lipids. Revista de Medicina Veterinaria 77 6: 401–403.Google Scholar
Perkins, T., Green, R. and Hamlin, K. 1992a. Evaluation of ultrasonic estimates of carcass fat thickness and longissimus muscle area in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1002–1010.Google Scholar
Perkins, T., Green, R., Hamlin, K., Shepard, H. and Miller, M. 1992b. Ultrasonic prediction of carcass merit in beef cattle: evaluation of technician effects on ultrasonic estimates of carcass fat thickness and longissimus muscle area. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2758–2765.Google Scholar
Popovic, B. and Pym, R. 1995. Response to selection for breast meat yield in Japanese quail using ultrasound. Proceedings of the Australian poultry science symposium, vol. 7, p. 188.Google Scholar
Pym, R., Popovic, B. and Bodero, D. 1998. Selection for breast meat yield in japanese quail using real time ultrasound. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 24, pp. 290–293.Google Scholar
Pym, R. and Solvyns, J. 1979. Selection for food conversion in broilers: body composition of birds selected for increased body weight gain, food consumption and food conversion ratio. British Poultry Science 20: 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricard, F., Marche, G. and Le Bihan-Duval, E. 1994. Essai d´amélioration par selection de la qualité de carcasse du poulet de chair. INRA Productions Animales 7: 253–261.Google Scholar
Romera, A., Faverin, C. and Mezzadra, C. 1995. Preliminary study on ultrasound measures of back fat thickness: effect of technician, repeatability and correlation with carcass traits. Revista Argentina de Producción Animal 15: 906–909.Google Scholar
Soller, M. and Eitan, Y. 1984. Why does selection for live weight gain increase fat deposition? A model. World’s Poultry Science Journal 40: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, P. and Jensen, J. 1992. Use of ultrasonic techniques to detect breast muscle proportion in live ducks. Proceedings of the 19th world’s poultry congress, Amsterdam, vol. 3, pp. 225–228.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 5. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Villa, J., Balbín, A. and Monteagut, A. 1991. Determination of abdominal fat in broilers by means of cloacal callipers. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Avícola 18: 253–257.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C. 1990. Divergent selection of lean and fat lines of broilers over eight generations using plasma very low density lipoprotein as selection criterion. British Poultry Science 31: 293–305.Google Scholar
Wright, H. 1994. Genética de la gallina reproductora pesada. Proceedings of the seminario Latinoamericano de producción avícola, Glastonbury, USA, pp. 37–41.Google Scholar