Cargando…

Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology

The skeletal integrity of chickens is an important area of research and detailed measures are needed to better understand the influence of experimental manipulation on bone health. The objective of this experiment was to compare 2 methods to measure the superficial tibiotarsus (tibia) morphology of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Magnaterra, A., Mitchell, R., Angel, C.R., Khong, M., McMillian, Z., Snyder, A., Weimer, S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9646973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36335739
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102245
_version_ 1784827280706502656
author Magnaterra, A.
Mitchell, R.
Angel, C.R.
Khong, M.
McMillian, Z.
Snyder, A.
Weimer, S.
author_facet Magnaterra, A.
Mitchell, R.
Angel, C.R.
Khong, M.
McMillian, Z.
Snyder, A.
Weimer, S.
author_sort Magnaterra, A.
collection PubMed
description The skeletal integrity of chickens is an important area of research and detailed measures are needed to better understand the influence of experimental manipulation on bone health. The objective of this experiment was to compare 2 methods to measure the superficial tibiotarsus (tibia) morphology of broiler chickens collected in the wet laboratory (WL) or from digital images (DIG). The length, width at 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 10% of the length, proximal and distal head width, medial, lateral, and distal intercondylar groove depth (ID), and proximal head angle were measured on the right and left tibias collected from broilers in 2 experiments (E1, E2). In both experiments, tibias had a greater width at 90% of the length when measured with the WL method compared with the DIG method (P ≤ 0.04), while tibias measured with the DIG method had a greater length, distal ID, and widths at 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75%, of the length compared with the WL method (P < 0.0001). In E1, tibias measured with the DIG method had a greater medial, lateral, and distal ID compared with the WL method (P ≤ 0.04). In E2, compared with the DIG method, tibias measured with the WL method had a greater distal head width and lateral ID, yet a shallower distal ID (P ≤ 0.03). The use of the DIG method provided more precise measures but, due to the limitations of measures from digital images and the opportunity for more accurate measures to be collected with the WL method, the WL method is recommended to measure the superficial morphology of broiler chickens because it was more accessible and practical.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9646973
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96469732022-11-15 Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology Magnaterra, A. Mitchell, R. Angel, C.R. Khong, M. McMillian, Z. Snyder, A. Weimer, S. Poult Sci PHYSIOLOGY AND REPRODUCTION The skeletal integrity of chickens is an important area of research and detailed measures are needed to better understand the influence of experimental manipulation on bone health. The objective of this experiment was to compare 2 methods to measure the superficial tibiotarsus (tibia) morphology of broiler chickens collected in the wet laboratory (WL) or from digital images (DIG). The length, width at 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 10% of the length, proximal and distal head width, medial, lateral, and distal intercondylar groove depth (ID), and proximal head angle were measured on the right and left tibias collected from broilers in 2 experiments (E1, E2). In both experiments, tibias had a greater width at 90% of the length when measured with the WL method compared with the DIG method (P ≤ 0.04), while tibias measured with the DIG method had a greater length, distal ID, and widths at 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75%, of the length compared with the WL method (P < 0.0001). In E1, tibias measured with the DIG method had a greater medial, lateral, and distal ID compared with the WL method (P ≤ 0.04). In E2, compared with the DIG method, tibias measured with the WL method had a greater distal head width and lateral ID, yet a shallower distal ID (P ≤ 0.03). The use of the DIG method provided more precise measures but, due to the limitations of measures from digital images and the opportunity for more accurate measures to be collected with the WL method, the WL method is recommended to measure the superficial morphology of broiler chickens because it was more accessible and practical. Elsevier 2022-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9646973/ /pubmed/36335739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102245 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle PHYSIOLOGY AND REPRODUCTION
Magnaterra, A.
Mitchell, R.
Angel, C.R.
Khong, M.
McMillian, Z.
Snyder, A.
Weimer, S.
Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
title Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
title_full Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
title_fullStr Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
title_full_unstemmed Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
title_short Research Note: Comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
title_sort research note: comparison of two methods to measure broiler tibia morphology
topic PHYSIOLOGY AND REPRODUCTION
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9646973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36335739
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102245
work_keys_str_mv AT magnaterraa researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology
AT mitchellr researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology
AT angelcr researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology
AT khongm researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology
AT mcmillianz researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology
AT snydera researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology
AT weimers researchnotecomparisonoftwomethodstomeasurebroilertibiamorphology