| Literature DB >> 27766985 |
Severiano R Silva1, Rita Payan-Carreira2, Miguel Quaresma1, Cristina M Guedes1, Ana Sofia Santos3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In equids, health and welfare depend on body composition. A growing number of equids are now used as leisure and companion animals, and often found overfeed. The need for a close monitoring of body fatness led to the search for tools allowing a rapid and non-invasive estimation of fatness. This study intends to assess real-time ultrasonography (RTU) usefulness in establishing a relationship between ultrasound measures of subcutaneous fat-plus-skin thickness (SF-Skin) and body condition score (BCS) in horses and donkeys. Forty-three healthy animals (16 donkeys and 27 horses) were used in this study to generate 95 records (RTU and BCS pairs), in multiple RTU sessions for 2 years. Using visual appraisal and palpation, BCS was graded in a 1-9 points scale. Real-time ultrasonography images were taken using a 7.5 MHz linear transducer, placed perpendicular to the backbone, over the 3rd lumbar vertebra. ImageJ was used to measure the SF-Skin on RTU images. The relation between BCS and SF-Skin measurements was tested by linear and polynomial regression analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Adiposity; Body condition; Horses; Image analysis; Obesity; Subcutaneous fat; Ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27766985 PMCID: PMC5073852 DOI: 10.1186/s13028-016-0243-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Vet Scand ISSN: 0044-605X Impact factor: 1.695
Fig. 1Example of a RTU image taken over the 3rd lumbar vertebra. A subcutaneous fat (SF) plus skin thickness is highlighted
Body condition score (BCS) and subcutaneous fat plus skin (SF-Skin) of donkeys (n = 53) and horses (n = 42)
| BCS | Horses | Donkeys | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean ± SD | Range | CV (%) | N | Mean ± SD | Range | CV (%) | |
| 3 | 3 | 3.71 ± 0.38 | 3.33–4.10 | 10.24 | 1 | 3.87 | 3.87 | |
| 4 | 9 | 5.49 ± 1.17 | 3.65–6.79 | 21.38 | 7 | 4.97 ± 0.66 | 4.25–5.67 | 13.29 |
| 5 | 6 | 6.39 ± 0.90 | 4.99–7.33 | 14.05 | 21 | 7.08 ± 0.74 | 5.78–8.33 | 10.45 |
| 6 | 10 | 6.76 ± 0.75 | 5.67–8.32 | 11.05 | 20 | 8.70 ± 0.68 | 7.69–9.98 | 7.81 |
| 7 | 7 | 8.23 ± 1.08 | 6.58–9.31 | 13.12 | 4 | 11.93 ± 1.33 | 10.31–13.11 | 11.18 |
| 8 | 7 | 10.48 ± 1.76 | 7.95–12.65 | 16.79 | ||||
| SF-Skina | 42 | 7.09 ± 2.19 | 3.33–12.65 | 30.9 | 53 | 7.72 ± 1.93 | 3.87–13.11 | 25.0 |
| BCS | 42 | 5.50 ± 1.56 | 3.00–8.00 | 28.4 | 53 | 5.14 ± 0.85 | 3.00–7.00 | 16.5 |
Mean, standard deviation (±SD), range and coefficient of variation (CV)
aAll SF-skin measures are in mm
Fig. 2Histogram representing the frequency (percentage) body condition score class for donkeys and horses
Linear and polynomial relationship between body condition score (BCS) and subcutaneous fat and skin (SF-skin) measurements in donkeys (n = 53) and horses (n = 42)
| Specie | Linear | Polynomial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | RMSE | P | R2 | RMSE | P | |
| Donkey | 0.911 | 0.683 | <0.001 | 0.921 | 0.648 | <0.001 |
| Horse | 0.742 | 1.128 | <0.001 | 0.772 | 1.063 | <0.001 |
R coefficient of determination; RMSE the root mean square error
Fig. 3Polynomial regressions between subcutaneous fat plus skin thickness and body condition score. In donkeys (black line and circles) and in horses (red line and open circles)