Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:34:47.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Mukhoty  and
R. T. Berg
H. Mukhoty
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
R. T. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this experiment an attempt was made to study the influence of breed and sex on the muscle-weight distribution of cattle. The weights of individual muscles obtained by total dissection from the side of a carcass from each of 63 bulls, 106 steers and 22 heifers representing six, eight and two breed groups respectively were classified into nine anatomical groups using the method of Butterfield (1963). Muscle-weight distribution was then studied by expressing the muscle in each of these groups as percentages of total muscle and also as adjusted mean weight of muscle in each region while statistically adjusting total muscle to a constant level.

Results indicated that breed differences were significant although small for abdominal muscles and muscles of the neck region within bulls and steers, but two breed groups of heifers did not differ. There was no detectable breed influence on the percentage of any other muscle group. Percentages of muscles classified as expensive were found to be remarkably similar among breed groups in all three sexes.

Sex influences on muscle distribution were also appraised. There was a general trend of heifers having a higher percentage in the proximal pelvic limb and abdominal areas than steers, while steers exceeded bulls. This order of sex influence was reversed in the muscles of the neck and thorax region. The influence of sex was conspicuous in areas classified as having expensive muscles, with heifers having a higher percentage of muscles in the high-priced regions than steers and steers being superior to bulls. Sex differences reflect the differential development of bulls compared with the other sexes as they mature. Muscles of the neck and thorax in bulls increase in proportion and other groups (proximal hind and abdominal) decrease. The differentiation of muscles represents a trend toward masculinity from heifer to steer to young bull and finally to old bull proportions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , October 1973 , pp. 317 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Bancroft, T. A. (1968). Topics in Intermediate Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. & Kirton, A. H. (1962). A comparison of whole milk with buttermilk in the rearing of calves for veal. II. Slaughter and carcass composition data. Anim. Prod. 3, 41–50.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. & Butterfield, R. M. (1968). Growth patterns of bovine muscle, fat and bone. J. Anim. Sci. 27, 611–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branaman, G. A., Pearson, A. M., Magee, W. T., Griswold, R. M. & Brown, G. A. (1962). Comparison of eutability and eatability of beef- and dairytype cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 21, 321–6.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pt. II. Swedish J. agric. Res. 1, 69–78.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963). Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.). C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1965). Practical implications of anatomical research in beef cattle. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 25, 152–63.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Berg, R. T. (1966 a). A nutritional effect on relative growth of muscles. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. VI, 298–304.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Berg, R. T. (1966 b). Relative growth patterns of commercially important muscle groups of cattle. Res. vet. Sci. 7 389–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. & Berg, R. T. (1972). Anatomical aspects of growth. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1972, pp. 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Johnson, E. R. (1971). A study of growth in calves. II. Relative growth in muscles. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 457–8,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. & Smith, R. J. (1972). Tissue separation – to assess beef and lamb variation. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1972, pp. 113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guenther, J. J., Bushman, D. H., Pope, L. S. & Morrison, R. D. (1965). Growth and development of the major carcass tissues in beef calves from weaning to slaughter weight, with reference to the effect of plane of nutrition. J. anim. Sci. 24, 1184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harte, F. J. & Conniffe, D. (1967). Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. II. Carcass composition and distribution of ‘lean meat’, fat and bone. Ir. J. agric. Res. 6, 153–70.Google Scholar
Harte, F. J. (1968). Effects of plane of nutrition on calves for beef production. II. Carcass, composition and distribution of ‘lean meat’, fat and bone. Ir. J. agric. Res. 7, 149–59.Google Scholar
Hedrick, H. B., Stringer, W. C. & Krause, G. F. (1969). Retail yield comparison of average good and average choice conformation of beef carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 28, 187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. R., Butterfield, R. M. & Pryor, W. J. (1972). Studies of fat distribution in the bovine carcass. I. The partition of fatty tissues between depots. Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 381–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luitingh, H. C. (1962). Developmental changes in beef steers as influenced by fattening, age and type of ration. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhoty, H. & Berg, R. T. (1971). Influence of breed and sex on the allometric growth patterns of major bovine tissues. Anim. Prod. 13, 219–227.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H., Berg, R. T. & Grieve, C. M. (1970). Proportions of major bovine tissues as influenced by rations based on barley or oats. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 50, 253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. (1967). Discussion. In Growth and Development of Mammals, (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), p. 257. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Pomeeoy, R. W. (1960). Anatomical distribution of edible tissues in carcass. In Recent Advances in Food Science, vol. I (ed. Hawthorn, J. and Leitch, ), p. 49. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. S., Wilson, J. C. & Morris, P. G. D. (1967). Growth in castrated cattle. Vet. Rec. 81, 88–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seebeck, R. M. (1968). Developmental studies of body composition. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 36, 167–81.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Stonaker, H. H., Hazaleus, M. H. & Wheeler, S. S. (1952). Feedlot and carcass characteristics of individually fed comprest and conventional type Hereford steers. J. Anim. Sci. 11, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). The growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the level of nutrition. Pts. I, II, III. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38, 93–153, 243–302, 367–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, N. B., Butler, O. D., Riggs, J. K., Jones, J. H. & Lyerly, P. J. (1951). The influence of type on feedlot performance and killing qualities of Hereford steers. J. Anim. Sci. 10, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D. R. (1968). A comparison between a method of jointing meat carcasses based upon their anatomical structure and a method based upon standardized butchering practice. I. Comparison of uniformity of results. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. & Curtis, C. F. (1893). Steer feeding. Bull. la agric. Exp. Stn 20, p. 639. Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1964). Starvation changes and subsequent recovery of adult beef muscle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 62, 267–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1965). Modern Aspects of Animal Production, pp. 173, 186. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar