|
ALLOMETRIC GROWTH COEFFICIENTS AND PARTITIONING OF FAT DEPOTS
IN INDIGENOUS ETHIOPIAN MENZ AND HORRO SHEEP BREEDS
Enyew Negussie1, O. J. Rottmann2, F.
Pirchner 2 and J. E. O. Rege1
1International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P. O. Box
5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2Institute of Animal Breeding, Technical University of Munich,
D-85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany
Abstract
A total of 146 Menz and Horro lambs of both sexes were serially slaughtered
and dissected at 5 different stages of growth (i.e. at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months
of age) to define the pattern of growth and partitioning of fat among body depots
of indigenous Ethiopian Menz and Horro sheep breeds. The GLM procedure of SAS
and an allometric growth equation were used to assess the effects of various
factors on the growth of body depots and to estimate rates of growth relative
to Total Body Fat (TBF) and Empty Body Weight (EBW), respectively. Results obtained
showed that the growth of carcass fat (CF), Non-Carcass Fat (NCF) and Tail Fat
(TF) are significantly affected by the genotype (P<0.0001) and stage of growth
(P<0.0001) of lambs. Except for CF growth of both NCF and TF were also significantly
affected (P<0.001 and P<0.05, respectively) by the sex of the lamb and
the season in which lambs were born. Menz sheep deposited more fat into CF and
less in NCF depots as compared with Horro sheep. Females of both breeds tended
to deposit more fat intra-abdominally than male lambs. In both breeds, the highest
allometric growth coefficient obtained for TF and the lowest for NCF indicate
that the former is a late developing while the later is an early maturing depot
fat.
1. Introduction
The growth of fat in domestic animals is an extremely important
part of the total growth process from several points of view (Berg and Butterfield
1976). The major biological role of fat is undoubtedly to serve as an energy
store, providing a survival buffer against periodic food scarcity such as in
draught and winter conditions. In this regard, mobilization of body fat during
prolonged periods of underfeeding is a well-known phenomenon. Crampton and
Harris (1969) and also several others reported that during unfavorable seasons
when exogenous energy is in short supply, animals tend to rely on the energy
stored in the adipose tissues for their survival.
The fact that fat depots change with, and partially controls,
the various productive functions such as lactation, fattening, work and growth
in animals is widely reported. In most systems of sheep production, ewes lose
body weight in early lactation and Sykes (1974) reported that under hill conditions
ewes can almost totally deplete their body fat reserves by mid lactation. There
are several other examples of strategic mobilization of body reserves to support
vital body physiological activities but there is a paucity of information on
the type and site of depot mobilization. As a major carcass tissue, body fat
depots also affect the meat production industry, including feeding, deciding
on the optimum slaughter weight and grading of the carcass and meat quality
(Mtenga et al. 1994).
Fat is undoubtedly the most variable tissue in the carcass and
it varies not only in total amount but its partitioning among the various depots
alters markedly throughout growth. The pattern of this growth and distribution
of fat within the animals body has its own vital physiological significance
and it is an area demanding extensive investigation. This is mainly because:
a great deal of the relative carcass value of different types of animals depends
on the manner in which they partition fat among body depots and particularly
the survival of an animal during the dry season and/or at times of energy deficiency
depends on the extent to which they deposit their body fat reserves in readily
utilizable depots. The sequence of growth and partition of fat among body depots,
therefore, reflects the relative importance of each in serving the animal needs
and also the market value of the carcass. Thus, defining the pattern of growth
and distribution of fat in small ruminants is essential to an understanding
of the dynamics of body and carcass composition changes associated with production,
marketing and survival during nutritionally unfavorable seasons. However, not
much is known about tropical sheep breeds and particularly information on breed
comparison studies is scarce.
The main objective of this study was to define the pattern of
growth and partitioning of fat among body depots of in indigenous Ethiopian
Menz and Horro sheep breeds.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Study Area
This study was carried out at ILRI (International
Livestock Research Institute) Debre Berhan Research Station, in the North Shoa
zone of the Amhara Regional State in Ethiopia.
The climatic condition
at Debre Berhan area is characterised by biannual rainfall, long dry season
and relatively cool temperatures. In Debre Berhan the main rains occur from
June to September and short rains occur from March to May but the occurrence
of these rains is irregular. The long dry season lasts from October to February
with night frosts occurring from November to January.
2.2 Experimental Animals
In this study, two indigenous Ethiopian fat-tailed
sheep breeds, the Menz and Horro were used. The breeds are well known and are
of great economic importance in the areas of their origin and the production
systems they inhabit. They are also easily distinguishable from each other and
from other indigenous sheep breeds on the basis of their distinct phenotypic
and morphological characteristics.
2.3 Management
2.3.1 Mating
In an effort to obtain contemporary groups of study
lambs and to assess the influence of environmental factors, lambs born into
the two different seasons (Wet and Dry) were used. Therefore, ewes were mated
in Jan/Feb (dry) and in May/June (wet) seasons to ensure lambing into the subsequent
wet and dry months, respectively. Breeding ewes were oestrus synchronised prior
to mating using progesterone impregnated intrauterine sponges (Intervet International
B.V., Boxmeer, Holland) rams selected for mating were also properly checked
and underwent breeding soundness tests prior to joining the ewes.
2.3.2 Feeding
All lambs were reared on their dams until weaning
at 3 months of age. The feeding of study lambs was in general similar to the
conventional feeding practice of the smallholder farmers nearby. Lambs were
raised mainly on grazing of natural pasture except for limited supplementation
made during the long dry season. During this time, lambs received supplemental
hay and were fed in-group on a limited amount of concentrate at a rate of 150g/head/day
(composed of 66% wheat bran, 33% Noug cake (oil seed cake) and 1 % salt) in
their shade during the evening.
2.3.3 Health and Disease Control
Lambs were routinely checked for any health problems. They were drenched with
FASINEX and PANACUR (TAD Pharmazeutisches Werk GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) against
endoparasites at specific intervals. Newborn lambs were vaccinated against anthrax,
clostridial diseases such as blackleg and therapeutic treatments were given
to sick animals.
2.4 Experimental layout
Two groups of lambs were used and the grouping
was made based on the season of birth of lambs. The first group included sixty-four
lambs (34 Menz and 30 Horro) and the second group included eighty-three lambs
(45 Menz and 38 Horro) of both sexes, born into the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
The whole study period (12 months) of study lambs was divided into five growth
phases (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th
and 5th phases). The division of growth phases was based on the stage
of maturity of lambs starting from one to twelfth months of age with an interval
of three months between each consecutive growth phases (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).
At the end of each growth phase, 5 to 8 randomly selected lambs were slaughtered
and dissected to assess the variation in the composition of dissectible body
components and the growth and partition of fat among body depots.
2.5 Slaughter and Carcass Dissection
Lambs were slaughtered by severing the jugular
vein and the carotid arteries. Blood was collected in a clean bucket and weighed.
The weights of skin, head and trotters were also taken. The abdomen was then
opened and the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) tied off at the oesophagus and rectum.
The GIT was subsequently removed and separated into the various compartments
of fore gut, reticulo-rumen and hindgut. The whole of the GIT and its various
compartments were weighed full and empty and empty body weight (EBW) was calculated
by subtracting digesta weight from the live weight.
During evisceration weights of internal organs
(viscera) including empty alimentary tract, heart and pericardium, lungs and
trachea, liver, pancreas, kidneys, spleen, urogenital tract, udder (in females),
full and empty urinary bladder were taken. In addition, weights of all internal
fat depots: kidney fat, urogenital fat, and gut fat (omental and mesenteric
the fatty tissue surrounding the alimentary tract) were recorded. Finally,
weights of the hot dressed carcasses were taken and stored overnight at 4°C
until dissection the following morning.
Prior to dissection, the
weight of each of the cold carcasses was taken, the tail separated from the
body and the weight of tail fat recorded. The carcass was then halved longitudinally
into two equal right and left halves by sawing down along the dorsal mid line
and weights of both the right and left sides were taken. The left side of the
carcass was dissected into the components of bone, lean meat, fat (subcutaneous
and intermuscular) and sundry trimmings (major blood vessels, ligaments, tendons
and thick connective tissue sheets associated with some muscles) and the weights
of each were recorded.
2.6 Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were made using the Statistical
Analysis System (SAS 1990). Weights of lean, bone, fat and sundry trimmings
from each of the slaughtered lambs were doubled to give total carcass lean,
bone, dissected carcass fat and sundry trimmings of the whole body. Weights
of the different fat depots were also summed up to give total carcass fat (TCF).
Individual body fat depots were grouped into three major classes: non-carcass
fat (NCF kidney, urogenital and gut fat), carcass fat (CF subcutaneous and
intermuscular fats) and tail fat (TF) to assist the analysis of differential
growth and partition of fat among body depots.
Data on empty body, dissectible body components
and three classes of body fat depots were analysed using a fixed effects model
that included effects of breed, sex, age, possible interactions and body weight
(kg) as a covariate using the GLM procedures of SAS (1990). After several preliminary
analyses, the following statistical model was selected and fitted to the data:
Yijklm
= m + Bi + Sj + Ak
+ b (Xijkl ) + eijklm
Where:
Y = observation on each lamb;
m = Overall mean;
Bi = fixed effect of the ith genotype of the lamb (i
= Menz, Horro);
Sj = fixed effect of the jth sex of the lamb (j = male,
female);
Ak
= fixed effect of the kth growth phase of the lamb (k = 1st,
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th growth phases);
b (X ) = body weight
of lambs (covariable) and
eijklm
= error term.
The significance of the difference among the least
squares means of the main effects was tested by Duncans new multiple-range
test. One- and two- factor interactions between main effects were tested and
interactions with no significant effects were deleted from the final model.
The allometric
growth equation of Huxley (1932) was used to analyse the slaughter and carcass
dissection data with the aim of generating information on the growth patterns
of the different fat depots and dissectible body components relative to the
empty and the whole body. All slaughter and dissection data were first transformed
to logarithms (base 10) and log transformed weights of fat depots and dissectible
body components were then regressed on total body fat and empty body weight
using the allometric equation of the form Y = aXb. This exponential
relationship was converted to a logarithmic form to straighten the response
curve as follows:
Log10Y
=Log10 a + b Log10 X.
Where:
Y = is weight
of fat depot or weight of dissectible body component;
X= is empty body
weight or weight of total body fat;
a = is the value of Y when X = 1 and
b = is the growth coefficient describing proportionate growth
of fat in a depot relative to the total body fat/empty body weight or describing
the growth of a dissectible body component relative to the empty body weight.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Growth and Partition of Fat Depots
The partitioning of fat among major body depots
was assessed by expressing the weight of each depot as a percentage of the total
body fat. With regard to individual fat depots, results presented in Table 1
show that in the Horro sheep in general, gut fat, tail fat, and subcutaneous
fat are the major depots with overall means of 35.7, 33.5, 22.4% and 29.5, 27.5
and 28.7 % in the male and female lambs, respectively. Kidney and urogenital
fat, on the other hand, represented the smallest proportion of the total body
fat at all the different stages of growth.
With regard to the partition of individual fat depots the trend
observed in the Menz sheep (Table 2) were different from that of the Horros.
In the Menz sheep, in general, subcutaneous fat, tail fat, and gut fat were
the major fat depots with overall means of 32.9, 30.9, 24.9 % and 31.7, 22.6
and 29.8% in the males and females, respectively. As in the Horros, in the
Menz sheep also the kidney and urogenital fat depots represent the smallest
proportion of the total fat with urogenital fat being 4% more in the females
than in the males. On the other hand, subcutaneous fat was the major fat depot
in the body of the Menz sheep which is contrary to the Horros where gut fat
was found to be the major depot.
One common feature observed in both breeds was
the pattern of growth of the different fat depots at different stages of growth.
In both breeds, the proportion of subcutaneous and tail fat increased progressively
with stage of growth and in the later stages of growth, especially during the
4th and 5th growth phase, these depots represented the
largest proportion of total body fat.
The grouping of individual depots into the three
major classes (i.e. CF, NCF and TF) gave a better analysis of fat growth and
patterning with age and growth. In this regard, the least square means analyses
presented on Table 3 show the effect of various factors (genotype, sex, growth
phase and season of birth) on the three major classes of fat depots. Results
obtained indicate that lamb genotype affect carcass (P<0.001), non-carcass
(P<0.05) and tail fat (P<0.05). Stage of growth affected (P<0.0001)
the growth of all three major fat depots with season of birth and sex of lambs
having a non-significant effect only on carcass fat.
In Table 4 some differences in the growth and distribution
of the CF, NCF and TF were observed at the five different growth phases. In
the Horro sheep in general, the overall mean of CF, NCF and TF represented 22.4,
39.9, 33.5% and 28.7, 37.6 and 27.5% of the total dissectible fat in the male
and female lambs, respectively. In both sexes, the non-carcass fat represented
the largest proportion of the total dissectible fat and the proportion of tail
fat is greater in the males than in the females. On the other hand, in the Menz
sheep, the CF, NCF and TF represented about 32.9, 29.1, 30.9 % and 31.7, 39.0
and 22.6% of the total dissectible fat in the male and female lambs, respectively
(Table 5). Unlike in the Horros, in the Menz sheep the carcass fat represented
the largest proportion of total dissectible fat in both sexes. The proportion
and distribution of tail fat was, however, similar in both breeds with the proportion
of tail fat being slightly higher in males than in the female lambs.
There is considerable experimental evidence of
differences in fat partitioning between and within species (McClelland and Russel
1972). In cattle the existence of breed differences in fat partitioning has
long been known and it is widely accepted that extreme dairy breeds deposit
a higher proportion of their fat intra-abdominally than do traditional beef
breeds (Callow 1948, 1961 and Kempster 1981).
A number of studies have also reported differences
in fat partitioning between breeds of sheep. In sheep, Hammond (1932), Zubairov
(1966), Ahemedov (1968) and Donald et al. (1970) concluded that breeds differ
in their fat distribution. These differences appear to be associated with the
maternal traits of the breed, particularly lactation (Thompson and Ball 1997).
Farid (1991) working with three fat-tailed Iranian breeds: Karakul, Mehraban,
and Baluchi and their crosses with Corriedale and Targhee rams found significant
difference between the breeds in body and carcass fat distribution. The small
sized Baluchi, which is well adapted to sub-desert conditions, was the fattest
and had highest proportions of kidney and tail fat. The Karakul sheep, however,
had the highest omental and mesenteric fat, while Mehraban had the thickest
subcutaneous fat cover. On the other hand, compared with fat-tailed purebreds,
crossbreds were found to contain 18.3% more fat in the body cavity and 64% less
fat in the tail region. However, Canton et al. (1992) working with pure and
crossbred Black Belly detected no effects of breed but found that hair sheep
deposited more non-carcass fat in the internal compartments rather than subcutaneously
as wool sheep do. The distribution of fat in the body is also related to the
adaptability of animals to particular conditions. For instance, Kempster (1980)
indicated that the ability of sheep to survive in hill environments is associated
with greater fat deposition in the internal fat depots.
Regarding the distribution of fat as carcass and
non-carcass depots, Frutos et al. (1997) working with Churra sheep found that
the amount of non-carcass fat as well as its proportion in the empty body is
similar to that observed in other milk producing breeds and higher than that
of meat breeds. This kind of dichotomy of fat partitioning has been found previously
in other sheep breeds (Russel et al. 1971, Butler-Hogg 1984 and Taylor et al.
1989). In general, ewes bred for milk production tend to deposit more fat in
internal depots and those bred for meat production deposit more fat in the carcass.
Therefore, the result obtained in this study that the Horro sheep deposit significantly
(P<0.05) more non-carcass fat than the Menz sheep may be related to the good
reproductive potential and milking ability of the Horros as compared to other
indigenous breeds. This is in line with the reports of Galal (1983) who indicated
the prolificacy and good mothering ability of the Horro sheep. However, it is
in contrast to a litter size of 1.13 and 1.16 reported for Horro and Menz sheep,
respectively from the work done at ILRI Debere Berhan Resarch Station (ILRI
1994). On the other hand, the fact that Menz sheep deposit significantly (P<0.001)
more carcass fat than the Horro sheep may be indicative of the suitability of
this breed for quality mutton production (export market), as fat in the expensive
carcass joints, provided it is not in excess, is more valuable than that in
the less expensive internal organs.
Reports of sex differences in fat distribution
in temperate or tropical sheep breeds are few and there is some degree of uncertainty
on how sexes differ in partitioning of fat. However, there is a common view
(Butterfield 1988) that the higher fat content in wethers and ewes is basically
attributed to higher proportions of subcutaneous fat, which make up for the
lower contents of intermuscular fat. But Teixeira et al. (1996), working with
Galego Bragancano and crossbred lambs by Suffolk and Merino Precoce sire breeds
found that male lambs had lower proportions of internal depots (omental, mesenteric
and kidney knob and channel fat) than female lambs. The fact that rams appeared
to have higher proportions of fat in the carcass and lower proportions of non-carcass
fat depots than wether and ewe lambs reported by Mahgoub and Lodge (1994) is
in line with the results of the present study. The fact that female lambs in
this study deposited significantly (P<0.05) more non-carcass fat than male
lambs agrees with the proposal of Wood et al. (1980). The recent results of
Afonso (1992) also support this finding by indicating that milk production and
lactational stress results in preferential mobilisation of internal (non-carcass)
fat and thus, more fat is deposited internally in the non-carcass depots in
the females than in the males. This difference could also be related to the
conception of male to female biological difference as suggested by Fourie et
al. (1970).
With regard to the effects of stages of growth,
results presented in Table 3 show that there is a highly significant difference
in the proportion of the different fat depots during the different stages of
growth. This is, however, in contrast to the reports of Shemeis et al. (1994).
Working on dairy cows Shemeis et al. (1994) found no significant difference
among age groups in terms of percentages of total body fat accumulating in the
carcass, on the kidneys and around the intestines reflecting a fixed pattern
of fat partitioning in response to changes in chronological age. From results
of longitudinal studies made on the change in body condition with stages of
growth and maturity in Menz and Horro sheep it is clear that the 3rd
growth phase is the period where a loss in body condition and reserves occurs
in both breeds. The fact that of all the different depots a marked reduction
in the proportion of tail fat coincides (Table 4 and 5) with this period may
therefore be an indication that selective mobilisation of this depot has occurred
in order to fill the gap of prevailing energy deficiency during this growth
period.
Table 1. Means
and standard errors of individual fat depots as a percent of total dissectible
fat in the Horro sheep
|
Growth phase
|
Male
|
|
Female
|
|
Renal fat
|
Urog. fat
|
Gut fat
|
Tail fat
|
Sub. fat
|
|
Renal fat
|
Urog. fat
|
Gut fat
|
Tail fat
|
Sub. fat
|
| |
ns
|
ns
|
*
|
**
|
ns
|
|
ns
|
ns
|
*
|
ns
|
*
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
8.7 ± 1.1
|
2.5 ± 0.7
|
46.6 ± 7.0
|
24.3 ± 7.0
|
17.7 ± 6.8
|
|
8.3 ± 0.8
|
5.9 ± 0.9
|
22.2 ± 4.6
|
29.3 ± 4.0
|
34.1 ± 4.3
|
|
2
|
6.6 ± 1.0
|
1.1 ± 0.6
|
37.4 ± 6.4
|
28.3 ± 6.4
|
26.5 ± 6.2
|
|
6.8 ± 0.9
|
6.2 ± 0.9
|
37.8 ± 5.1
|
30.3 ± 4.4
|
18.8 ± 4.7
|
|
3
|
6.3 ± 1.0
|
2.2 ± 0.6
|
51.2 ± 6.5
|
15.5 ± 6.5
|
24.6 ± 6.3
|
|
8.3 ± 1.0
|
5.4 ± 1.0
|
31.4 ± 5.5
|
21.7 ± 4.8
|
33.2 ± 5.1
|
|
4
|
4.5 ± 0.9
|
1.7 ± 0.6
|
25.7 ± 6.1
|
46.3 ± 6.1
|
21.6 ± 5.9
|
|
5.6 ± 1.0
|
9.1 ± 1.0
|
42.5 ± 5.5
|
21.6 ± 4.8
|
21.2 ± 5.1
|
|
5
|
5.6 ± 1.3
|
2.9 ± 0.8
|
24.7 ± 8.2
|
51.4 ± 8.2
|
15.3 ± 7.9
|
|
7.0 ± 0.8
|
7.2 ± 0.9
|
24.1 ± 4.6
|
29.0 ± 4.0
|
32.5 ± 4.3
|
* = P<0.05;
** = P<0.001; *** = P<0.0001; ns=not significant
Table 2. Means
and standard errors of individual fat depots as a percent of total dissectible
fat in the Menz sheep
|
Growth phase
|
Male
|
|
Female
|
|
Renal fat
|
Urog. fat
|
Gut fat
|
Tail fat
|
Sub. fat
|
|
Renal fat
|
Urog. fat
|
Gut fat
|
Tail fat
|
Sub. fat
|
| |
ns
|
***
|
***
|
***
|
**
|
|
ns
|
*
|
ns
|
*
|
ns
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
8.2 ± 1.2
|
1.8 ± 0.8
|
24.9 ± 4.1
|
23.5 ± 4.0
|
41.4 ± 4.8
|
|
9.6 ± 1.0
|
8.5 ± 1.0
|
23.4 ± 3.9
|
24.5 ± 2.2
|
33.7 ± 4.0
|
|
2
|
9.1 ± 1.1
|
0.7 ± 0.8
|
37.2 ± 3.9
|
16.4 ± 3.7
|
36.5 ± 4.6
|
|
6.0 ± 1.0
|
5.9 ± 1.0
|
36.1 ± 3.9
|
22.8 ± 2.2
|
29.0 ± 4.0
|
|
3
|
8.1 ± 1.1
|
4.6 ± 0.7
|
35.9 ± 3.6
|
14.6 ± 3.5
|
36.7 ± 4.2
|
|
7.4 ± 1.3
|
9.4 ± 1.2
|
30.3 ± 4.9
|
15.6 ± 2.8
|
37.2 ± 5.1
|
|
4
|
7.1 ± 1.1
|
1.6 ± 0.8
|
21.2 ± 3.8
|
33.3 ± 3.7
|
36.6 ± 4.5
|
|
8.0 ± 1.1
|
7.3 ± 1.0
|
35.4 ± 4.0
|
19.2 ± 2.3
|
29.8 ± 4.1
|
|
5
|
6.6 ± 1.0
|
4.7 ± 0.7
|
13.8 ± 3.3
|
54.9 ± 3.2
|
19.9 ± 3.9
|
|
9.7 ± 1.0
|
5.8 ± 0.9
|
27.1 ± 3.8
|
25.6 ± 2.2
|
31.7 ± 3.9
|
* = P<0.05;
** = P<0.001; *** = P<0.0001; ns=not significant
Table 3. Least
square means and standard errors of the major classes of fat depots as a percent
(%) of total dissectible fat
|
Effects
|
Carcass fat
(Mean ± SE)
|
Non-carcass fat
(Mean ± SE)
|
Tail fat
(Mean ± SE)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Overall
± SD
|
29.2 ± 13.9
|
36.1 ± 14.8
|
28.8 ± 13.7
|
|
Breed
|
**
|
*
|
*
|
|
Menz
|
32.6 ± 1.6a
|
35.6 ± 1.7b
|
24.8 ± 1.6b
|
|
Horro
|
25.2 ± 1.7b
|
39.9 ± 1.8a
|
30.1 ± 1.7a
|
|
Sex
|
ns
|
*
|
***
|
|
Male
|
27.6 ± 1.6
|
35.3 ± 1.7
|
31.6 ± 1.6a
|
|
Female
|
30.1 ± 1.7
|
40.2 ± 1.8
|
23.4 ± 1.7b
|
|
Growth phase
|
***
|
***
|
***
|
|
1
|
31.7 ± 2.6
|
34.7 ± 2.8bc
|
25.7 ± 2.6bc
|
|
2
|
28.0 ± 2.6
|
41.6 ± 2.7ba
|
23.9 ± 2.5c
|
|
3
|
32.8 ± 2.7
|
44.1 ± 2.9a
|
15.5 ± 2.7d
|
|
4
|
27.7 ± 2.6
|
36.6 ± 2.7abc
|
31.2 ± 2.6b
|
|
5
|
24.1 ± 2.5
|
31.9 ± 2.7c
|
40.9 ± 2.5a
|
|
Season
of birth
|
ns
|
**
|
*
|
|
Wet
|
28.2 ± 1.9
|
41.4 ± 2.1a
|
24.8 ± 1.9b
|
|
Dry
|
29.6 ± 1.4
|
34.1 ± 1.5b
|
30.1 ± 1.4a
|
Within variable
groups, means with the same letter do not differ significantly (P>0.05).
* = P<0.05;
** = P<0.001; *** = P< 0.0001 ; ns=not significant
Table 4. Means and standard
errors of carcass, non-carcass and tail fat depots as percent of total dissectible
fat in Horro sheep
|
Growth
phase
|
Male
|
|
Female
|
|
Carcass fat
(%)
|
Non-carcass fat (%)
|
Tail fat
(%)
|
|
Carcass fat
(%)
|
Non-carcass fat (%)
|
Tail fat
(%)
|
| |
ns
|
*
|
**
|
|
*
|
*
|
ns
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
17.7 ± 6.8
|
49.3 ± 6.8
|
24.3 ± 7.0
|
|
34.0 ± 4.3
|
28.6 ± 4.7
|
29.3 ± 4.1
|
|
2
|
26.5 ± 6.2
|
38.5 ± 6.2
|
28.3 ± 6.4
|
|
18.8 ± 4.7
|
44.4 ± 5.1
|
30.3 ± 4.4
|
|
3
|
24.6 ± 6.3
|
53.1 ± 6.2
|
15.5 ± 6.5
|
|
33.2 ± 5.1
|
36.8 ± 5.6
|
21.6 ± 4.8
|
|
4
|
21.6 ± 5.9
|
31.7 ± 5.9
|
46.3 ± 6.1
|
|
21.2 ± 5.1
|
52.6 ± 5.6
|
21.6 ± 4.8
|
|
5
|
15.3 ± 7.9
|
34.7 ± 7.9
|
51.4 ± 8.2
|
|
32.6 ± 4.3
|
35.6 ± 4.7
|
29.0 ± 4.1
|
* = P<0.05;
** = P<0.001; *** = P< 0.0001 ; ns=not significant
Table 5. Means and standard errors of carcass, non-carcass
and tail fat depots as percent of total dissectible fat in Menz sheep
|
Growth
phase
|
Male
|
|
Female
|
|
Carcass fat
(%)
|
Non-carcass fat (%)
|
Tail fat
(%)
|
|
Carcass fat
(%)
|
Non-carcass fat (%)
|
Tail fat
(%)
|
| |
**
|
**
|
***
|
|
ns
|
ns
|
*
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
41.4 ± 4.8
|
27.9 ± 4.4
|
23.5 ± 4.0
|
|
33.7 ± 4.0
|
33.5 ± 4.7
|
24.5 ± 2.2
|
|
2
|
36.5 ± 4.6
|
38.5 ± 4.1
|
16.4 ± 3.7
|
|
29.0 ± 4.0
|
44.3 ± 4.6
|
22.8 ± 2.2
|
|
3
|
36.7 ± 4.2
|
40.8 ± 3.9
|
14.6 ± 3.5
|
|
37.2 ± 5.1
|
39.7 ± 5.9
|
15.6 ± 2.8
|
|
4
|
36.7 ± 4.5
|
23.1 ± 4.1
|
33.3 ± 3.7
|
|
29.8 ± 4.1
|
43.5 ± 4.8
|
19.2 ± 2.3
|
|
5
|
19.9 ± 3.9
|
21.9 ± 3.5
|
54.9 ± 3.2
|
|
31.7 ± 3.9
|
36.2 ± 4.5
|
25.6 ± 2.2
|
* = P<0.05;
** = P<0.001; *** = P< 0.0001 ; ns=not significant
3.2 Growth of Fat Depots
The allometric growth equation of Huxley (1932) of the form {Y = aXb} in its
logarithmic form (base 10) was used to assess differential growth of fat depots
in relation to body size during the growth and development of Menz and Horro
lambs. Coefficients of the equation relating the growth of the three major classes
and individual fat depots relative to total body fat and empty body weight are
given in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. With regard to the three major classes
of fat depots, the CF, NCF and TF had growth coefficients of 0.99, 0.87 and
1.27 in the Menz and 1.10, 0.79, and 1.22 in the Horro sheep relative to total
body fat, respectively. On the other hand, relative to empty body weight, CF,
NCF and TF had growth coefficients of 1.10, 1.07 and 1.79 in the Menz and 1.57,
1.35 and 2.11 in the Horro sheep, respectively (Table 6). In both breeds, the
result obtained shows that the highest growth coefficient was obtained for TF
indicating that it is the late developing depot, while the NCF depot is the
early developing one. From results presented in Tables 6 and 7 it is clear that
more of the variation in fat depots could be accounted for by variation in total
body fat than by empty body weight.
The allometric growth coefficients presented in
Table 7 show a similar trend of growth for individual fat depots in both breeds.
The result obtained in general shows that relative to total body fat, the kidney,
gut and urogenital fats are early growing depots in comparison to the tail and
subcutaneous fat depots. Relative to empty body weight, however, the kidney,
gut and urogenital fat depots had growth coefficients equal to one or slightly
greater than one indicating a proportional growth of the depots with body weight.
The tail and subcutaneous fat depots on the other hand, had coefficients of
greater than one demonstrating the late maturing characteristics of these depots.
Regarding the growth of fat depots relative to
total body fat and empty body weight, results obtained from the Log/Log
allometric analysis show that the CF and TF appears to be late maturing with
a growth coefficient of greater than one. On the other hand, the growth of individual
fat depots relative to empty body weight resulted in growth coefficients of
1.04, 0.86, 1.02, 1.23, and 1.76 in the Menz and 1.16, 1.14, 1.38, 1.60 and
1.96 in the Horro for kidney, gut, urogenital, subcutaneous and tail fat, respectively.
The result obtained in this regard is slightly different from the results reported
by Mahgoub and Lodge (1996). Working with Omani and Betina goats, Mahgoub and
Lodge (1996) reported a slightly higher growth coefficients of 1.51, 1.49, 1.40
and 1.85 for kidney, gut, urogenital and subcutaneous fat relative to empty
body weight.
On the other hand, Mtenga et al. (1994) working
with male British Saanen goats found that the allometric equations for growth
of fat depots (gut fat, channel fat, kidney fat, sub. fat, intermuscular fat)
relative to empty body weight were all greater than one indicating that as empty
body weight increased the proportions of these depots increased. The largest
growth coefficient was for subcutaneous fat, showing it to be the latest developing
depot, while kidney and channel fat were the earlier developing ones. This is
in agreement with the results of the present study where the largest growth
coefficient relative to EBW was for tail and subcutaneous fat while kidney,
urogenital and gut fats were relatively early maturing depots with smaller growth
coefficients than subcutaneous and tail fats. The results, however, contrast
sharply with those reported by Ladipo (1973) using a mixture of male dairy goat
breeds slaughtered between 22 and 54 kg live weight. He reported for fat depots
the following order of increasing rate: subcutaneous, gut fat (caul and mesenteric),
intermuscular fat, and finally visceral fat (kidney, channel and heart fat).
The fact that non-carcass fat grew at a higher rate than carcass fat as reported
by Mahgoub and Lodge (1994) is contrary to the results of the present work.
In general, the result obtained in this study with regard to the order of development
of fat depots is in line with the classical view where growth of intra-abdominal
(internal body) fat is followed by the growth of subcutaneous and intermuscular
fat depots, although there are now some evidences to suggest that intra-abdominal
fat has also a later period of rapid growth.
Table 6. Allometric
growth equations of the form Log Y = b Log X + a, describing relationship between
the three classes of fat depots (Y) and Total body fat and empty body weight
(X)
|
A. Relative
to total body fat
|
|
Depot (Y)
|
Menz
|
Horro
|
|
a
|
B
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
a
|
b
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
|
CF
|
-0.5119
|
0.9975
|
0.0617
|
0.770
|
0.032
|
-0.8452
|
1.1005
|
0.0681
|
0.816
|
0.041
|
|
NCF
|
-0.1818
|
0.8560
|
0.0653
|
0.687
|
0.036
|
0.0049
|
0.7946
|
0.0724
|
0.671
|
0.046
|
|
TF
|
-1.2712
|
1.2709
|
0.0830
|
0.750
|
0.058
|
-0.1224
|
1.2197
|
0.0671
|
0.720
|
0.086
|
| |
|
B. Relative
to empty body weight
|
|
Depot (Y)
|
Menz
|
Horro
|
|
a
|
B
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
a
|
b
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
|
CF
|
-2.1896
|
1.1041
|
0.1847
|
0.314
|
0.096
|
-3.9858
|
1.5795
|
0.2366
|
0.430
|
0.127
|
|
NCF
|
-2.0675
|
1.0701
|
0.1623
|
0.357
|
0.074
|
-3.0417
|
1.3528
|
0.1769
|
0.497
|
0.071
|
|
TF
|
-4.7954
|
1.7882
|
0.2047
|
0.049
|
0.117
|
-5.9212
|
2.1098
|
0.2474
|
0.552
|
0.139
|
CF= carcass fat; NCF= non-carcass fat; SE = Standard error; MSE
= Mean square error; R2 = Coefficient of determination; TF = Tail
fat
Table 7. Allometric growth equations of the form Log Y =
b Log X + a, describing relationship between individual fat depots (Y) and Total
body fat and empty body weight (X)
|
A. Relative
to total body fat
|
|
Depot (Y)
|
Menz
|
Horro
|
|
a
|
b
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
a
|
b
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
|
Renal fat
|
-0.0879
|
0.9004
|
0.0626
|
0.752
|
0.028
|
-0.4194
|
0.6764
|
0.0694
|
0.659
|
0.036
|
|
Gut fat
|
0.0271
|
0.7253
|
0.0809
|
0.541
|
0.047
|
0.2464
|
0.6459
|
0.1005
|
0.457
|
0.076
|
|
Subcutaneous
fat
|
-0.5302
|
0.9995
|
0.0654
|
0.774
|
0.031
|
-0.9296
|
1.1340
|
0.0741
|
0.826
|
0.041
|
|
Urogenital
fat
|
-0.8132
|
0.7936
|
0.1004
|
0.478
|
0.073
|
-1.1242
|
0.8962
|
0.1083
|
0.582
|
0.089
|
|
Tail fat
|
-1.3009
|
1.2839
|
0.0894
|
0.752
|
0.058
|
-1.0144
|
1.1710
|
0.1079
|
0.706
|
0.088
|
| |
|
B. Relative
to empty body weight
|
|
Depot (Y)
|
Menz
|
Horro
|
|
a
|
b
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
a
|
b
|
SE (b)
|
R2
|
MSE
|
|
Renal fat
|
-2.5546
|
1.0417
|
0.1682
|
0.360
|
0.074
|
-3.0328
|
1.1607
|
0.1653
|
0.501
|
0.053
|
|
Gut fat
|
-1.3986
|
0.8642
|
0.1700
|
0.275
|
0.075
|
-2.3891
|
1.1464
|
0.2128
|
0.372
|
0.088
|
|
Subcutaneous
fat
|
-1.8866
|
1.0236
|
0.1938
|
0.291
|
0.098
|
-4.0492
|
1.6024
|
0.2654
|
0.426
|
0.138
|
|
Urogenital
fat
|
-2.6514
|
1.0221
|
0.1966
|
0.284
|
0.101
|
-4.0105
|
1.3810
|
0.2645
|
0.357
|
0.137
|
|
Tail fat
|
-4.6887
|
1.7671
|
0.2099
|
0.510
|
0.115
|
-5.3786
|
1.9657
|
0.2730
|
0.5141
|
0.146
|
SE = Standarad error; MSE = Mean square error; R2
= Coefficient of determination
In general, clear differences in the growth and partition of fat among body
depots of Menz and Horro sheep breeds and the different sexes were observed.
The Menz sheep showed the tendency to deposit more fat into the carcass depot
as compared to the NCF depots in the Horro sheep. The fact that females deposit
more non-carcass fat as compared to male lambs at any one stage of growth may
be related to the fact that milk production and lactational stress results
in preferential mobilisation of NCF depots and thus more fat is deposited internally
in the females than in the males.
References
Afonso, M. J. J., 1992.
Changes in body composition in sheep during growth, pregnancy and lactation.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of New England.
Ahemedov, N. M., 1968.
Comparative morphology of the skeletal musculature and fat deposits of the Asiatic
Mouflon (Ovis orientalis) and Blabas sheep. Izv. Akad. Nauk. azerb. SSR. Ser.
Nauk. 2, 59-66.
Berg, R. T., Butterfield,
R. M., 1976. New concepts of cattle growth, Sydney University Press, Sydney.
Butterfield, R. M., 1988.
New concepts of sheep growth, Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University
of Sydney, Australia.
Butler-Hogg, B. W., 1984.
The growth of Clun and Southdown sheep: Body composition and the partitioning
of total body fat. Anim. Prod. 39, 405-411.
Callow, E. H., 1948. Comparative
studies of meat. II. The changes in the carcass during growth and fattening
and their relation to the chemical composition of the fatty and muscular tissues.
J. Agric. Sci. (Camb). 38, 174-199.
Callow, E. H., 1961. Comparative
studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian
steers on four levels of nutrition. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb). 56, 265-282.
Canton, J. G., Velazquez,
A., Castellanos, A., 1992. Body composition of pure and crossbred Blackbelly
sheep. Small Ruminant Research 7, 61-66.
Crampton, E. W., Harris,
L. E., 1969. Applied Animal Nutrition: The use of feedstuffs in the formulation
of livestock rations, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
Donald, H. P., Read, J.
L., Russel, W. S., 1970. Influence of litter size and breed of sire on carcass
weight and quality of lambs. Anim. Prod. 12, 281-290.
Farid, A., 1991. Slaughter
and carcass characteristics of three fat-tailed sheep breeds and their crosses
with Corriedale and Targhee rams. Small Ruminant Research 5, 255-273.
Fourie, P. D., Kirton,
A. H., Jury, K. E., 1970. Growth and development of sheep. II. Effect of breed
and sex on the growth and carcass composition of the Southdown and Romney and
their cross. NZ J. Agric. Res. 13, 753-770.
Frutos, P., Mantecon, A.
R., Giraldez, F. J. 1997. Relationship of body condition score and live weight
with body composition in mature Churra ewes. Animal Science 64, 447-452.
Galal, E. S. E., 1983.
Sheep germplasm in Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resources Information, UNEP/FAO
1/83, 4-12.
Hammond, J., 1932. Growth
and development of Mutton qualities in sheep, Oliver and Boyd, London.
Huxley, J. , 1932. Problems
of relative growth,, Methuen, London.
ILRI, 1994. ILRI Annual
Report. Page 27-28.
Kempster, A. J., 1980.
Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs: A
review. Meat science 5, 83-98.
Kempster, A. J., 1981.
Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs: A
review. Meat Sci. 5, 83-98.
Ladipo, J. K., 1973. Body
composition of male goats and characterisation of their depot fats. Ph.D. Thesis,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 343pp.
Legel, S., 1990. Nutztier
der Tropen und Subtropen: Band II. Büffel, Kamele, Schafe, Ziegen, Wildtiere.,
S. Hirzel Verlag, 556pp, Leipzig.
Mahgoub, O., Lodge, G.
A., 1994. Growth and body composition of Omani local sheep 1. Live weight growth
and carcass and non-carcass characteristics. Anim. Prod. 58, 365-372.
Mahgoub, O., Lodge, G.
A., 1996. Growth and body composition in meat production of Omani Batina goats.
Small Ruminant Research 19, 233-246.
McClelland, T. H., Russel,
A. J. F., 1972. The distribution of body fat in Scottish Blackface and Finnish
Landrace lambs. Animal Production 15, 301-306.
Mtenga, L. A., Owen, E., Muhikambele, V. R. M., Kifaro, G. C., Sendalo, D.
S. C., Massawe, N. F., Kiango, S. M., Nkungu, D. R., 1994. Growth and partition
of fat depots in male British Saanen goats. In Small Ruminant Research and
Development in Africa. Third Biennial Conference of the African Small Ruminant
Research Network, (L. S. H. B. a. K. E., ed.), pp. 255-258. ILRI, Nairobi,
Kenya. 326pp, 5-9 December, 1994, UICC, Kampala, Uganda.
Russel, A. J. F., Doney,
J. M., Gunn, R. G., 1971. The distribution of chemical fat in the bodies of
Scottish Blackface ewes. Anim. Prod. 13, 503-509.
SAS, 1990. The Statistical
Analysis System. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
Shemeis, A. R., Liboriussen,
T., Anderson, B. B., Abdellah, O. Y., 1994. Offal components, body fat partition,
carcass composition and carcass tissue distribution in Danish Friesian cull
cows of different age and body condition. Livestock Production Science 40, 165-170.
Sykes, A. R., 1974. The
prediction of body composition of hill sheep from body weight, red cell volume
and tritiated water space. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb). 269-275.
Taylor, C. S., Murray,
J. I., Thonney, M. L., 1989. Breed and sex differences among equally mature
sheep and goats 4. Carcass muscle, fat and bone. Anim. Prod. 49, 385-410.
Teixeira, A., Delfa, R.,
Treacher, T., 1996. Carcass composition and body fat depots of Galego Bragancano
and crossbred lambs by Suffolk and Merino Precoce sire breeds. Animal Science
63, 389-394.
Thompson, J. M., Ball,
A. J., 1997. Genetics of meat quality. In The Genetics of Sheep (L. Piper
and A. Ruvinsky, eds.), pp. 523-539. CAB INTERNATIONAL.
Wood, J. D., MacFie, H. J. H., Pomery, R. W., Twinn, D. J., 1980. Carcass
composition in four sheep breeds: The importance of type of breed and stage
of maturity. Animal Production 30, 135-152.
Zubairov, M. M., 1966.
The ability of sheep of various breeds to deposit fat. Ovtsevodstvo 12, 18-19.
Citation:
Negussie, E., O.J. Rottman, F. Pirchner and J.E.O. Rege.
2000. Allometric growth coefficients and partitioning of fat depots in indigenous
Ethiopian Menz and Horro sheep breeds. In: R.C. Merkel, G. Abebe and A.L. Goetsch
(eds.). The Opportunities and Challenges of Enhancing Goat Production in East
Africa. Proceedings of a conference held at Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia
from November 10 to 12, 2000. E (Kika) de la Garza Institute for Goat Research,
Langston University, Langston, OK pp. 151-163.
|