Comparison of Two Methods Using Measurement of the Surface Area of M. Longissimus Dorsi (MLD)*

Year 2018, Volume: 58 Issue: 2, 77 - 80, 27.12.2018

Aykut Asım Akbaş , Mehmet Sarı Özkan Elmaz Mustafa Saatcı

Abstract

The purpose of study was to compare two different methods to measure the M. longissimus dorsi (MLD) surface area. For this aim, planimeter method and a new method with Autocad software programme were evaluated. MLD areas from 47 samples from Hemşin and Tuj breeds and 63 samples from Saanen, Honamlı and Hair breeds were used. In planimeter method, traced MLD area by hand to acetate paper transferred into squared centimetres. In the new procedure, the surface area of the MLD was traced onto acetate papers and then transferred to a computer by scanning. The AutoCAD software program was used to calculate the area of the MLD. Statistically significant (P< 0.001) correlation coefficients between two methods were detected as 0.999 and 0.998 for Hemsin and Tuj lambs and 0.996, 0.988 and 0.994 for Saanen, Hair and Honamlı kids, respectively. Correlation coefficiant of whole data was 0.995. In the study, there was also found that, time savings can be considered as a notable factor for Autocad method (134.45 second) than the planimeter metod (255.70 second) (P< 0.001). According to findings, the Autocad method can be used as a time saving practical usage instead of planimeter method. Also, this technique can be combined with the some image capturing methods, to reach the reliable results in a short time. 

Keywords

Autocad, Musculus longissimus dorsi, planimeter

References

• 1. AutoCAD (2012): AutoCAD Software. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Autodesk Inc.
• 2. Baskaya R, Karaca T, Sevinc I, Cakmak O, Yıldız A, Yoruk M (2004): The histological, microbiyological and serological quality of ground beef marketed in Istanbul. Van Veterinary Journal, 15(12): 41-46.
• 3. Baulain U (1997): Magnetic resonance imaging for the in vivo determination of body composition in animal science. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 17: 189-203.
• 4. Celebi S, Kaya A (2008): The biological properties of conjugated linoleic acid and the studies to increase its level in animal products. Journal of Animal Production, 49(1): 62-68.
• 5. Delgado C (2005): Rising Demand For Meat and Milk In Developing Countries: Implications For Grasslands-based Livestock Production. p: 29-39. In: Grassland: A Global Resource, Edit.: DA McGilloway, Wageningen Academic Publishers, ISBN: 978-9076998-71-8, The Netherlands.
• 6. Fernandez C, Gallego L, Quintanilla A (1997): Lamb fat thickness and longissimus muscle area measured by a computerized ultrasonic system. Small Ruminant Research, 26: 277-282.
• 7. Ferreira OGL, Rossi FD, Coelho RAT, Fucilini VF, Benedetti M (2012): Measurement of rib-eye area by the method of digital images. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41(3): 811-814.
• 8. Inal T (1992): Besin Hijyeni. Hayvansal Gıdaların Sağlık Kontrolü. Final Ofset. İstanbul.
• 9. Karolyi D, Džidić A, Salajpal K, Đikić M, Jurić I (2006): Comparison of Two Methods for Longissimus Muscle Area Measurements. p:57. 57th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, September, 17 – 20, Antalya.
• 10. Minitab (2011): Minitab For Windows Version Release 16, Minitab Inc.
• 11. Moeller SJ, Christian LL (1998): Evaluation of the accuracy of realtime ultrasonic measurements of backfat and loin muscle area in swine using multiple statistical analyses procedures. Journal of Animal Science, 76: 2503-2514.
• 12. Ozbeyaz C (2015): Cattle Breeding, Ankara University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Department of Animal Science, Lecture Notes, Ankara.
• 13. Smith BS, Jones WR, Hough JD, Huffman DL, Mikel WB, Mulvaney DR (1992): Prediction of carcass characteristics by real time ultrasound in barrows and gilts slaughtered at three weights. Journal of Animal Science, 70: 2304–2308.
• 14. Szabo CS, Babinszky L, Verstegen MWA, Vangen O, Jansman AJM, Kanis E (1999): The application of digital imaging techniques in the in vivo estimation of the body composition of pigs: a review. Livestock Production Science, 60: 1–11.
• 15. Szlavy L, Horvath GY (1993): CT and MR Imaging of the Body, Springer, Budapest, p: 25-38.
• 16. Thornton PK (2010): Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 365: 2853-2867.
• 17. Turan SF (2006): A Study On The Identification Of Meat Animal Species According to Carcass Make Up Hair Morphology and Fatty Acid Compositions. MSc. Thesis, Çukurova University, Institute of Science and Technology, Adana.
• 18. Vangen O, Enting H (1990): Intramuscular Fat In Different Duroc Crosses Estimated By Computerised Tomography (CT). In: Meat Quality in Slaughter Animals, Editors: K Lundstrom, G Malmfors, NJF Seminar No. 83, p: 243-252, Norway.
• 19. Yanez EA, Ferreira ACD, Medeiros AN, Pereira Filho JM, Teixeira IAMA, Resende KT (2006): Methodologies for ribeye area determination in goats. Small Ruminant Research, 66: 197-200.