Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:43:22.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Histology of allometric growth in hindlimb muscles of pigs

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

Hindlimbs of pigs were dissected at 4-week intervals from 9 to 29 weeks after birth. Allometric growth ratios of the gluteal muscles, biceps femoris and semitendinosus were calculated relative to gastrocnemius. Relative growth in weight of the proximal limb muscles was greater than that of the distal muscle, gastrocnemius. The greater relative growth of proximal muscles was not due to greater relative growth of muscle fibre diameters, nor to greater relative growth of muscle cross-sectional areas. In biceps femoris and gluteal muscles, growth in the area of musole cross sections did not keep pace with the radial growth of muscle fibres. The relative longitudinal growth of proximal limb bones exceeded that of distal bones, and the relative longitudinal growth of biceps femoris and semitendinosus exceeded that of any of the limb bones. New sarcomeres were added to muscle length at a faster rate in biceps femoris and semitendinosus than in the peroneus longus located distally in the limb.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , June 1982 , pp. 629 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Bendall, J. R. & Voyle, C. A. (1967). A study of the histological changes in the growing muscles of beef animals. Journal of Food Technology 2, 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. J. A., White, M. R., Hardy, B. & Carr, J. R. (1976). Tissue growth in the pig. Animal Production 22, 341–350.Google Scholar
Crawford, G. N. C. (1954). An experimental study of muscle growth in the rabbit. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 36B, 294–303.Google Scholar
Goldspink, G. (1972). Postembryonic growth and differentiation of striated muscle. In The Structure and Function of Muscle (ed. Bourne, G. H.), vol. I, Part 1, pp. 179–236. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J., Mason, I. L. & Robinson, T. J. (1971). Hammond's Farm Animals. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hegarty, P. V. J., Gundlach, L. C. & Allen, C. E. (1973). Comparative growth of porcine skeletal muscles using an indirect prediction of muscle fibre number. Growth 37, 333–344.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1932). Problems of Relative Growth. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1956). An analysis of factors influencing post-natal growth and development of the muscle fibre. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 47, 59–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, B. & Harrop, T. J. (1969). An experimental study of the longitudinal growth of skeletal muscle in the rat. Acta Anatomica 72, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muhl, Z. F. & Grimm, A. F. (1974). Longitudinal growth of striated muscle: a radiographic study. Growth 38, 389–394.Google ScholarPubMed
Swatland, H. J. (1978). Longitudinal growth and rate of new sarcomere formation in porcine muscle. Journal of Animal Science 46, 118–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed