Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T20:38:09.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of bone growth on muscle growth and bone-muscle relationships in double-muscled and normal cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Karima A. Shahin  and
R. T. Berg
Karima A. Shahin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2H1, Canada
R. T. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2H1, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Eighteen bulls each of double-muscled (DM), Beef Synthetic (SY) and Hereford (HE) breed types, serially slaughtered from about 250 to 800 kg live weight, were used to examine muscle-bone relationships in double-muscled and normal cattle.

Relative to total side bone, DM animals differed significantly from the other breed types in relative growth rate of muscles in all regions which exhibited gross muscular hypertrophy. They showed generalized and regionally differentiated muscular hypertrophy. At equal bone weight in the given anatomical region, DM/HE and DM/SY muscle:bone ratios were respectively: proximal hindlimb 1·35 and 1·24; proximal forelimb 1·25 and 117; back and loin 1·20 and 1·10; and the expensive regions 1·30 and 1·20. In the limbs of DM animals, muscular hypertrophy in the proximal region was associated with bone hypotrophy while minimal muscular hypertrophy in the distal parts was associated with relatively heavier bones. Consequently, increased muscle:bone ratios were most pronounced in the proximal region, which suggests that muscles in these animals had increased in weight without proportionate increase of bones, i.e. muscle and bone growth were to some extent independent. Bone response in the distal limbs may have been influenced by a relative increase in weight support function.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 219 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. University of Sydney Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Boccard, R. and Dumont, B. L. 1974. Conséquences de l'hypertrophie musculaire héréditaire des bovins sur la musclature. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animate 6: 177–186.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1963. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 7.1–7.20. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1966. Relative growth in beef cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 42: 87–90.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1976. Beef carcase composition — Our knowledge to 1976. In Beef Cattle Science Handbook 13 (ed. Ensminger, M. E.), pp. 139–144. Agriservices Foundation, Clovis, California.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in Sheep. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hanset, R. and Ansay, M. 1972. Regions privilegiees d'hypertrophie musculaire chez le bovin culard. Annales Medicinae Veterinaires 116: 17–25.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. and Mennissier, F. ed. 1982. Muscle Hypertrophy of Genetic Origin and Its Use to Improve Beef Production. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Shahin, K. A. and Berg, R. T. 1985a. 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. and Berg, R. T. 1985b. Growth and distribution of bone in Double Muscled and normal cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65: 319–332.Google Scholar
Shahin, K. A. and Berg, R. T. 1985C. Growth and distribution of muscle in Double Muscled and normal cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65: 307–318.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. M. 1972. The role of tension in muscle growth. In Regulation of Organ and Tissue Growth (ed. Goss, R. J.), pp. 77–100. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. and Romberg, B. 1963. An effect of gravity on bone development in lambs. Nature, London 200: 438–439.Google Scholar
Wise, D. R. 1970. Carcass conformation comparisons of growing broiler and laying strain chickens. British Poultry Science 11: 325–323.Google Scholar