COMPARISON BETWEEN VISUAL ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT OF HEART GIRTH OR HIP-WIDTH TO ESTIMATE LIVE WEIGHT IN CROSSBRED BEEF HEIFERS

Q3 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Martha Itzel Alejandro-Zarate, Rosario Salazar-Cuytun, Jose Herrera Camacho, Aldenamar Cruz-Hernandez, Roberto C. Barrientos-Medina, Martin Ptáček, Einar Vargas-Bello-Perez, Alfonso Juventino Chay Canul
{"title":"COMPARISON BETWEEN VISUAL ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT OF HEART GIRTH OR HIP-WIDTH TO ESTIMATE LIVE WEIGHT IN CROSSBRED BEEF HEIFERS","authors":"Martha Itzel Alejandro-Zarate, Rosario Salazar-Cuytun, Jose Herrera Camacho, Aldenamar Cruz-Hernandez, Roberto C. Barrientos-Medina, Martin Ptáček, Einar Vargas-Bello-Perez, Alfonso Juventino Chay Canul","doi":"10.56369/tsaes.5033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background.</strong> Estimation of animal body weight (BW) is a fundamental tool in herd management for the development of reproductive, nutritional and health programmes. <strong>Objective.</strong> To compare the actual BW and its estimation by visual method and measurement of the heart girth (HG) or hip width (HW) for estimating BW in crossbred beef heifers reared under humid tropical conditions in Mexico. <strong>Methodology.</strong> Data on GH, HW, BW estimated by the visual method (MV) and actual BW were recorded in 105 crossbred replacement heifers (<em>Bos taurus × Bos indicus</em>) Swiss American, Beef Master, Simmental, and Brahman with different degrees of crossbreeding. Heifers ranged in age from three to 20 months and were grazed on star grass (<em>Cynodon nlemfuensis</em>) and humidicola grass (<em>Brachiaria humidicola</em>) pastures without supplementation. BW was recorded using a digital scale, HG was measured using a flexible fibreglass tape and HW was measured using a 65 cm forceps. BW by visual estimation was considered as the average of three observations made by three observers, HG and HW methods using the formula 1) BW (kg): 202.68 - 4.39 × HG + 0.03 × HG<sup>2</sup>; 2) BW (kg): 0.26 × HW<sup>1.90</sup>. The Pearson coefficient and the distribution (density) of each variable, were assessed using a correlation matrix graph. Also, a comparison the measures obtained by each of the different estimation methods with the observed weights, by inspecting the paired Bland-Altman plots, prior to logarithmic transformation. <strong>Results. </strong>Correlations between observed BW and predicted BW for the HG, HW and visual methods showed a positive and significant relationship (P&amp;lt;0.001), with r values of 0.95, 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The HG method tended to overestimate the real BW, whereas, in the visual and HW methods, the values are evenly and randomly distributed around the line, indicating that these methods neither underestimated nor overestimated the BW. <strong>Implications. </strong>Although the HG method showed the highest correlation coefficient between observed and predicted BW, the result of the present study showed that visual assessment highlights the ability of observers to visually estimate the BW of growing heifers. <strong>Conclusion.</strong> Livestock handlers have a very accurate estimation of BW. The use of alternative methods to scales, such as the HG measuring method, can be useful and practical tools to improve the accuracy of the assessment. </p>","PeriodicalId":23259,"journal":{"name":"Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.5033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Estimation of animal body weight (BW) is a fundamental tool in herd management for the development of reproductive, nutritional and health programmes. Objective. To compare the actual BW and its estimation by visual method and measurement of the heart girth (HG) or hip width (HW) for estimating BW in crossbred beef heifers reared under humid tropical conditions in Mexico. Methodology. Data on GH, HW, BW estimated by the visual method (MV) and actual BW were recorded in 105 crossbred replacement heifers (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) Swiss American, Beef Master, Simmental, and Brahman with different degrees of crossbreeding. Heifers ranged in age from three to 20 months and were grazed on star grass (Cynodon nlemfuensis) and humidicola grass (Brachiaria humidicola) pastures without supplementation. BW was recorded using a digital scale, HG was measured using a flexible fibreglass tape and HW was measured using a 65 cm forceps. BW by visual estimation was considered as the average of three observations made by three observers, HG and HW methods using the formula 1) BW (kg): 202.68 - 4.39 × HG + 0.03 × HG2; 2) BW (kg): 0.26 × HW1.90. The Pearson coefficient and the distribution (density) of each variable, were assessed using a correlation matrix graph. Also, a comparison the measures obtained by each of the different estimation methods with the observed weights, by inspecting the paired Bland-Altman plots, prior to logarithmic transformation. Results. Correlations between observed BW and predicted BW for the HG, HW and visual methods showed a positive and significant relationship (P&lt;0.001), with r values of 0.95, 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The HG method tended to overestimate the real BW, whereas, in the visual and HW methods, the values are evenly and randomly distributed around the line, indicating that these methods neither underestimated nor overestimated the BW. Implications. Although the HG method showed the highest correlation coefficient between observed and predicted BW, the result of the present study showed that visual assessment highlights the ability of observers to visually estimate the BW of growing heifers. Conclusion. Livestock handlers have a very accurate estimation of BW. The use of alternative methods to scales, such as the HG measuring method, can be useful and practical tools to improve the accuracy of the assessment.

目测法与测量心围或臀宽估算杂交肉牛活重的比较
& lt; p> & lt; strong>背景。;/ strong>估计动物体重是畜群管理的基本工具,可用于制定生殖、营养和健康规划。& lt; strong>客观灵活;/ strong>比较在墨西哥热带潮湿环境下饲养的杂交肉牛的实际体重和目测法估算的体重,以及测量心围(HG)或臀宽(HW)估算体重。& lt; strong>方法灵活;/ strong>记录了105头杂交替代母牛(<em>Bos taurus × Bos indicus</em>)的体长、身高、体重和实际体重数据。瑞士美国人,牛肉大师,西门塔尔和婆罗门不同程度的杂交。犊牛年龄在3 ~ 20月龄之间,饲喂星草(< emnodon nlemfuensis</em>)和湿枝草(<em>Brachiaria humidicola</em>)牧场,不添加饲料。体重用数字秤记录,HG用柔性玻璃纤维胶带测量,HW用65厘米的钳子测量。目测体重被认为是由三位观测者,HG和HW方法进行的三次观测的平均值,使用公式1)体重(kg): 202.68 - 4.39 × HG + 0.03 × HG< sup<2</sup>;2) BW(公斤):0.26×HW< sup> 1.90 & lt; / sup>。使用相关矩阵图评估Pearson系数和每个变量的分布(密度)。此外,通过检查配对Bland-Altman图,在对数变换之前,将每种不同估计方法获得的度量与观察到的权重进行比较。& lt; strong>结果。HG、HW和目测方法的实测体重与预测体重呈显著正相关(P<0.001), r值分别为0.95、0.89和0.92。HG法倾向于高估实际体重,而视觉法和HW法的数值在直线周围均匀随机分布,表明这些方法既没有低估体重,也没有高估体重。& lt; strong>影响。虽然HG法的实际体重与预测体重之间的相关系数最高,但本研究的结果表明,视觉评价强调了观察者对生长期母牛体重的视觉估计能力。& lt; strong>结论。;/ strong>牲畜饲养员对体重有非常准确的估计。使用替代尺度的方法,如汞柱测量方法,可以是提高评估准确性的有用和实用的工具。& lt; / p>
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems
Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal is an international peer-reviewed publication devoted to disseminate original information contributing to the understanding and development of agroecosystems in tropical and subtropical areas. The Journal recognizes the multidisciplinary nature of its scope and encourages the submission of original manuscripts from all of the disciplines involved in this area. Original contributions are welcomed in relation to the study of particular components of the agroecosystems (i.e. plant, animal, soil) as well as the resulting interactions and their relationship/impact on society and environment. The journal does not received manuscripts based solely on economic acpects o food technology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信