See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262415706

Effects of type, sex and age on goat skin and leather characteristics

Article  in  Animal Production Science · January 2014

DOI: 10.1071/AN13032

CITATIONS READS

12 1,552

5 authors, including:

Isam Kadim Osman Mahgoub

Sultan Qaboos University Sultan Qaboos University
129 PUBLICATIONS   1,720 CITATIONS    160 PUBLICATIONS   2,344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

R. S. Eshraghi Naeeni
University of Tehran
1 PUBLICATION   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Replacement of fish meal with chicken feather meal and algal meal for gilthead seabream diets View project

Using vegetable waste for feeding lifestock. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Osman Mahgoub on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CSIRO PUBLISHING
Animal Production Science
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN13032

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,E

A
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

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.

Received 27 January 2013, accepted 16 July 2013, published online 22 October 2013

Introduction increase in goat numbers, many new challenges are expected to

International trade of raw and manufactured hides, skins, and
leather has grown at an average of 12% per annum over the
past 30 years to around US$53.8 billion (FAO 2012). Since
commodity trade patterns have changed, skin evaluation and
classification have become necessary (FAO 2010). According to
FAO (2012), the world’s goat population increased from 733.6
million to 921.4 million head between 1999 and 2010. Due to the
face future goat production and management in semi-arid zones
(Ørskov 2011). The processing of goat skin to leather ranges from
relatively firmer types (classic glazed kid) to softer shoe upper
leather (Sarkar 1982). Goat leather has been directed towards the
demand for upper leather with mellow handle. Considering these
trends and advances in leather technology, goat skins need special
attention.

Journal compilation  CSIRO 2013 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/an

B Animal Production Science
Determining skin characteristics of native goats may
facilitate grading and improving of products. Although
research on improving skin production has been published,
studies on native goats, aimed at improving household
economies, are lacking, especially describing parameters of
goat production in the tropics.
The goat population in Iran, at ~26 million head, plays a major
role in the economy of different parts of the country. The main
products of goats in Iran are milk and meat, with the fibre and skin
being the third important product. About 5–6000 t of goat crust
(i.e. leather that has been tanned but not finished, referred to as
being ‘in the crust’) as well as most of the harvested hair is
exported yearly, with a significant contribution to the leather
industry and the income of goat breeders.
The quality of sheep leather is influenced by the breed and age
as well as by the marks on the skins acquired during the lifetime
of the animal (Jacinto et al. 2004). Leather from hairy sheep is
mechanically more resistant than that from woolly ones (Snyman
and Jackson-Moss 2000). This might also be the case for skins
from goats of various skin covers. Therefore, the focus of the
current study was to determine the potential of two goat types
(cashmere and hairy) for quality and quantity of skin and leather
production as affected by age and sex.
Material and methods
Selection of animals
Experimental goats were kept under natural conditions of
photoperiod and ambient temperatures. In total, 200 goats (80
males and 120 females) from each type (cashmere and hairy,
n = 100) were grouped into two age classes: kids (<1 year of age,
n = 80) and adults (1–5 years of age, n = 120). The animals were
obtained from two commercial goat flocks: Abadeh cashmere
goats and native hairy Fars goats. The goats were reared in Fars
province, in the south of Iran (27020 –31430 N, 50420 –55360 E;
annual rainfall 63–106 mm) (IPRD 2013). About 4.3 million
goats are reared in Fars province. However, because of seasonal
migrations, these goat flocks are usually grazed in similar regions
during spring, summer, and autumn. During winter, they received
a limited amount of supplementary forage and grain, and they
were housed at night. The average bodyweight was 42.0 and
44.0 kg for adult male cashmere and hairy goats, and 30.5 and
31.0 kg for adult female cashmere and hairy goats, respectively.
Average weight of cashmere and hairy male kids was 25 and
24 kg, whereas the average weight of cashmere and hairy
female kids was 22 and 21 kg, respectively. The animals were
slaughtered at a commercial meat plant at the same time (2 days).
The carcasses were manually flayed carefully, and then preserved
using sodium chloride. The amount of applied salt was 50% of
the mass of the fresh skin. The skins were subsequently stored in
the shade, on the ground (15–20C and 40–50% humidity), and
allowed to dry for 1 month.
Sample collection and measurements
The skins were shorn after removal of salt, before their weight
was recorded. The skin thickness at the top shoulder, back, hip,
rib, and belt was measured using a thickness gauge instrument
(ASTM 2010) to the nearest 0.1 mm. The skins were dressed in
the same manner (chrome-tanned without shaving) so that
M. Salehi et al.
differences between the various groups were due to variations
in type, ages, and sex rather than properties of the raw materials.
The skins were processed before tanning according to the method
in Table 1. The tanning method is presented in Table 2. After
tanning, the weight of goat crusts was then determined. The crust-
leather surface area was measured with a Kardan brand surface-
area measuring machine. The leather dimensions were measured
using International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
methods (ISO 1999: 7482-2). Leather characteristics were
measured on the tanned skins using ISO methods (ISO 2002a,
2002b, 2002c). The tensile strength was measured by cutting
leather samples into two standard pieces (110 and 10 mm for
length and width to the grain surface) using a press knife. Six
replicate samples were cut from the right side (shoulder, hip,
and rib points) of each pelt. Three of the samples were cut
perpendicular to the backbone and three samples parallel to the
backbone. Each tanned skin was represented by six test samples,
thus the total number of test samples was 6 · 200 = 1200.
Base on ISO methods (ISO 2002c), the width of all strips was
10 mm. A vernier caliper was used to measure the thickness
of each specimen to the nearest 0.01 mm at areas between the
grain side and the flesh side. The arithmetic mean of three
measurements of the thickness of each test was calculated.
Tensile strength (Tn) was measured (kg force/mm2) using a
tensile testing machine (Intsron model 4001; Instron Ltd,
Wycombe, UK) with cell force of 100 kg. The jaws of the
apparatus were arranged at 50
1 mm apart for a standard
test piece and the clamps were pulled up at the rate of at 100 mm/
min. The greatest force was recorded as the breaking force (kg)
and the tensile strength (Tn), which was further converted to kg
force/cm2.
Statistical analyses
The experimental design was a 2 · 2 · 2 factorial with two types
(cashmere and hairy), two age groups (kids and adults), and two
sexes (males and females), giving a total of eight groups: (i)
cashmere male kids (n = 20), (ii) cashmere male adults (n = 20),
(iii) hairy male kids (n = 20), (iv) hairy male adults (n = 20), (v)
cashmere female kids (n = 20), (vi) cashmere female adults
(n = 40), (vii) hairy female kids (n = 20), (viii) hairy female
adults (n = 40). Data were subjected to three-way analyses of
variance.
Due to differences in region of sampling (shoulder, hip, and
rib) as well as direction of the samples (parallel and perpendicular
to the backbone), for physical characteristics of leather, the data
were analysed separately. These data and the thickness of skin and
leather at different regions of the body were compared using t-test
analyses. The means of the data and interactions were calculated
with the PROC GLM (SAS 2002). A Pearson correlation test was
used to assess the significance of correlation between skin and
leather traits.
Results and discussion
Weight and area
Dry skin weight, dry skin area, leather weight, and leather area
had ranges of 395–2410 g, 18.6–74.3 dm2, 120–1045 g, and
27.9–102.2 dm2, respectively. The values obtained in the present
study were similar to the standard goat skin indices, but would
Hairy and cashmere goat skin and leather Animal Production Science C

Table 1. Processing recipe of goat skin/leather before tanning process

Be8: Specific gravity of tanning solutions. Painting for hair saving: process for loosing hair which is employed with skins whose protective covering is so valuable
as to make it desirable to avoid injuring it by soaking in a lime liquor

Process Chemicals Temp. Proportion (per Time Remarks

(C) 100 kg raw skin)
L kg
Pre-soaking Water 25 300 2h Rinse without agitation in paddle
Main soaking Water 25 300
+ Sodium sulfide 60% 0.2 1h Leave overnight (~16 h). Run
+ Sodium chloride 3 5 min for every 2 h. Drain next
+ Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) 1 morning, press and pile for 4 h
+ Non-ionic detergent 0.2
Painting for Water 25 100
hair saving + Sodium sulfide 60% 2.0 Be = 20
+ Calcium hydroxide 3.0 Be = 40. Paint on flesh side of
Liming Water 25 100 skins. After 5 h. Hand dehairing
+ Sodium sulfide 60% 2.0 and weight
+ Calcium hydroxide 3.0
+ Non-ionic wetting agent 0.2 15 min Rest 2 h.
+ alkaline bate
+ Sodium sulfide 60% 1.5 Drum 5 min, rest 1 h, thereafter
+ Calcium chloride 0.2 23 min for 2 h. Leave overnight
Water 100 (~16 h). Drain and wash
Deliming Water 30 200
+ Ammonium sulfate 2
+ Non-ionic wetting agent 0.1 1h pH 8.0/8.5
Bating Alkaline bate 1.5 40 min Bulb test. Drain and wash twice
Degreasing Water 35 200
+ Non-ionic detergent agent 2.5 Drum for 1 h, 14 rpm. Drain
Washing Water 35 200 10 min Drain

Table 2. Processing recipe of goat skin/leather for tanning process

Process Chemicals Temp. Proportion (per Time Remarks

(C) 100 kg skin)
L kg
Pickling Brine (water +salt) 25 150 Be = 7. Drum 14 rpm
+ Sulfuric acid 0.6 1h
+ Formic acid 0.4 2h pH 2.8
Tanning Basic chromium sulfate 7.5 Drum 14 r.p.m for 4 h
+ Sodium formate 1.0 30 min
+ Magnesium oxide 0.5 2h Drum 5 min every 2 h overnight.
Acid wash Water 45 100 pH 3.7/3.8. Shrinkage test-pile for
+ Formic acid 0.2 5 days; samming, setting, weight
+ Non-ionic detergent agent 0.2 10 min Drain
Neutralisation Water 45 100
+ Basic chromium sulfate 3 1h
+ Chrome-syntan 2
+ Sodium formate 2 30 min
+ Sodium bicarbonate 0.5 30 min Drop by drop. Drum, 14 rpm
Retaning Water 45 100 overnight. pH 5. Drain. Wash
+ Acrylic-syntan 5.0 30 min
+ Phenolic + amino resin syntans 6.0 60 min
+ Protein-syntan 2.0 20 min Add hot water 50% or increase temp
to 55C
Fat liquoring Sulfite + sulfate fat liquoring 8.0 60 min Drum, 14 rpm
agents
Fixing Formic acid 2.0 30 + 30 min Drop by drop. pH 4
Drain, washing, pile, hanging up, hanging dry, conditioning, milling, toggling
D Animal Production Science M. Salehi et al.

Table 3. Least square means and standard errors of skin characteristics of goats
R2, Values between 0 and 1, indicates the proportion of the (corrected) total variation attributed to the fitted model; RMSE, root mean-square error of the model

Effect Trait N Weight Area Thickness (mm)

(g) (dm2) Top shoulder Back Hip Rib Belt
Goat type Hairy 100 1063 ± 24.9 43.7 ± 0.9 1.78 ± 0.01 1.71 ± 0.01 1.73 ± 0.01 1.56 ± 0.01 1.38 ± 0.01
Cashmere 100 1030 ± 24.8 41.8 ± 0.9 1.65 ± 0.01 1.67 ± 0.01 1.66 ± 0.01 1.45 ± 0.01 1.32 ± 0.01
P-value 0.54 0.04 0.01 0.34 0.05 0.006 0.11
Sex Male 80 1288 ± 26.4 49.2 ± 0.9 1.87 ± 0.0 1.79 ± 0.01 1.78 ± 0.01 1.62 ± 0.01 1.45 ± 0.01
Female 120 804 ± 23.3 35.3 ± 0.9 1.56 ± 0.01 1.60 ± 0.01 1.61 ± 0.01 1.39 ± 0.01 1.26 ± 0.01
P-value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Age Kid 80 905 ± 26.8 39.1 ± 0.9 1.66 ± 0.01 1.62 ± 0.01 1.61 ± 0.01 1.46 ± 0.01 1.32 ± 0.01
Adult 120 1188 ± 22.9 46.5 ± 0.9 1.77 ± 0.01 1.77 ± 0.01 1.78 ± 0.01 1.55 ± 1.01 1.39 ± 0.01
P-value <0.0001 <0.0001 0.03 0.0002 <0.0001 0.03 0.049
Interaction between goat type and 0.0004 <0.0001 0.93 0.97 0.36 0.28 0.39
sex (P-value)
Interaction between goat type and 0.02 0.001 0.81 0.92 0.25 0.15 0.57
age (P-value)
Interaction between sex and age 0.03 0.81 0.003 0.0006 0.04 0.02 0.06
(P-value)
R2 0. 58 0.51 0.27 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.18
RMSE 237.1 0.87 0.31 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.24

Table 4. Least square means and standard errors of the leather characteristics of goats
R2, Values between 0 and 1, indicates the proportion of the (corrected) total variation attributed to the fitted model; RMSE, root mean-square error of the model

Effect Trait N Weight Area Dimensions (cm) Thickness (mm)

(g) (dm2) Length Width Top shoulder Back Hip Rib Belt
Goat type Hairy 100 437.9 ± 12.4 62.3 ± 0.9 88.8 ± 1.0 62.3 ± 0.7 1.13 ± 0.02 1.10 ± 0.02 1.26 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.02 0.91 ± 0.01
Cashmere 100 451.4 ± 12.7 62.8 ± 0.9 90.7 ± 1.0 63.8 ± 0.7 1.21 ± 0.02 1.19 ± 0.02 1.31 ± 0.02 1.06 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.01
P-value 0.30 0.63 0.13 0.11 0.01 0.002 0.19 0.004 0.16
Sex Male 80 568.1 ± 13.5 71.4 ± 0.9 96.3 ± 1.1 65.4 ± 0.7 1.33 ± 0.02 1.28 ± 0.02 1.41 ± 0.02 1.16 ± 0.01 1.05 ± 0.01
Female 120 321.2 ± 11.6 53.8 ± 0.9 83.1 ± 0.9 60.8 ± 0.6 0.99 ± 0.02 1.01 ± 0.02 1.67 ± 0.02 0.89 ± 0.02 0.82 ± 0.1
P-value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Age Kid 80 379.0 ± 13.6 57.4 ± 0.9 85.4 ± 1.1 60.1 ± 0.7 1.10 ± 0.02 1.08 ± 0.02 1.22 ± 0.02 0.96 ± 0.02 0.88 ± 0.02
Adult 120 510.3 ± 11.5 67.7 ± 0.9 93.9 ± 0.9 66.0 ± 0.6 1.22 ± 0.02 1.22 ± 0.02 1.35 ± 0.02 1.07 ± 0.02 0.97 ± 0.01
P-value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0002
Interaction between goat type 0.002 <0.0001 0.0003 0.001 0.079 0.24 0.62 0.45 0.30
and sex (P-value)
Interaction between goat type 0.05 0.04 0.55 0.019 0.719 0.49 0.96 0.63 0.77
and age (P-value)
Interaction between sex and 0.008 0.62 0.28 0.056 0.0007 0.006 0.05 0.01 0.002
age (P-value)
R2 0. 61 0.48 0.44 0.32 0.44 0.43 0.32 0.45 0.45
RMSE 118.0 1.12 8.62 5.91 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.15

rank as small–medium sizes. There were significant (P < 0.0001)
differences between male and female skin and leather
characteristics (Tables 3 and 4). Male goats produced heavier
skins and heavier leather than females. Areas of skin and of
leather of male goats were also significantly (P < 0.0001) greater
than those of females. Mrai and Khalil (2000) similarly reported
that male skins are significantly heavier than female skins due to
variations in growth rate.
Age of goats significantly (P < 0.0001) affected skin weight,
leather weight, and area of leather (Tables 3 and 4). The study
revealed no significant difference in weight and area of leather or
weight of skin between the two types of goats; however, skin area
was greater (P = 0.04) in hairy than cashmere goats (Tables 3
and 4).
There were significant (P = 0.05–<0.0001) interactions
among genetic groups with sex and age groups (Tables 3 and
4) concerning the weight and size of skin and leather, as well
as leather dimensions (length and width). There were a slight
interaction (P = 0.008–0.6) between age and sex. Compared
with hairy goats, the male kids of cashmere goats had significantly
(P < 0.0001) higher skin weight (1250 vs 970 g), greater skin area
(52 vs 41 dm2), heavier leather weight (550 vs 400 g), and greater
leather size (73.4 vs 60.4 dm2). An opposite trend (P < 0.0001)
was observed with adult females for these parameters, with lower
Hairy and cashmere goat skin and leather Animal Production Science E

Table 5. Effect of goat type, sex, and age on breaking force and tensile strength of leather strips with a width of 10 mm
R2, Values between 0 and 1, indicates the proportion of the (corrected) total variation attributed to the fitted model; RMSE, root mean-
square error of the model

Effect and trait N Thickness Breaking force Tensile strength Extension

(mm) (kg) (kg force/cm2) (%)
Goat type Hairy 100 0.97 ± 0.01 28.1 ± 0.8 287.6 ± 5.2 63.1 ± 0.9
Cashmere 100 1.01 ± 0.01 27.9 ± 0.8 273.1 ± 5.2 66.4 ± 0.9
P-value 0.05 0.87 0.06 0.04
Sex Male 80 1.11 ± 0.01 32.9 ± 0.8 296.5 ± 5.6 68.5 ± 1.0
Female 120 0.88 ± 0.01 23.2 ± 0.7 264.2 ± 4.9 61.0 ± 0.9
P-value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Age Kid 80 0.94 ± 0.02 26.3 ± 0.8 276.9 ± 5.6 62.9 ± 1.0
Adult 120 1.04 ± 0.01 29.8 ± 0.7 283.7 ± 4.9 66.6 ± 0.9
P-value <0.0001 0.001 0.35 0.006
Interaction between goat type and sex 3.09 0.69 0.51 0.37
(P-value)
Interaction between goat type and age 0.08 0.91 0.89 0.22
(P-value)
Interaction between sex and age (P-value) 6.4 0.14 0.80 0.04
R2 0.43 0.38 0.14 0.25
RMSE 0.14 6.76 45.0 8.36

Table 6. Means showing the effects of location on the body, and the direction of the grain relative to the force applied, on physical
properties of leather based on paired t-tests
Within rows, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05

Effect and trait Part of body Specimen position

Shoulder Rib Hip P-value Parallel Perpendicular P-value
No 400 400 400 600 600
ThicknessA (mm) 1.0 ± 0.01a 0.8 ± 0.01b 1.1 ± 0.01a <0.0001 0.98 ± 0.01a 0.96 ± 0.01a 0.06
Breaking force (kg) 31.7 ± 0.7a 25.4 ± 0.7b 24.7 ± 0.7b <0.0001 31.2 ± 0.7a 23.4 ± 0.7b <0.0001
Tensile strength (kg force/cm2) 313.4 ± 4.6a 294.4 ± 4.6ab 226.6 ± 4.6b <0.0001 314.3 ± 4.3a 241.9 ± 4.3b <0.0001
Extension (%) 59.0 ± 0.9b 68.0 ± 0.9a 65.4 ± 0.9a <0.0001 59.9 ± 0.9b 68.4 ± 0.9a <0.0001

values in cashmere goats. This might be attributed to the variation
in body size between the two genetic groups in different sexes and
age groups.
Skin and leather thickness
The hip, top shoulder, and back regions had the greatest
(P < 0.0001) skin thickness followed by the rib and belt (1.7,
1.7, 1.7, 1.5, and 1.4 mm, respectively). Variation in the thickness
of skin between different regions agreed with the findings of Adel
and Elboushi (1994), who reported that the thickness of the skin
differed according to the type, age, sex, and region of sampling.
Cashmere goats had lesser skin thickness (P = 0.3–0.006) but
thicker leather (P = 0.19–0.002) than hairy goats (Tables 3 and
4). The study showed that adult goats had skins with significantly
(P = 0.04–< 0.0001) greater thickness values than kids. Moreover,
male goats had significantly (P < 0.0001) greater skin and leather
thickness than their female counterparts. This may be due to
nutrition and increased growth rate related to age and sex of
animal (Stosic 1994).
Physical traits
Effects of type, sex, age, and region of sampling and sample
position on the physical characteristics of goat crust leather are
summarised in Table 5. Overall, the range of leather thickness
was 0.5–1.9 mm, extent of breaking force was 10.2–37.8 kg, and
tensile strength was 75.5–570.2 kg force/cm2. The overall means
of the physical characteristics in the present study were in
accordance with BASF standards for leather quality; tensile
strength of goat skin should be ~200 kg force/cm2 and
percentage extension should be within the range 40–80%
(BASF 1984). The tensile strength of standard cloth leather
should be 150 kg force/cm2 (British Standards 1984). The
tensile strength of the goat leather obtained in this study was
generally higher than reported for standard cloth leather. Oliveira
et al. (2007) worked on goat and sheep leather and reported that
leather from sheep had higher breaking force and more tensile
strength with lower extension at break. The present results
indicate that Iranian goat leather had more tensile strength but
lower extension than values reported for sheep and goat leather
by Oliveira et al. (2007) and for sheep leather by Snyman and
Jackson-Moss (2000). Stosic (1994) suggested that goat leather
had more tenacity and strength than sheep leather, which may
be due to grain and protein fibres. The better quality of goat
leather makes it more suitable for making boots and garments. An
important aspect of the production of goat skins is the ratio
between the density of the collagen fibres and the follicular
F Animal Production Science M. Salehi et al.

Table 7. Phenotypic correlations between skin and leather traits in goats based on average values across all side for each
skin (n = 200)
Phenotypic correlations classified as high (Brown and Turner 1968) >| 0.6 | are highlighted in bold. **P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001,
****P < 0.0001

Traits Skin area Leather Leather Skin Leather Tensile Percentage

weight area thickness thickness strength extension
Skin weight (g) 0.88**** 0.94**** 0.89**** 0.59*** 0.74**** 0.39** 0.50**
Skin area (dm2) – 0.83**** 0.90**** 0.41** 0.56*** 0.35** 0.36**
Leather weight (g) – 0.89**** 0.59*** 0.82**** 0.44** 0.58***
Leather area (dm2) – 0.39** 0.60*** 0.42** 0.42**
Skin thickness (mm) – 0.59*** 0.37** 0.41**
Leather thickness (mm) – 0.46** 0.74****
Tensile strength (kg force/cm2) – 0.64***

density, which are inversely proportional, i.e. the greater the
density of the primary follicles bearing the fibres (hair), the lower
the density of collagen fibres (Jacinto et al. 2004). Associated
with the primary follicles are several secondary follicles (bearing
the down fibres) that also contribute to reduce the density of
collagen fibres.
There were significant (P < 0.0001) differences between male
and female leather in tensile strength and percentage extension
(Table 5). The male goats produced stronger (P < 0.0001) leather
than females, which is in agreement with the findings of Bal
(1978), who reported that the lower strength leather of female
goats may be due to pregnancy and parturition.
Although there was no significant difference in tensile
strength between the two goat types (P = 0.06) or age groups
(P = 0.35), the kid leather had lower (P = 0.001) breaking force
than adult goat leather (Table 5). Leather from adult goats
was significantly thicker (P < 0.0001) with higher (P = 0.006)
percentage extension than that of kids. Passman and Sumner
(1987) reported similar findings in sheep, and Cloete et al. (2004)
in ostrich. Tensile strength and extension were highly dependent
on the sampling site and its orientation to the backbone, which
is important for leather processing (Oliveira et al. 2007). The
presents result showed significant (P < 0.0001) differences in
physical traits of goat leather taken from different body regions.
The leather from the shoulder region had higher breaking force
and tensile strength and lower percentage extension than leather
from hip or rib regions (Table 6). Similarly, Abdelsalam and
Haider (1993) reported significant differences in leather physical
properties taken from flank and rump regions of Balady Egyptian
goats.
The current study also indicated that breaking force and
tensile strength of parallel leather samples were significantly
(P < 0.0001) higher, while percentage extension was lower,
than perpendicular samples (Table 6). Sivasubramanian et al.
(2008) reported ranges of tensile strength of 203–255 and
153–204 kg force/cm2 for the parallel and perpendicular
samples of goat leather, respectively. In Merino sheep, tensile
strength of leather was highly dependent on sample site and its
orientation to the backbone (Gordon 1995). In that study, the
strength of leather samples taken parallel to the backbone
decreased as the distance from the backbone increased. Similar
results were reported by Jacinto et al. (2011) for sheep and
Oliveira et al. (2007) for sheep and goat leather. For cattle
hide, these values were 255–306 and 204–255 kg force/cm2,
respectively (Sivasubramanian et al. 2008). Sivasubramanian
et al. (2008) also reported that the percentage extension values
at break of parallel and perpendicular samples were 40–80% and
60–80% for goat skin and cattle hide, respectively. However,
Villarroel et al. (2004) did not find any effect of the direction of
the sample in relation to the backbone on the average tensile
values for sheep leather.
Correlation between skin and leather characteristics
There were high (P < 0.0001) positive (r = 0.83–0.94) correlations
between skin weight and leather weight and leather area
(Table 7). There were also medium to high correlations
between skin thickness and skin area and skin weight (0.41
and 0.59, respectively).
There were medium to high (P < 0.0001) correlations between
the thickness of the leather and tensile strength and percentage
extension (r = 0.46 and 0.74). These findings are in accordance
with those of Oliveira et al. (2007), who reported that tensile
strength and elongation at break test of lamb skin increased as the
thickness increased. Stosic (1994) confirmed that physical
properties of leather were directly related to the skin thickness.
However, Jacinto et al. (2004) found poor correlation between the
thickness of the leather and the tensile strength and percentage
elongation.
Conclusion
The findings of the current study indicate that the effects of age
and sex of goat on the quantity and quality of the skins and leather
were more important than the type of goat. Therefore, for better
quality, attention should be paid to those factors affecting skin
quality, as well to the use of advanced techniques for leather
processing. The significant variations observed in the physical
parameters of goat leather can be used in the leather industry.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Ebadollah Yosfzadeh,
Fatollah Fathi, Majid Afshar, and Malihe Kamalpour, Vatan and Harir
leather companies, and the Animal Science Research Institute of Iran for
the technical help in tanning and measuring the skin and leather traits. We
thank Farhad Ghafouri-Kesbi for help in revising and correcting the English
of this manuscript. This work was partially funded by Animal Science
Research Institute (ASRI), Karaj, Iran.
 Hairy and cashmere goat skin and leather
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)
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/an
View publication stats
Animal Production Science G
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. doi:10.1590/S1516-3598201
1000800029
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. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2007.01.017
Ørskov ER (2011) Goat production on a global basis. Small Ruminant
Research 98, 9–11. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.009
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. doi:10.1080/
03015521.1987.10425576
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. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2007.09.036
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(Suppl. 1), 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. doi:10.1590/S1516-3598200
4000900025