Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T07:10:07.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between ewe body condition score and fat and muscle measurements obtained by real time ultrasound

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

S. R. Silva ,
C. Guedes ,
A. Lourenço ,
M. Gomes ,
V. Santos ,
J. Azevedo  and
A. Dias-da-Silva
S. R. Silva*
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
C. Guedes
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
A. Lourenço
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
M. Gomes
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
V. Santos
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
J. Azevedo
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
A. Dias-da-Silva
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
*
Email:ssilva@utad.pt
Get access

Extract

In Northeast of Portugal sheep is reared under extensive systems. These systems frequently involve expressive body composition changes due to the storing and mobilization of body reserves, mainly fat. Body condition score (BCS) is the most common way to assess these reserves and the nutritional status of ewes. However due to the subjective nature of BCS, their quality has been questioned and other alternatives has been studied. For cattle there are some studies that use the real time ultrasonography (RTU) to evaluate the BCS (Schwager-Suter et al., 2000; Broring et al., 2003), but this approach was not tested in ewes. Therefore the aim of the present study was to establish a relationship between the BCS and ultrasound subcutaneous fat (SF) and Longissimus thoracis et lumborum muscle (LM) measurements.

Type
Posters
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2008 , 2008 , pp. 195
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

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

Broring, N., Wilton, J. W. and Colucci, P. E. 2003. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 83, 593–596.Google Scholar
Russel, J. F., Doney, J. M. and Gunn, R. G. 1969. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge. 72, 451–454.Google Scholar
Schwager-Suter, R., Stricker, C., Erdin, D. and Künzi, N. 2000. Animal Science. 71, 465–470.Google Scholar