Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:34:38.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and distribution of individual muscles in Double Muscled and normal cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Karima A. Shahin  and
R. T. Berg
Karima A. Shahin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6O 2H1, Canada
R. T. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6O 2H1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Eighteen Double Muscled (DM), 18 Beef Synthetic and 18 Hereford bulls, serially slaughtered from approximately 250 to 800 kg live weight, were used to examine the influence of maturity type and Double Muscling on individual muscle growth patterns and distribution.

Breed types differed significantly in the relative growth rate of five of the 95 muscles. Individual muscles grew and developed at relatively different rates with muscles associated with locomotion being early developing followed by those associated with structure or posture and finally those which respond to sexual maturation or luxury muscles which were late developing. Individual muscle growth patterns revealed an increasing disto-proximal gradient along the limbs and an increasing caudo-cranial gradient along the whole body. However, within any anatomical region considerable variations with well defined growth gradients were found for individual muscles. In the proximal region of both limbs increasing medio-lateral growth gradients were apparent.

At the same total side muscle, breed types differed significantly in adjusted mean weights of 33 of the 95 muscles. When comparison was made at the same total side muscle, DM showed a range of hypertrophy of + 28% to -28% when compared with the more normal breed types.

Muscular hypertrophy followed a disto-proximal gradient along the limbs and an inner–outer gradient across the muscle layers with the superficial and bulkiest muscles being the most hypertrophied. At the same total side muscle, DM had heavier expensive or luxury muscles than normal cattle.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 479 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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, H. R. (1975). The influence of slaughter weight and level of feeding on growth rate, feed conversion and carcass composition of bulls. Live-stock Production Science 2, 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badoux, D. M. (1975). General biostatics and biomechanics. In Sisson and Grossman's: The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, vol.1 (ed. Getty, R.), 5th edition. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. & Butterfield, R. M. (1976). New Concepts of Cattle Growth. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.Google Scholar
Boccard, R. (1981). Facts and reflections on muscular hypertrophyin cattle: Double Muscling or culard. In Developments in Meat Science, vol.2 (ed.Lawrie, R.), pp.1–28. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Boccard, R. & Dumont, B. L. (1974). Consequences de l'hypertrophie musculaire hereditaire des bovins sur la musculature. Annales de Genetique et de Selection animale 6, 177–186.Google Scholar
Brannang, 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. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 1, 69–78.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1966). Muscular hypertrophy in cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 42, 37–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Berg, R. T. (1966). A classification of bovine muscles, based on their relative growth patterns. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. & May, N. D. S. (1966). Muscles of the Ox. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M., Zamora, J., James, A. M. & Thompson, J. M. (1983). Changes in body composition relative to weight and maturity in large and small strains of Australian Merino rams. 2. Individual muscles and muscle groups. Animal Production 36, 165–174.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. Animal Production 19, 377–387.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L. (1982). Discussion. In Muscle Hypertrophy of Genetic Origin and its Use to Improve Beef Production (ed. King, J. W. B. and Menissier, F.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L., D'Herlincourt, A., Schmitt, O. & Lefebvre, J. (1982). The effect of the hypertrophied type on carcass composition and muscle distribution in the Maine Anjou breed. In Muscle Hypertrophy of Genetic Origin and its Use to Improve Beef Production(ed.King, J. W. B. and Menissier, F.), pp.164–176. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hanset, R. & Ansay, M. (1972). Regions privilegiées d'hypertrophie musculaire chez le bovin culard. Annales de Medecine Veterinaire 116, 17–25.Google Scholar
Hines, M. (1927). Nerve and muscle. The Quarterly Review of Biology 2, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. H. G., Ashmore, C. R., Robinson, D. W., Finn, J. P. & O'Dell, J. (1972). A condition resembling ‘azoturia’ in a ‘double muscled’ heifer. The Veterinary Record 90, 625–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. R. (1974). The growth of muscle, bone, fat and connective tissue in cattle from 150 days gestation to 84 days old. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25, 1037–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. R. (1981). Carcass composition of Double-Muscled cattle. Animal Production 33, 31–38.Google Scholar
Jury, K. E., Fourie, P. D. & Kirton, A. H. (1977). Growth and development of sheep. IV. Growth of the musculature. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, T. G., Lovell, J. E., Woodcock, L. R., St Clair, L. E. & Rommans, J. R. (1971). Body composition of muscular hypertrophied cattle. Journal of Animal Science 33, 195 (abstract).Google Scholar
Lohse, C. L., Moss, F. P. & Butterfield, R. M. (1971). Growth patterns of muscles of Merino sheep from birth to 517 days. Animal Production 13, 117–126.Google Scholar
Michaux, C., Stasse, A., Sonnet, R. & Hanset, R. (1983). La composition de la carcasse de taureaux culards blanc-bleu beige. Annales de Medecine Veterinaire 127, 349–375.Google Scholar
Oliver, W. M. & Cartwright, T. C. (1968). Double muscling in cattle. A review of expression, genetic and economic implication. Technical Report No. 12, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. & Williams, D. R. (1962). Muscular hypertrophy in cattle. Animal Production 4, 302 (abstract).Google Scholar
Rollins, W. C., Julian, L. M. & Carrol, F. D. (1969). A note on the body conformation of a double-muscled female and a normal female from a linebred Aberdeen Angus herd. Animal Production 11, 111–114.Google Scholar
Shahin, K. A. & Berg, R. T. (1985 a). Growth patterns of muscle, fat and bone and carcass composition in Double Muscled and normal cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahin, K. A. & Berg, R. T. (1985 b). Growth and distribution of muscle in Double Muscled and normal cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65, 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahin, K. A. & Berg, R. T. (1985 c). Growth and distribution of bone in Double Muscled and normal cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods. 6th edn.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd edn.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Swiezynski, K., Kobrynczuk, F. & Kobryn, H. (1981). Morphologic observations on cattle with muscle hypertrophy. II. Changes in the angles of chosen limb joints. Prace i Materialy Zootechniczne 27, 37–45.Google Scholar
Vissac, B. (1968). A study of the double-muscling character. II. Effect of double-muscling on the general morphology of cattle. Annales de Zootechnie 17, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar