Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:51:28.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Growth of bovine tissues 2. Genetic influences on muscle growth and distribution in young bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. T. Berg
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
B. B. Andersen
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
T. Liboriussen
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

Muscle weight distribution was compared by jointing and complete tissue separation of carcasses from 277 young male progeny of eight sire breeds and two dam breeds, serially slaughtered at 300 kg live weight, 12 months and 15 months of age. The sire breeds were Simmental, Charolais, Danish Red and White, Romagnola, Chianina. Hereford, Blonde d'Aquitaine and Limousin; the dam breeds were Danish Red and Danish Black Pied.

Growth impetus for muscle in each joint was established from the allometric equation (Y = aXb). Growth coefficients, b, were homogenous among breeds, indicating similar muscle development patterns over the range of weights studied. Growth impetus waves increased centripetally on the limbs, caudocephalically on the whole of the body (being more marked dorsally) and dorsoventrally on the trunk.

There were small but significant breed differences in the proportion of muscle in different joints at similar total muscle weight. They probably reflect differences in maturity and other minor functional influences. Chianina and Hereford crosses were the two extremes for muscle distribution with many of the remaining breed groups being very similar. Differences were already established by 300 kg live weight and muscle growth patterns were similar among breeds over the range of the experiment.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, B. B. 1977. [Genetic investigations on growth, body development and feed utilization in dual purpose cattle.] Beretn. Statens Husdyrbrugsforsog, No. 448.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. R. 1975. The influence of slaughter weight and level of feeding on growth rate, feed conversion and carcass composition of bulls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2: 341355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H., Sall, J. P. and Helwig, J. T. 1976. A User's Guide to SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978. Growth of bovine tissues. 1. Genetic influences on growth patterns of muscle, fat and bone in young bulls. Anim. Prod. 26: 245258.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. University of Sydney Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Mukhoty, H. 1970. Lean distribution in carcasses from bulls, steers and heifers of various breeds. 49th Annual Feeders' Day Report, pp. 4041. Dept. Anim. Sci., Univ. Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Brännäng, E. 1971. Studies on monozygous cattle twins. XXIII. The effect of castration and age of castration on the development of single muscles, bones and special sex characters. Part II. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 1: 6978.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1964. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. Proc. Tech. Conf. on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, Melbourne (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 7: 17: 14. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1965. Practical implications of anatomical research in beef cattle. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 25: 152163.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966a. A classification of bovine muscle based on their relative growth patterns. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 326332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966b. Relative growth patterns of commercially important muscle groups of cattle. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 389393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1972. Anatomical aspects of growth. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Series) pp. 109112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1962. The relationship between the weight of a tissue in a single joint and the total weight of the tissue in a side of beef. Anim. Prod. 4: 3746.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. 1974. A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight. 2. Growth changes in muscle distribution. Anim. Prod. 19: 377387.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Smith, R. J. 1976. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcases of different breeds and crosses. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 533542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, G. J. W. van der. 1973. “Carcass composition of new born bull calves.] Uit het Instituut voor Zootechniek der Rijksuniversiteit teUtrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. M. and Berg, R. T. 1973. Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 81: 317326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robelin, J. and Geay, Y. 1976. [Distribution and growth patterns of muscle masses in young bulls during fattening between 8–9 and 16–17 months.] Annls Zootech. 25: 273279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1973. The effect of body-weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 80: 411423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. and Tulloh, N. M. 1968. Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. III. Dissected components of the commercially dressed carcass, following anatomical boundaries. Aust. J. agric. Res. 19: 673688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, london.Google Scholar
truscott, T. G., Lang, C. P. and Tulloh, N. M. 1976. A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar