Effects of type, sex and age on goat skin and leather characteristics
M. Salehi A , I. Kadim B , O. Mahgoub B , Sh. Negahdari C and R. S. Eshraghi Naeeni D EA Department of Animal By-products, Animal Science Research Institute, PO Box 3146618361, Karaj, Alborz, Iran.
B Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, PO Box 34, Al-Khoud 123, Sultanate of Oman.
C Department of Animal Science, Karaj Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Alborz, Iran.
D Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran.
E Corresponding author. Email: rsen_63333@yahoo.com; r.eshraghi@ut.ac.ir
Animal Production Science 54(5) 638-644 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN13032
Submitted: 27 January 2013 Accepted: 16 July 2013 Published: 22 October 2013
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.
Additional keywords: area, extension, weight, thickness, tensile strength.
References
Abdelsalam MM, Haider AI (1993) Physical and histological properties of sheep and goatskins. Alexandria Journal of Agricultural Research 38, 117–138.Adel R, Elboushi Y (1994) Hide and tanning by-products. In ‘Chapter 5. Poultry feed from waste’. (Eds R Adel, Y Elboushi). pp. 154–170. (Chapman & Hall: London)
ASTM (2010) ‘Standard test method for measuring thickness of leather units.’ ASTM D1814-70. (American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA)
Bal HS (1978) The skin. In ‘Chapter 38. Water balance and excretion’. (Eds M Orkin, RM Schwartzman) pp. 493–503. (Academic Press: New York)
BASF (1984) ‘Vademécum para el técnico en curtición,’ 2nd edn. (BASF: Ludwigshafen, Germany)
Brown GH, Turner HN (1968) Response to selection in Australian Merino sheep. II: Estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters for some production traits in Merino ewes and an analysis of the possible effects of selection on them. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 303–322.
British Standards (1984) ‘BS 6453: 1984. Specification for performance of leather for garments.’ (British Standards Institution: London)
Cloete SWP, Van Schalkwyk SJ, Hoffman LC, Meyer A (2004) The effects of dietary energy and protein concentrations on ostrich skin quality. South African Journal of Animal Science 36, 40–44.
FAO (2010) ‘World statistical compendium for hides, skins, leather and leather footwear.’ Tropical and Horticultural Products Service, Commodities and Trade Division (ESC). (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome)
FAO (2012) FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at http://faostat.fao.org [verified 20 August 2013]
Gordon PG (1995) Australian woolskin—their value and processing. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding 43, 120–135.
IPRD (2013) Agricultural Planning and Economic Research Institute. Institute for Research in Planning and Development. (Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture Research and Education Organization: Tehran, Iran) Available at http://www. irpd.ac.ir [verified 20 August 2013]
ISO (1999) ‘ISO 7482-2. Raw goat skins – Part 2: Guidelines for grading on the basis of mass and size.’ (International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
ISO (2002a) ‘ISO 2418. Method for the leather – chemical, physical, mechanical and fastness tests. Sampling location.’ (International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
ISO (2002b) ‘ISO 2589. Method for the determination of thickness.’ (International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
ISO (2002c) ‘ISO 3376. Method for the determination of strength and percentage extension.’ (IULTCS/IUP 6) (International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland)
Jacinto MAC, Silva Sobrinho AG, Costa RG (2004) Anatomic and structural characteristics of wool and non-wool sheep (Ovis aries L.) in regard to the physico-mechanical aspects of the leather. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 33, 1001–1008.
Jacinto MAC, Junior FMV, Martins CF, Pinto GS, Reis FA, Oliveira AR (2011) Influence of genotype on the quality of sheep leather. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 40, 1830–1836.
| Influence of genotype on the quality of sheep leather.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mrai IFM, Khalil ABA (2000) Pre and postnatal development of skin characteristics in the one humped camel (Camelus dromedarius). The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 70, 1210–1217.
Oliveira RJF, Costa RG, Sousa WH, Medeiros AN, Dal Monte MAB, Aquino D, Oliveira CJB (2007) Influence of genotype on physico-mechanical characteristics of goat and sheep leather. Small Ruminant Research 73, 181–185.
| Influence of genotype on physico-mechanical characteristics of goat and sheep leather.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ørskov ER (2011) Goat production on a global basis. Small Ruminant Research 98, 9–11.
| Goat production on a global basis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Passman A, Sumner RMW (1987) Effects of breed and age at slaughter on leather produced from export lambs reared on hill country. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 15, 309–316.
| Effects of breed and age at slaughter on leather produced from export lambs reared on hill country.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sarkar KT (1982) ‘Processing of goatskins for commercial leathers.’ (General Leather Research Institute: Madras, India)
SAS (2002) ‘Proprietary Software Version 9.00.’ (SAS Institute: Cary, NC)
Sivasubramanian S, Murali Manohar B, Puvanakrishnan R (2008) Mechanism of enzymatic dehairing of skins using a bacterial alkaline protease. Chemosphere 70, 1015–1024.
| Mechanism of enzymatic dehairing of skins using a bacterial alkaline protease.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtlyrtLnE&md5=ae692cf91150c011dc3c6354e5377007CAS | 17983644PubMed |
Snyman MA, Jackson-Moss C (2000) A comparison of the leather properties from skins of ten different South African sheep breeds. South African Journal of Animal Science 30, 129–130.
Stosic P (1994) Biological factors influencing the nature of goat skins and leather. MPh Thesis, University of Leicester, UK.
Villarroel ABS, Costa RG, Oliveira SMP (2004) Características físico-mecânicas do couro de ovinos mestiços Santa Inês e Texel. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 33, 2373–2377.
| Características físico-mecânicas do couro de ovinos mestiços Santa Inês e Texel.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
