Research Article Characterization and Strength Quality of the Oryctolagus cuniculus Leather Compared to Oreochromis niloticus Leather Gislaine Gonçalves Oliveira , 1 Eliane Gasparino , 1 Leandro Dalcin Castilha , 1 Nilton Garcia Marengoni , 2 Elenice Souza dos Reis Goes , 3 Fernanda Losi Alves de Almeida , 1 Marcos Antonio Matiucci , 1 Andresa Carla Feihrmann , 1 Gabriela Hernandes Granzoto , 1 Jaisa Casetta , 1 Sandro de Vargas Schons , 4 Jerˆ onimo Vieira Dantas Filho , 4 and Maria Luiza Rodrigues de Souza 1 1 Universidade Estadual de Maring´ a (UEM), Programa de P´ os-Graduação em Zootecnia, Maring´ a, PR, Brazil 2 Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paran´ a (UNIOESTE), Programa de P´ os-Graduação em Recursos Pesqueiros e Engenharia de Pesca, Marechal Cˆ andido Rondon, PR, Brazil 3 Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (UFGD), Engenharia de Aquicultura, Dourados, MS, Brazil 4 Universidade Federal de Rondˆ onia (UNIR), Programa de P´ os-Graduação em Ciˆ encias Ambientais, Rolim de Moura, RO, Brazil Correspondence should be addressed to Gislaine Gonçalves Oliveira; gislaine_oliveira14@hotmail.com Received 16 June 2022; Accepted 1 October 2022; Published 14 October 2022 Academic Editor: Cornelis H. Pameijer Copyright © 2022 Gislaine Gonçalves Oliveira et al. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. is study aimed to compare the resistance of the Oryctolagus cuniculus L. (rabbit) and Oreochromis niloticus L. (Nile tilapia) skins, as well as to observe the design of the flower of these skins and the morphology of the dermis. Tilapia and rabbit skins were placed inside the same equipment (tannery machine) for the chromium salt tanning process. e flower design of the fish leather distinguishes it from the rabbit leather, the latter being constituted by the opening of the hair follicles and pores, while the fish leather is constituted by the presence of protective lamellae and insertion of the scales. e dermis of rabbit skin consists of thick bundles of collagen fibers arranged in all directions, which differs from the morphology observed in the dermis of fish skin. However, in the Nile tilapia skin dermis, overlapping and parallel layers of longitudinal collagen fiber bundles are observed, these layers are interspersed with fiber bundles crossing the sking surface (transversely), tying the fibers together and providing greater strength, which can be proven by the strength test. e fish leathers, despite having less thickness (1.0 mm), demonstrated significantly greater tensile strength (13.52 ± 1.86 N mm -2 ) and tear strength (53.85 ± 6.66 N mm -2 ) than rabbit leathers, that is, (8.98 ± 2.67 N mm -2 ) and (24.25 ± 4.34 N mm -2 ). However, rabbit leather demonstrated higher elasticity (109.97 ± 13.52%) compared to Nile tilapia leather (78.97 ± 8.40%). It can be concluded that although the rabbit leather is thicker due to the histological architecture of the dermis (thick bundles of collagen fibers arranged in all directions with no pattern of organization of collagen fibers), it shows less resistance than Nile tilapia leather, which demonstrates an organization of overlapping and parallel layers and intercalating collagen fiber bundles transversally to the surface, functioning as tendons for the swimming process. It is recommended to use a piece of fabric (lining) together with the fleshy side of the rabbit leather, to increase resistance when used in clothing and footwear, as these products require greater tensile strength. us, it minimizes this restriction for the use of rabbit leather in the aforementioned purposes. 1. Introduction Among the animals for meat production, regardless of the species, the amount of by-product generated in the pro- cessing is extremely high [1]. Of these by-products, the skin shows a significant percentage, since it involves the entire body area of the animal, and for fish skin, such as Oreo- chromis niloticus L. (Nile tilapia), the corresponding value is 4.0 to 14% to body weight, depending on how the fish is filleted and the skin is removed [2]. is variation in Hindawi e Scientific World Journal Volume 2022, Article ID 4561404, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4561404