Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:46:59.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A histological basis for differences in breast meat yield Between two strains of white turkeys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. J. Swatland
H. J. Swatland
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two genetic strains of white turkeys were reared together in a large flock under conditions allowing optimal growth from hatching to 20 weeks. Birds of both strains followed similar growth curves with males of both strains growing heavier than females. In one strain, however, the yield of breast meat as a proportion of live weight was greater in both males (287 v. 225 g/kg) and females (276 v. 201 g/kg). When expressed in ratio to breast width, maximum meat depth was greater in the strain which yielded the higher proportion of breast meat. However, with this index of breast plumpness, females scored higher than males in both strains (high yield, 0·45:1·00 v. 0·37:1·00; low yield, 0·33:1·00 v. 0·31:1·00). In the superficial anterior region of the pectoralis muscle in both strains and sexes, there were strong adenosine triphosphatase and weak succinate dehydrogenase reactions in nearly all muscle fibres. Differences in the radial growth of muscle fibres were found between the two strains and, by 20 weeks, birds of the lower yield strain had reached only 0·85 (males) or 0·82 (females) of the mean diameters attained in birds of the higher yielding strain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 383 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Reeferences

Aldrete, J. A. & Britt, B. A. (1978). The Second International Symposium on Malignant Hyperthermia. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Gunn, H. M. (1976). The effect of freezing on the transverse sectional area of a muscle. Histochemical Journal 8, 651–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayse, P. L. & Moreng, R. E. (1973). The influence of genetic strain on growth performance and meat yield of large white turkeys. Poultry Science 52, 1552–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. S. & Asmundson, V. S. (1957). Genetic and environmental factors affecting size of body and body parts of turkeys. 2. The relation of body weight and certain body measurements to pectoral and tibial muscle weights. Poultry Science 36, 959–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiktuchi, T., Nagatani, T. & Tamate, H. (1972). Studies on development and differentiation of muscle. V. A comparative study on the growth of the hatching musole and other muscles in ohick embryo. Tohoku Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 149–159.Google Scholar
Livingston, D. M. S., Blair, R. & English, P. R. (1966). The usefulness of muscle fibre diameter in studies of the lean meat content of pigs. Animal Production 8, 267–274.Google Scholar
Mccarthy, J. C. (1977). Quantitative aspeots of the genetics of growth. In Growth and Poultry Meat Production (ed. Boorman, K. N. and Wilson, B. J.), pp. 117–130. Proceedings of the Twelfth Poultry Science Symposium, 1976. British Poultry Science Ltd, Edinburgh; Longman Group Ltd (Journals Division).Google Scholar
Merkel, R. A. (1971). The relationship of some cardiovascular and haematological parameters to porcine muscle quality. Proceedings 2nd International Symposium on Condition Meat Quality Pigs, Zeist, 1971, pp. 97–103. Wageningen: Pudoc.Google Scholar
Swatland, H. J. (1979). Development of shape in turkey carcasses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuma, H. J., Venable, J. H., Wuthier, P. R. & Henrickson, R. L. (1962). Relationship of fiber diameter to tenderness and meatiness as influenced by bovine age. Journal of Animal Science 21, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderstoep, J. & Richards, J. F. (1974). Postmortem glycolytic and physical changes in turkey breast musole. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal 7, 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiskus, K. J., Addis, P. B. & Ma, R. T. (1976). Distribution of βR, αR and αW fibers in turkey muscles. Poultry Science 55, 562–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zugibe, F. T. (1970). Diagnostic Histochemistry. Saint Louis: C. V. Mosby.Google Scholar