Effects of type, sex and age on goat skin and leather characteristics

IF 1.2 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Animal Production Science Pub Date : 2014-04-15 DOI:10.1071/AN13032
M. Salehi, I. Kadim, O. Mahgoub, S. Negahdari, R. S. E. Naeeni
{"title":"Effects of type, sex and age on goat skin and leather characteristics","authors":"M. Salehi, I. Kadim, O. Mahgoub, S. Negahdari, R. S. E. Naeeni","doi":"10.1071/AN13032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study evaluated the potential of two goat types (hairy and cashmere) for quality and quantity of skin and leather production. Goat skins (200: males n = 80, and females n = 120) of two age groups (<1 year, n = 80; and 1–5 years, n = 120) representing two genotypes (hairy and cashmere) were used. There were significant differences between hairy and cashmere goats for skin area (43.7 ± 0.9 and 41.8 ± 0.9 dm2; P = 0.04). Cashmere goat leather had significantly higher values for thickness (1.01 ± 0.01 vs 0.96 ± 0.01 mm; P = 0.05) and percentage extension (66.4 ± 0.9 vs 63.1 ± 0.9%; P = 0.04) than hairy goat leather. There were no type effects on leather weight (P = 0.3), area or dimension (P = 0.6–0.1), breaking force (P = 0.8), or tensile strength (P = 0.06). Male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) heavier skins (1288 ± 26.4 vs 804 ± 23.3 g) with greater area (49.2 ± 0.9 vs 35.3 ± 0.9 dm2) and greater thickness at all sites measured than females. In addition, male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) heavier leather (568.1 ± 13.5 vs 321.2 ± 11.6 g) with greater area (71.4 ± 0.9 vs 53.8 ± 0.9 dm2), length (96.3 ± 1.1 vs 83.1 ± 0.9 cm), and width (65.4 ± 0.7 vs 60.8 ± 0.6 cm). Leather from male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) higher breaking force (32.9 ± 0.8 vs 23.2 ± 0.7 kg), tensile strength (296.5 ± 5.6 vs 264.2 ± 4.9 kg force/cm2), and percentage extension (68.5 ± 1.0 vs 61.0 ± 0.9%) than females. Adult goats had significantly heavier (P < 0.0001) skins and leather with greater (P < 0.0001) area and greater (P = 0.0006–< 0.0001) leather thickness at all sites measured than kids. Leather from adult goats had significantly higher values for breaking force (29.6 ± 0.7 vs 26.5 ± 0.8 kg; P = 0.001) and percentage extension (66.6 ± 0.9 vs 62.9 ± 1.0%; P = 0.006), but tensile strength was not significantly different (283.6 ± 5.1 vs 276.4 ± 5.1 kg force/cm2; P = 0.3). The region of sampling had significant (P < 0.0001) effects on physical properties of goat leather. The skin form hip, top shoulder, and back regions had highest thickness, followed by the rib and belt. Leather samples from shoulder showed significantly greater (P < 0.0001) breaking force and tensile strength (31.7 ± 0.7 kg, 313.4 ± 4.6 kg force/cm2) than hip (24.7 ± 0.7 kg, 226.6 ± 4.6 kg force/cm2) and rib (25.4 ± 0.7 kg, 294.4 ± 4.6 kg force/cm2), but had less extension (59.0 ± 0.9 vs 68.0 ± 0.9 and 65.4 ± 0.9%; P < 0.0001). Samples taken parallel to the backbone had significantly (P < 0.0001) higher force and strength (31.2 ± 0.7 kg, 314.3 ± 4.3 kg force/cm2) than perpendicular samples (23.4 ± 0.7 kg, 241.9 ± 4.3 kg force/cm2), although they showed smaller (P < 0.0001) percentage extension (59.9 ± 0.9, 68.4 ± 0.9%). Phenotypic correlation estimates among studied traits ranged from +0.4 for physical characteristics of leather with weight and area to +0.9 among weight, area, and thickness of skin and leather. This study showed that skin and leather differences were greater between males and females, and between kids and adults, than between hairy and cashmere goats.","PeriodicalId":49242,"journal":{"name":"Animal Production Science","volume":"54 1","pages":"638-644"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/AN13032","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Production Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AN13032","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

This study evaluated the potential of two goat types (hairy and cashmere) for quality and quantity of skin and leather production. Goat skins (200: males n = 80, and females n = 120) of two age groups (<1 year, n = 80; and 1–5 years, n = 120) representing two genotypes (hairy and cashmere) were used. There were significant differences between hairy and cashmere goats for skin area (43.7 ± 0.9 and 41.8 ± 0.9 dm2; P = 0.04). Cashmere goat leather had significantly higher values for thickness (1.01 ± 0.01 vs 0.96 ± 0.01 mm; P = 0.05) and percentage extension (66.4 ± 0.9 vs 63.1 ± 0.9%; P = 0.04) than hairy goat leather. There were no type effects on leather weight (P = 0.3), area or dimension (P = 0.6–0.1), breaking force (P = 0.8), or tensile strength (P = 0.06). Male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) heavier skins (1288 ± 26.4 vs 804 ± 23.3 g) with greater area (49.2 ± 0.9 vs 35.3 ± 0.9 dm2) and greater thickness at all sites measured than females. In addition, male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) heavier leather (568.1 ± 13.5 vs 321.2 ± 11.6 g) with greater area (71.4 ± 0.9 vs 53.8 ± 0.9 dm2), length (96.3 ± 1.1 vs 83.1 ± 0.9 cm), and width (65.4 ± 0.7 vs 60.8 ± 0.6 cm). Leather from male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) higher breaking force (32.9 ± 0.8 vs 23.2 ± 0.7 kg), tensile strength (296.5 ± 5.6 vs 264.2 ± 4.9 kg force/cm2), and percentage extension (68.5 ± 1.0 vs 61.0 ± 0.9%) than females. Adult goats had significantly heavier (P < 0.0001) skins and leather with greater (P < 0.0001) area and greater (P = 0.0006–< 0.0001) leather thickness at all sites measured than kids. Leather from adult goats had significantly higher values for breaking force (29.6 ± 0.7 vs 26.5 ± 0.8 kg; P = 0.001) and percentage extension (66.6 ± 0.9 vs 62.9 ± 1.0%; P = 0.006), but tensile strength was not significantly different (283.6 ± 5.1 vs 276.4 ± 5.1 kg force/cm2; P = 0.3). The region of sampling had significant (P < 0.0001) effects on physical properties of goat leather. The skin form hip, top shoulder, and back regions had highest thickness, followed by the rib and belt. Leather samples from shoulder showed significantly greater (P < 0.0001) breaking force and tensile strength (31.7 ± 0.7 kg, 313.4 ± 4.6 kg force/cm2) than hip (24.7 ± 0.7 kg, 226.6 ± 4.6 kg force/cm2) and rib (25.4 ± 0.7 kg, 294.4 ± 4.6 kg force/cm2), but had less extension (59.0 ± 0.9 vs 68.0 ± 0.9 and 65.4 ± 0.9%; P < 0.0001). Samples taken parallel to the backbone had significantly (P < 0.0001) higher force and strength (31.2 ± 0.7 kg, 314.3 ± 4.3 kg force/cm2) than perpendicular samples (23.4 ± 0.7 kg, 241.9 ± 4.3 kg force/cm2), although they showed smaller (P < 0.0001) percentage extension (59.9 ± 0.9, 68.4 ± 0.9%). Phenotypic correlation estimates among studied traits ranged from +0.4 for physical characteristics of leather with weight and area to +0.9 among weight, area, and thickness of skin and leather. This study showed that skin and leather differences were greater between males and females, and between kids and adults, than between hairy and cashmere goats.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
品种、性别和年龄对山羊皮肤和皮革特性的影响
本研究评估了两种山羊类型(毛山羊和羊绒山羊)在皮肤和皮革生产的质量和数量方面的潜力。山羊皮(200张,公羊80张,母羊120张),2个年龄组(<1岁,80张;1-5岁,n = 120),分别代表两种基因型(毛型和羊绒型)。毛山羊和绒山羊的皮肤面积差异显著(43.7±0.9 dm2和41.8±0.9 dm2);P = 0.04)。绒山羊革的厚度值显著高于羊绒革(1.01±0.01 vs 0.96±0.01 mm);P = 0.05)和延长百分比(66.4±0.9 vs 63.1±0.9%;P = 0.04)。革重(P = 0.3)、面积或尺寸(P = 0.6-0.1)、断裂力(P = 0.8)和抗拉强度(P = 0.06)均无类型影响。公山羊的皮肤重量(1288±26.4 g vs 804±23.3 g)、面积(49.2±0.9 dm2 vs 35.3±0.9 dm2)和厚度均显著高于母山羊(P < 0.0001)。此外,公山羊的皮革重量(568.1±13.5 g vs 321.2±11.6 g)更重(P < 0.0001),面积(71.4±0.9 dm2 vs 53.8±0.9 dm2)、长度(96.3±1.1 cm vs 83.1±0.9 cm)和宽度(65.4±0.7 cm vs 60.8±0.6 cm)更大。公山羊皮革的断裂力(32.9±0.8比23.2±0.7 kg)、抗拉强度(296.5±5.6比264.2±4.9 kg力/cm2)和伸长率(68.5±1.0比61.0±0.9%)显著高于母山羊(P < 0.0001)。成年山羊的皮和皮革重量显著(P < 0.0001),面积显著(P < 0.0001),皮革厚度显著(P = 0.0006 - < 0.0001)高于幼山羊。成年山羊皮革的断裂力值明显更高(29.6±0.7 vs 26.5±0.8 kg;P = 0.001)和百分比扩展(66.6±0.9 vs 62.9±1.0%;P = 0.006),但抗拉强度差异无统计学意义(283.6±5.1 vs 276.4±5.1 kg force/cm2;P = 0.3)。采样区域对山羊皮的物理性能有显著影响(P < 0.0001)。臀部、上肩和背部的皮肤厚度最高,其次是肋骨和腰带。肩部皮革样品的断裂力和抗拉强度(31.7±0.7 kg, 313.4±4.6 kg force/cm2)显著高于臀部(24.7±0.7 kg, 226.6±4.6 kg force/cm2)和肋骨(25.4±0.7 kg, 294.4±4.6 kg force/cm2) (P < 0.0001),但拉伸力(59.0±0.9 vs 68.0±0.9和65.4±0.9%)较小;P < 0.0001)。平行于脊柱的样品的力和强度(31.2±0.7 kg, 314.3±4.3 kg force/cm2)显著高于垂直于脊柱的样品(23.4±0.7 kg, 241.9±4.3 kg force/cm2),但其伸长率(59.9±0.9,68.4±0.9%)较小(P < 0.0001)。研究性状之间的表型相关性估计范围从皮革的重量和面积的物理特征的+0.4到皮肤和皮革的重量、面积和厚度的+0.9。这项研究表明,男性和女性、儿童和成人之间的皮肤和皮革差异比长毛山羊和绒山羊之间的差异更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Production Science
Animal Production Science AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
7.10%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Research papers in Animal Production Science focus on improving livestock and food production, and on the social and economic issues that influence primary producers. The journal (formerly known as Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture) is predominantly concerned with domesticated animals (beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry); however, contributions on horses and wild animals may be published where relevant. Animal Production Science is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.
期刊最新文献
Indicators of functional integrity in production animals Environmental impacts of the Australian poultry industry. 1. Chicken meat production Foreword: Reproductive performance of northern Australia beef herds Production and performance of commercial beef breeding females in northern Australia. 4. Factors influencing the occurrence of lactating cows becoming pregnant within 4 months of calving Influence of season on milk fatty acid profile and sensory characteristics of grazing goats in a Mediterranean environment: a sustainable agro-food system
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1