some gastrointestinal tract characteristics of karayaka ram lambs slaughtered at different weights

Research ArticleSome Gastrointestinal Tract Characteristics of Karayaka RamLambs Slaughtered at Different Weights

Arda YJldJrJm1 Yuumlksel Aksoy2 Nuh Ocak3 and Zafer UlutaG4

1 Department of Animal Science Faculty of Agriculture University of Gaziosmanpasa 60240 Tokat Turkey2Department of Food Processing Bor Vocational School University of Nigde 51700 Nigde Turkey3 Department of Animal Science Faculty of Agriculture University of Ondokuz Mayıs 55139 Samsun Turkey4Department of Animal Production and Technologies Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and TechnologiesUniversity of Nigde 51240 Nigde Turkey

Correspondence should be addressed to Arda Yıldırım ardayildirimgopedutr

Received 13 March 2014 Accepted 6 July 2014 Published 15 July 2014

Academic Editor Jesus L Romalde

Copyright copy 2014 Arda Yıldırım et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

Thirty-one Karayaka ram lambs were slaughtered at different body weights (30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) and50 (119899 = 5) kg of body weight at fast) to evaluate the growth of their gastrointestinal tract (GIT) characteristics to determine therelationship among slaughter body weight (SBW) and empty body weight (EBW) whole GIT and segments and the influenceof slaughter weight on the pH of rumen jejunum and cecal contents The effects of the SBW on GIT weight (119875 lt 005) stomach(119875 lt 0001) and intestine (119875 lt 005) the body length (119875 lt 0001) and caecum (119875 lt 005) and the relativeweights ofGIT (119875 lt 005)stomach (119875 lt 0001) and intestine (119875 lt 0001) were linear whereas that for the length of intestine were quadratic The effect ofSBW were quadratic (119875 lt 005) on ratios of stomach to GIT weight and intestine length to intestine weight and rumen pH whilefor the intestine to GIT weight ratio (119875 lt 0001) and caecum pH (119875 lt 005) this effect was linear The results indicated that for allparameters studied with the exception of intestinal length and cecal pH linear relationships were observed with SBW indicatingsteady growth rates for these tissues

1 Introduction

Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) development is characterized bytremendous increases in mass volume and surface area [1]In addition tissue growth is accompanied by a differentiationwhich results in physical changes which include increasedGIT stomach (reticulo-rumen) and intestinal capacity (rela-tive to body weight) and alterations in metabolic characteris-tics Rumen development has a clear andmajor impact on thedigestive capabilities and supply of substrates to the growingruminant [2]Thus understanding the control of growth anddifferentiation in the various segmentsrsquo capacity of GIT isessential to evaluate the growth of noncarcass componentsof growing lambs and the development of improved feedingregimes and high carcass yield [3ndash5]

In meat production systems an increase in slaughterweight of lambs may result in higher productivity and givemore flexibility to the production system [6] Traditionally

lambs in Turkey as well as in most parts of the world areslaughtered between weaning at approximately 3 to 6 monthsof age with slaughter weights of 10 to 12 kg for sucklinglambs 20 to 22 kg for light lambs 30 to 32 kg for earlyfattening lambs and 40 to 42 kg for late fattening lambs [7 8]As reported by Carvalho et al [9] and Galvani et al [10]proportions of different noncarcass components such as GITstomach and intestine expressed as percentage of the bodyweight at slaughter and also the proportion of gastrointestinalcontent are the main factors that affect carcass yield A highfeed efficiency cannot always represent a high efficiency offood production because some organs can be proportionallygreater at more advanced maturity dropping the retention oftissues in the carcass [11] In order to achieve higher weightand quality carcass necessary nutritional interventions arerequired in lamb from birth till slaughter [12] Thereforeknowledge about growth rate fromdistinct body componentscan help to determine an adequate slaughter weight in

Hindawi Publishing Corporatione Scientific World JournalVolume 2014 Article ID 379023 6 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014379023

2 The Scientific World Journal

which carcass yield will be maximized [10] whereas thestudy of growth rate of some organs with high metabolicactivity including gastrointestinal organs can contribute toimproving the understanding on factors that affect nutritionalrequirements of the animals [13]

Although a number of studies have been conducted toelucidate the GIT development and growth [7 10 14 15] littleinformation is available on the GIT characteristics and theinfluence of different slaughter weights on the pH values inthe various segments (rumen jejunum and caecum) of GITof especially the Karayaka ram lambs which is one of theindigenous breeds reared on the coastline of the Black Searegion of Turkey and well adapted to the wet climate of theregionThus the GIT characteristics such as weights of wholeGIT stomach and intestine and lengths of body intestineand caecum should be studied at different slaughter weightsThe present study was conducted to evaluate the growth ofthese GIT components of growing lambs to provide increasein GIT and some segments which are closely related withthe body weight of the animal to determine the relationshipamong slaughter body weight (SBW) and empty body weight(EBW) whole GIT and some segments it is aimed toexamine the influence of different slaughter weights on thepH values of the various segments (rumen jejunum andcaecum) of the lamb GIT

2 Material and Methods

The study was carried out at the experimental farm of theGaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Agriculture TokatTurkey situated at 40∘311015840N 36∘531015840 E and 650m above sealevel Long term average annual temperature and relativehumidity in this region vary from 81 to 142∘C and between56 and 73 [16] The study was conducted complying withthe EC 8 Directive 86609EEC and approved by EthicalCommittee of Gaziosmanpasa University for ExperimentalAnimals (protocol number 2011046) and ascertained thatthe experiment is not an unnecessary repetition of previousexperiments

The winter born (119899 = 31) singleton indigenous Karayakamale lambs were used in this study These animals wereobtained from a study conducted to determine carcass andmeat quality traits of Karayaka lambs at different slaughterweights in our institute [17] Lambs were randomly assignedto one of five following slaughter weights 30 (119899 = 7) 35(119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) and 50 (119899 = 5) kg ofbody weight at fast For this reason lambs weaned at 423 plusmn220 days of age were treated for internal parasites drenchedwith anthelmintic preparation (Triclabendazole 12mgkgLevamisole 75mgkg) and housed together in 4 times 6m pensequipped with feeders and a water source and fed ad libitumunder feedlot system in a naturally ventilated animal house

Concentrate feed mineral stone and fresh water aregiven ad libitum in fattening period whereas the forage lentilstraw is given only 100 glambday during in the experi-ment Feed was intended to provide nutrient requirementsfor fattening [18] The chemical composition of the feedsupplements is presented in Table 1 Dry matter (method93015) crude protein (method 95401) and fat by ether

Table 1 Composition of experimental concentrate feed and redlentil straw

Item Concentratefeed

Red lentilstraw

Metabolizable energy (Mcalkg) 277 201Nutrients ()

Dry matter 9200 9130Crude protein 2063 578Ether extract 260 149Ash 1040 960Neutral detergent fibre 3796 5629Acid detergent fibre 2639 5559

extract were measured using the automated Tecator SoxtecSystemHT6 (Application noteAN 301 FOSSNorthAmericaEden Prairie MN USA) and crude ash (method 94205)of dietary ingredients were determined according to AOAC[19] The contents of neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and aciddetergent fibre (ADF) were generated according to van Soestet al [20] using the ANKOM A200220 Fiber Analyzer filterbag technique (ANKOM Technology Corp Fairport NYUSA)

Before slaughter the lambs were fasted for 16 h withfree access to water Also body length (art humeri-tuberichii) was determined with measuring stick and measuringtape When lambs reached 30 35 40 45 and 50 kg ofLW during fattening period they were transported to alocal licensed abattoir and they were slaughtered follow-ing standard commercial slaughter procedures [21] Thedigestive tract including the mouth tongue salivary glandsesophagus four compartment stomach (rumen reticulumomasum and abomasum) pancreas gall bladder small intes-tine (duodenum jejunum and ileum) and large intestine(caecum colon and rectum) was removed and weighed toget the weight of the full (GIT) and then emptied of itscontents washed drained and weighed to get the weightof the GIT content GIT content was then subtracted fromthe SBW to determine empty body weight (EBW) Emptybody weight (EBW) was calculated by the difference betweenSBW and the weight of the gastrointestinal contents [10]Following exsanguinations empty stomach (reticulo-rumencomplex) and intestine weight were weighed and recorded[22] As there is no distinct division between the rumen andthe reticulum they are often referred to together (reticulo-rumen) The rumen was opened and the contents wereremoved before the organ was washed by hand and theexternal fat was then removed [23] Length of the intestinewas measured with measuring stick andmeasuring tape [24]Empty GIT stomach and intestine weights were weighed(absolute weight) and expressed (relative weight of SBW)per unit of body weight at slaughter Hence the relativeweight contributions of these non-carcass components toSBW or their commercial yields were determined

Before evisceration the pH values of rumen jejunumand caecum digestas were immediately determined using adigital pH meter (Sartorious PP15 AG Weender Landstrasse

The Scientific World Journal 3

Table 2 Slaughter body (SBW) and empty body (EBW) weights (kg) absolute weights (kg) and length (m) and relative weights ( of SBW)of gastrointestinal tract segments of Karayaka ram lambs

Variable Slaughter weight categories (kg) SEM(1) 119875

30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)

Weight ofSlaughter body 301 356 403 451 506 123Empty body 274 324 374 418 471 119 lowast lowast lowast NSGastrointestinal tract 576 634 686 689 760 0200 lowast NSStomach 082 086 091 095 106 0019 lowast lowast lowast NSIntestine 112 104 104 103 106 0022 lowast NSGastrointestinal content 270 318 290 328 352 0145 NS lowast

Length ofBody 059 060 064 063 068 0008 lowast lowast lowast NSIntestine 346 342 378 351 354 044 NS lowast

Caecum 034 038 040 037 043 0010 lowast NSRelative weight of

Gastrointestinal tract 191 178 170 153 150 048 lowast NSStomach 27 24 23 21 21 005 lowast lowast lowast NSIntestine 37 29 26 21 21 012 lowast lowast lowast NSGastrointestinal content 89 89 72 73 70 039 lowast NS

(1)Standard error of the mean (2)linear and (3)quadratic effects of increasing slaughter weight NS nonsignificant (119875 gt 005) lowast119875 lt 005 lowastlowast119875 lt 001 lowastlowastlowast119875 lt0001

94ndash108 Goettingen Germany) In the present study thepH values were determined in five slaughter weights ofrumen jejunum and caecum because rumen and intestinedigesta pH values are dependent on sampling location withinrumen and intestine The pH probe was kept in the rumenduodenum and caecum until the pH reading was stabilizedand pH value was recorded [23]

Datawere analyzed in a completely randomized design byregressionThus model included linear and quadratic effectsas well as the lone main effect of slaughter weight usingthe obtained values as independent variables All analyseswere performed using the SPSS statistical package [25]Regression equations and bivariate correlations displayingthe relationship among slaughter weight and weights ofGIT stomach and intestine and lengths of body intestineand caecum were to be examined by means of regressionprocedure of SPSS To verify if 119887 is significant the 119905-testwas used Results are presented as means and a pooled SEM(unless otherwise stated)

3 Results

The SBW EBW the absolute weights and length and therelative weights of whole GIT and their segments of Karayakaram lambs are presented in Table 2The effects of the SBW forthe absolute weights of GIT (119875 lt 005) stomach (119875 lt 0001)and intestine (119875 lt 005) the lengths of body (119875 lt 0001)and caecum (119875 lt 005) and the relative weights of GIT (119875 lt005) stomach (119875 lt 0001) intestine (119875 lt 0001) and thegastrointestinal content (119875 lt 005) were linear whereas thosefor the absolute weight of gastrointestinal content (119875 lt 005)and the length of intestine were quadratic

Estimated parameters for the regression equations of theempty body weight whole GIT and their segments andbivariate correlations displaying the relationship among thesevariables and slaughter weight are presented in Table 3 Therelationships between the SBW and EBW (1199032 = 0986 119875 lt0001) and the weights of GIT (1199032 = 0329 119875 lt 001) andstomach (1199032 = 0512 119875 lt 001) and the length of body(1199032 = 0376 119875 lt 001) and caecum (1199032 = 0145 119875 lt 005)were significantThe relationship between the EBWand SBWcan be expressed by the following linear equation (1199032 = 0986standard error of the estimate = 0813 119899 = 31) EBW kg =minus181 (plusmn0818) + [0968 (plusmn0200) times SBW kg]

The intestine length to body length ratio stomach weightto gastrointestinal weight ratio intestine weight to gastroin-testinal weight ratio and intestine length to intestine weightratio in Karayaka ram lambs slaughtered at different weightsare presented in Table 4 The effects of the SBW werequadratic (119875 lt 005) for the ratios of stomach weight toGIT weight and intestine length to intestine weight while fortheintestineweight toGITweight ratio (119875 lt 0001) this effectwas linear

The pH of contents from various segments of the GITis presented in Table 5 The effects of the SBW were linear(119875 lt 005) for the rumen pH while for the caecum pH (119875 lt005) these effects were quadratic A search of the literatureindicated a lack of information on pH values of the varioussegments of the GIT in lambs slaughtered at different bodyweights

4 Discussion

In general a majority of the parameters measured exhib-ited linear relationships with SBW with the exception of


Table 3 Estimated parameters for the regression equations of the empty body weight (EBW) whole gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and somesegments of GIT and bivariate correlations displaying the relationship among these variables and slaughter weight

Component 119886 119887 SEdagger 119905 1199032 SEsect

EBW minus1808 0968 0200 47374lowastlowastlowast 0986lowastlowastlowast 0813GIT weight 2934 0093 0024 3888lowastlowastlowast 0329lowastlowast 0957Stomach weight 0463 0011 0002 5707lowastlowastlowast 0512lowastlowast 0079Intestine weight 1215 minus0004 0003 minus1444NS 0063NS 0123Body length 47103 0390 0090 13033lowastlowastlowast 0376lowastlowast 3594Intestine length 32561 0072 0060 1195NS 0044NS 2407Caecum length 25258 0321 0142 2257lowast 0145lowast 5462119886 the intercept of the linear regression 119887 the relative growth or regression coefficient SEdagger standard error of the regression coefficient SEsect standard error ofthe estimate NS119875 gt 005 lowast119875 lt 005 lowastlowast119875 lt 001 lowastlowastlowast119875 lt 0001

Table 4 Ratios between the whole GIT and selected segments in the Karayaka ram lambs slaughtered at different weights


30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2)

119876(3)

IL to BL 587 576 587 559 523 097 NS NSSW to GITW 145 136 136 140 142 036 NS lowast

IW to GITW 198 163 155 138 144 058 lowastlowast NSIL to IW 32 30 28 27 30 006 NS lowast

IL to BL intestine length to body length ratio SW to GITW stomach weight to gastrointestinal weight ratio IW to GITW intestine weight to gastrointestinalweight ratio IL to IW intestine length to intestine weight ratio(1)Standard error of the mean (2)linear and (3)quadratic effects of increasing slaughter weight NS nonsignificant (119875 gt 005) lowast119875 lt 005 lowastlowast119875 lt 001

Table 5 Selected segment pH of gastrointestinal tract in Karayaka ram lambs slaughtered at different weights


30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)

Rumen pH 687 691 698 684 708 0419 lowast NSJejunum pH 600 605 609 601 606 0602 NS NSCaecum pH 647 659 677 664 647 0036 NS lowast(1)Standard error of the mean (2)linear and (3)quadratic effects of increasing slaughter weight NS nonsignificant (119875 gt 005) lowast119875 lt 005

digesta and length and cecal pH which exhibited a quadraticrelationship These results confirm that the highest carcassyield obtained from lambs slaughtered immediately afterweaning [15 26] although changes in the carcass yield as theSBW increased were not presented in the current study Theabsoluteweights ofwholeGIT and stomach increased linearlywhereas that of intestine decreased as the SBW increasedThefunctional maturity of the GIT is essential for the survivaland growth of postnatal animals [1] Therefore the growthpatterns of different body components such as whole GITstomach and intestines in relation to SBW were decreasedlinearly as the SBW increased The relative weights of non-carcass components were greater in lambs slaughtered at 30and 35 kg of body weight than those in lambs slaughtered at40 45 and 50 kg of body weight These results indicate thatthe changes in the relative weight contributions of noncarcasscomponents to SBW affected the SBW or commercial carcassyields

In the study reported by Abdullah and Qudsieh [7]slaughteringAwassi ram lambs at weights up to 30 kg resultedin higher dressing-out percentage and better carcass char-acteristics than ram lambs slaughtered at heavier weightsLambs with heavier weights of stomach and intestine may

have lower carcass yield because the gastrointestinal contentinfluenced carcass yield [4] Therefore when taking accountof the change in GIT weight with increasing SBW and thequadratic change in contents the optimal body weight forslaughter may be recommended as 40ndash45 kg for Karayakamale lambs Indeed the gastrointestinal content as a pro-portion of SBW which indicates the ratio of EBW to SBWdecreased from 89 in lambs slaughtered at body weightof 30 kg to 70 in animals slaughtered at more elevatedbody weights This may be explained by the fact that theproportion of gastrointestinal content is directly related tothe ruminal development [10] which is stimulated by the drymatter intake mainly from fibrous foods [2] Accordinglyfor Karayaka lambs raised in confinement after weaning at42 days and feeding until 150 days of age slaughter weighttargets should probably be increased to 40ndash45 kg withoutdetrimental effects on carcass yield [17] confirming thesuggestions of Santos-Silva and Portugal [27] for MerinoBranco lambsThe results on the absolute weights and lengthand the relative weights of whole GIT and their segmentsare similar to those reported by Galvani et al [10] in Texelcrossbred lambs slaughtered at 25 30 or 35 kg of bodyweightIndeed Galvani et al [10] reported that an effect of the SBW


on the absolute weights and relative weights of GIT stomachand intestine was observed while there is no effect on weightof stomach contents Also Balci and Karakas [14] found thateffect of the SBW on the absolute weight of GIT in Karayakaram lambs slaughtered at 25 30 or 35 kg of body weight wassignificant

The development of stomach is directly related to feedintake [2] Priolo et al [28] reported that the increase inweight of the rumen and small intestine is an indicationthat they have an important role in ensuring the efficiencyof feed utilization in animals However it was not clearwhether lambs slaughtered at a high body weight were moreefficient in terms of feed intake and feed efficiency due to thedifference in relative GIT weights since there were no data onthe amount of feed consumed by lambs in the current studyIn the study there is the linear decrease in the absolute andrelative weights of intestine while there is a quadratic changein the length of intestine (Table 3) Therefore the proportionof intestine was affected by the slaughter weight as reportedby Galvani et al [10]

Correlation coefficients found in the present study arelower than those observed by Galvani et al [10] for the smalland large intestines our results may be analyzed by usingthe regression equations of each of the GIT segments as afunction of SBW with the exception of intestine weight andlength In the present study the EBW the weights of GITand their segments such as stomach and intestine caecumincreased at a steady rate between all slaughter weights asreported by Balci and Karakas [14] Abdullah and Qudsieh[7] and Galvani et al [10]

The results with respect to the ratios between the wholeGIT traits and their segments indicate that the ratios of stom-ach weight to GIT weight and intestine length to intestineweight and the intestine weight to GIT weight are likely toaffect the fattening performance of lambs as it was observedin our previous study [29] Also these resultsmay suggest thatdifferent parts of the GIT had a constant length relative to theintestineweightThe quadratic effect of the SBW for the ratiosof intestine length to intestine weightmay be explained by thefact that stimulating the functional role of the GIT at an earlyage seems to increase its length [5]

The pH values observed in the present study were withinranges (600 to 708) which most rumen microbes can typi-cally thrive [29ndash31]The GIT development may be stimulatedby pH values of rumen and caecum because volatile fattyacids may result in significant changes in intestinal growthcharacteristics of developing ruminants [1] Ruminal pHdrops below physiological levels when ruminants consumeexcessive amounts of rapidly fermentable (nonfibre) carbo-hydrates [32 33] Krause and Oetzel [33] noted that tomaintain ruminal pH within a physiological range of about55 to 70 ruminants possess highly developed systems suchas carefully regulating their feed intake and the ability ofthe rumen to rapidly absorb organic acids Therefore thedifferences in influence of SBW on the GIT pH may beexplained by differences in the nature of regulation of ruminalpH described above

5 Conclusions

The results indicated that for all parameters studied exceptgastrointestinal content intestine length and caecum pHincreased at a steady rate between all slaughter weights andalso that different body components present distinct growthpatterns GIT stomach and intestine are proportionallygreater in the younger Karayaka sheep Also growth anddevelopment of whole GIT and specific segments increasedwith SBW and it is evident that they was not reached aplateau for except intestine lengthThe changes in the relativeweights of the whole GIT and their segments as well asthe relative weight of the gastrointestinal content as theSBW increased suggested that 40 and 45 kg of slaughterweight for Karayakamale lambs are recommended Howeverbecause the response in terms of carcass yield and qualityparameters can vary depending on the degree of maturityof the animals at slaughter the age or body weight of thelamb at slaughter should be determined However becausethe response in terms of carcass yield and quality parameterscan vary depending on the degree of maturity of the animalsat slaughter the age or body weight of the lamb at slaughtershould be determined taking into account demands andprices for these carcass components in different marketsThese data may be used in selection of optimal slaughterweight decisions on farm regarding Karayaka ram lambs

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by The Scientific and Technolog-ical Research Council TUBITAK (TOVAG-111O848) Theauthors are grateful for the support of the staff and facil-ities of Animal Science Department Agriculture FacultyGaziosmanpasa UniversityThe authors thank Associate Pro-fessor Dr H Onder for his assistance with the statisticalanalysis

References

[1] R L Baldwin ldquoSheep gastrointestinal development in responseto different dietary treatmentsrdquo Small Ruminant Research vol35 no 1 pp 39ndash47 1999

[2] R L Baldwin K R McLeod J L Klotz and R N Heit-mann ldquoRumen development intestinal growth and hepaticmetabolism in the pre- and postweaning ruminantrdquo Journal ofDairy Science vol 87 no 1 pp E55ndashE65 2004

[3] F Gao X Z Hou and Y C Liu ldquoEffect of intrauterine growthrestriction on weight and cellularity of gastrointestinal tract inpostnatal lambsrdquo Canadian Journal of Animal Science vol 88no 1 pp 107ndash112 2008

[4] F G Rıos A Gomez-Vazquez J M Pinos-Rodrıguez et alldquoEffect of breed on performance and carcass characteristics ofMexican hair sheeprdquo South African Journal of Animal Sciencevol 41 no 3 pp 275ndash279 2011


[5] G A A Ward ldquoEffect of pre-weaning diet on lambrsquos rumendevelopmentrdquo American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural ampEnvironmental Sciences vol 3 no 4 pp 561ndash567 2008

[6] J Santos-Silva I A Mendes and R J B Bessa ldquoThe effect ofgenotype feeding system and slaughter weight on the qualityof light lambs 1 growth carcass composition and meat qualityrdquoLivestock Production Science vol 76 no 1-2 pp 17ndash25 2002

[7] Y A Abdullah and R I Qudsieh ldquoCarcass characteristics ofAwassi ram lambs slaughtered at different weightsrdquo LivestockScience vol 117 no 2-3 pp 165ndash175 2008

[8] Z Ulutas M Kuran A Onenc et al ldquoYerli ırklarımızdanIvesi Kıvırcık Akkaraman Morkaraman Karayaka AnadoluMerinosu koyunlarında et kalitelerinin belirlenmesirdquo in 8Ulusal Zootekni Bilim Kongresi p 396 Canakkale Turkey 2013

[9] S Carvalho M A Brochier J Pivato A Vergueiro R CTeixeira and R Kieling ldquoDesempenho e avaliacao economicada alimentacao de cordeiros confinados com dietas contendodiferentes relacoes volumoso concentradordquo Ciencia Rural vol37 no 5 pp 1411ndash1417 2007

[10] D B Galvani C C Pires T P Wommer F de Oliveira G PT Kodayssi and L Griebler ldquoPostweaning growth of the non-carcass components of Texel crossbred lambsrdquoRevista Brasileirade Zootecnia vol 39 no 7 pp 1558ndash1564 2010

[11] C C Pires L F Silva L H E Farinatti L A O Peixoto M EFulber and M A Cunha ldquoCrescimento de cordeiros abatidoscom diferentes pesos 2 Constituintes corporaisrdquoCiencia Ruralvol 30 no 5 pp 869ndash873 2000

[12] R S Bhatt M K Tripathi D L Verma and S A Karim ldquoEffectof different feeding regimes on pre-weaning growth rumenfermentation and its influence on post-weaning performance oflambsrdquo Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition vol93 no 5 pp 568ndash576 2009

[13] C L Ferrel ldquoContribution of visceral organs to animal energyexpendituresrdquo Journal of Animal Science vol 66 no 3 pp 23ndash34 1988

[14] F Balci and E Karakas ldquoThe effect of different slaughterweights on the fattening performance slaughter and carcasscharacteristics of male Karayaka lambsrdquo Turkish Journal ofVeterinary and Animal Sciences vol 31 no 1 pp 25ndash31 2007

[15] P Perez M Maino M S Morales C Kobrich C Bardonand J Pokniak ldquoGender and slaughter weight effects on carcassquality traits of suckling lambs from four different genotypesrdquoSmall Ruminant Research vol 70 no 2-3 pp 124ndash130 2007

[16] MARA The Master Plan of Tokat Province Tokat StatisticalData of Tokat Province MARA Tokat Turkey 2009

[17] Y Aksoy Determination of carcass and meat quality traitsof Karayaka lambs at different slaughter weight [PhD the-sis] Gaziosmanpasa University Graduate School of Naturaland Applied Sciences Department of Animal Science TokatTurkey 2013

[18] NRC Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants Sheep GoatsCervids and New World Camelids National Academy PressWashington DC USA 6th edition 2007

[19] AOAC Official Methods of Analysis Association of OfficialAnalytical ChemistsWashington DC USA 17th edition 2000

[20] P J van Soest J B Robertson and B A Lewis ldquoMethods fordietary fiber neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccha-rides in relation to animal nutritionrdquo Journal of dairy sciencevol 74 no 10 pp 3583ndash3597 1991

[21] Turkish Standards Institute TS 52737 Butchery Animals-Rulesfor Slaughtering and Carcass Preparation Ankara Turkey 1987

[22] F Balci and A Orman ldquoThe effects of short-term recombinantbovine somatotropin treatment on fattening performance car-cass composition and visceral organ weights in karayaka lambsin Turkeyrdquo Tropical Animal Health and Production vol 40 no4 pp 255ndash260 2008

[23] A Yıldırım Z Ulutas N Ocak E Sirin and Y Aksoy ldquoA studyon gastrointestinal tract characteristics of ram lambs with sameweights from six common Turkish sheep breedsrdquo South AfricanJournal of Animal Science vol 44 no 1 pp 90ndash96 2014

[24] G Stenheim L A Nordheim R B Weladji Oslash Holand andT Adnoslashy ldquoDigestive tract anatomy of Norwegian sheep dif-ference between breedsrdquo Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica AAnimal Science vol 53 no 3 pp 155ndash158 2003

[25] SPSS Statistics Base 170 for Windows Userrsquos Guide SPSSChicago Ill USA 2008

[26] V A C Santos S R Silva E G Mena and J M T AzevedoldquoLive weight and sex effects on carcass and meat quality ofldquoBorrego terrincho-PDOrdquo suckling lambsrdquoMeat Science vol 77no 4 pp 654ndash661 2007

[27] J Santos-Silva and A V Portugal ldquoThe effect of weight oncarcass and meat quality of Serra da Estrela andMerino Brancolambs fattened with dehydrated lucernerdquo Animal Research vol50 no 4 pp 289ndash298 2001

[28] A Priolo D Micol J Agabriel S Prache and E DransfieldldquoEffect of grass or concentrate feeding systems on lamb carcassandmeat qualityrdquoMeat Science vol 62 no 2 pp 179ndash185 2002

[29] A Yıldırım Z Ulutas N Ocak and M Kaptan ldquoEffects ofbirth weight and feeding system on fattening performance andfeeding behavior of Karayaka male lambsrdquo Italian Journal ofAnimal Science vol 12 no 4 pp 546ndash550 2013

[30] R Franzolin and B A Dehority ldquoThe role of pH on the survivalof rumenprotozoa in steersrdquoRevista Brasileira de Zootecnia vol39 no 10 pp 2262ndash2267 2010

[31] R Franzolin F P Rosales andWV B Soares ldquoEffects of dietaryenergy and nitrogen supplements on rumen fermentationand protozoa population in buffalo and zebu cattlerdquo RevistaBrasileira de Zootecnia vol 39 no 3 pp 549ndash555 2010

[32] J R Russell A W Young and N A Jorgensen ldquoEffect dietarycorn starch intake on pancreatic amylase and intestinal maltaseand pH in cattlerdquo Journal of Animal Science vol 52 no 5 pp1177ndash1182 1981

[33] K M Krause and G R Oetzel ldquoUnderstanding and preventingsubacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds A reviewrdquo AnimalFeed Science and Technology vol 126 no 3-4 pp 215ndash236 2006

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Veterinary MedicineJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Veterinary Medicine International



International Journal of

Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of

EcologyInternational Journal of


PsycheHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Biotechnology Research International


Agronomy




Journal of Parasitology Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom


Volume 2014

Zoology


GenomicsInternational Journal of

Volume 2014

InsectsJournal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


VirusesJournal of

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Cell BiologyInternational Journal of



Case Reports in Veterinary Medicine


which carcass yield will be maximized [10] whereas thestudy of growth rate of some organs with high metabolicactivity including gastrointestinal organs can contribute toimproving the understanding on factors that affect nutritionalrequirements of the animals [13]

Although a number of studies have been conducted toelucidate the GIT development and growth [7 10 14 15] littleinformation is available on the GIT characteristics and theinfluence of different slaughter weights on the pH values inthe various segments (rumen jejunum and caecum) of GITof especially the Karayaka ram lambs which is one of theindigenous breeds reared on the coastline of the Black Searegion of Turkey and well adapted to the wet climate of theregionThus the GIT characteristics such as weights of wholeGIT stomach and intestine and lengths of body intestineand caecum should be studied at different slaughter weightsThe present study was conducted to evaluate the growth ofthese GIT components of growing lambs to provide increasein GIT and some segments which are closely related withthe body weight of the animal to determine the relationshipamong slaughter body weight (SBW) and empty body weight(EBW) whole GIT and some segments it is aimed toexamine the influence of different slaughter weights on thepH values of the various segments (rumen jejunum andcaecum) of the lamb GIT

2 Material and Methods

The study was carried out at the experimental farm of theGaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Agriculture TokatTurkey situated at 40∘311015840N 36∘531015840 E and 650m above sealevel Long term average annual temperature and relativehumidity in this region vary from 81 to 142∘C and between56 and 73 [16] The study was conducted complying withthe EC 8 Directive 86609EEC and approved by EthicalCommittee of Gaziosmanpasa University for ExperimentalAnimals (protocol number 2011046) and ascertained thatthe experiment is not an unnecessary repetition of previousexperiments

The winter born (119899 = 31) singleton indigenous Karayakamale lambs were used in this study These animals wereobtained from a study conducted to determine carcass andmeat quality traits of Karayaka lambs at different slaughterweights in our institute [17] Lambs were randomly assignedto one of five following slaughter weights 30 (119899 = 7) 35(119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) and 50 (119899 = 5) kg ofbody weight at fast For this reason lambs weaned at 423 plusmn220 days of age were treated for internal parasites drenchedwith anthelmintic preparation (Triclabendazole 12mgkgLevamisole 75mgkg) and housed together in 4 times 6m pensequipped with feeders and a water source and fed ad libitumunder feedlot system in a naturally ventilated animal house

Concentrate feed mineral stone and fresh water aregiven ad libitum in fattening period whereas the forage lentilstraw is given only 100 glambday during in the experi-ment Feed was intended to provide nutrient requirementsfor fattening [18] The chemical composition of the feedsupplements is presented in Table 1 Dry matter (method93015) crude protein (method 95401) and fat by ether

Table 1 Composition of experimental concentrate feed and redlentil straw

Item Concentratefeed

Red lentilstraw

Metabolizable energy (Mcalkg) 277 201Nutrients ()

Dry matter 9200 9130Crude protein 2063 578Ether extract 260 149Ash 1040 960Neutral detergent fibre 3796 5629Acid detergent fibre 2639 5559

extract were measured using the automated Tecator SoxtecSystemHT6 (Application noteAN 301 FOSSNorthAmericaEden Prairie MN USA) and crude ash (method 94205)of dietary ingredients were determined according to AOAC[19] The contents of neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and aciddetergent fibre (ADF) were generated according to van Soestet al [20] using the ANKOM A200220 Fiber Analyzer filterbag technique (ANKOM Technology Corp Fairport NYUSA)

Before slaughter the lambs were fasted for 16 h withfree access to water Also body length (art humeri-tuberichii) was determined with measuring stick and measuringtape When lambs reached 30 35 40 45 and 50 kg ofLW during fattening period they were transported to alocal licensed abattoir and they were slaughtered follow-ing standard commercial slaughter procedures [21] Thedigestive tract including the mouth tongue salivary glandsesophagus four compartment stomach (rumen reticulumomasum and abomasum) pancreas gall bladder small intes-tine (duodenum jejunum and ileum) and large intestine(caecum colon and rectum) was removed and weighed toget the weight of the full (GIT) and then emptied of itscontents washed drained and weighed to get the weightof the GIT content GIT content was then subtracted fromthe SBW to determine empty body weight (EBW) Emptybody weight (EBW) was calculated by the difference betweenSBW and the weight of the gastrointestinal contents [10]Following exsanguinations empty stomach (reticulo-rumencomplex) and intestine weight were weighed and recorded[22] As there is no distinct division between the rumen andthe reticulum they are often referred to together (reticulo-rumen) The rumen was opened and the contents wereremoved before the organ was washed by hand and theexternal fat was then removed [23] Length of the intestinewas measured with measuring stick andmeasuring tape [24]Empty GIT stomach and intestine weights were weighed(absolute weight) and expressed (relative weight of SBW)per unit of body weight at slaughter Hence the relativeweight contributions of these non-carcass components toSBW or their commercial yields were determined

Before evisceration the pH values of rumen jejunumand caecum digestas were immediately determined using adigital pH meter (Sartorious PP15 AG Weender Landstrasse




30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)








3 Results





4 Discussion








30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2)

119876(3)






30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)











5 Conclusions




Acknowledgments


References










































Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of








Volume 2014



Agronomy







Volume 2014

Zoology



Volume 2014

InsectsJournal of




VirusesJournal of









30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)








3 Results





4 Discussion








30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2)

119876(3)






30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)











5 Conclusions




Acknowledgments


References










































Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of








Volume 2014



Agronomy







Volume 2014

Zoology



Volume 2014

InsectsJournal of




VirusesJournal of












30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2)

119876(3)






30 (119899 = 7) 35 (119899 = 6) 40 (119899 = 7) 45 (119899 = 6) 50 (119899 = 5) 119871(2) 119876(3)











5 Conclusions




Acknowledgments


References










































Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of








Volume 2014



Agronomy







Volume 2014

Zoology



Volume 2014

InsectsJournal of




VirusesJournal of












5 Conclusions




Acknowledgments


References










































Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of








Volume 2014



Agronomy







Volume 2014

Zoology



Volume 2014

InsectsJournal of




VirusesJournal of











































Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of








Volume 2014



Agronomy







Volume 2014

Zoology



Volume 2014

InsectsJournal of




VirusesJournal of






some gastrointestinal tract characteristics of karayaka ram lambs slaughtered at different weights

Documents