Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T08:42:12.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of bovine tissues 1. Genetic influences on growth patterns of muscle, fat and bone in young bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. T. Berg ,
B. B. Andersen  and
T. Liboriussen
R. T. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Cattle and Sheep Experiments, National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
B. B. Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Cattle and Sheep Experiments, National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
T. Liboriussen
Affiliation:
Department of Cattle and Sheep Experiments, National Institute of Animal Science, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

Carcass composition and growth patterns for muscle, fat and bone were compared among 277 young male progeny of eight sire breeds, serially slaughtered at 300 kg live weight, 12 months and 15 months of age. The sire breeds were Simmental (SIM), Charolais (CHA), Danish Red and White (DRK), Romagnola (ROM), Chianina (CHI), Hereford (HER), Blonde d'Aquitaine (BDA) and Limousin (LIM). Tissue growth patterns among breeds were examined by regression estimates from the allometric growth equation (Y = axb) and compositional differences were estimated from the intercepts. No significant sire breed differences were found in the regression of muscle, fat or bone on various size dimensions. In regressions involving fat, however, the fattest (HER) had higher regressions and the leanest (BDA) fattened more slowly relative to muscle and bone growth. Breeds differed significantly in amount of muscle, fat and bone when compared at standard weights.

Sire breed ranking for muscle at common bone weights was LIM, BDA, CHA, SIM, HER, ROM, DRK and CHI, while at common carcass weights the ranking was BDA, CHA, LIM, CHI, ROM, SIM, DRK and HER, reflecting differences in fatness. Minor changes in ranking occurred when comparisons were made at a common live weight reflecting differences in dressing percentage. For fat at standard muscle, carcass or live weight the breeds ranked HER, LIM, DRK, SIM, ROM, CHA, CHI and BDA.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , June 1978 , pp. 245 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978

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, B. B., Liboriussen, T., Thysen, I., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, L. 1976. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 3: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, B. B., Liboriussen, T., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, L. 1977. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. III. Daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality of intensively fed young bulls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 4: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H., Saix, J. P. and Helwig, J. T. 1976. A User's Guide to SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. 1968. Genetic and environmental influences on growth in beef cattle. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 429–450. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1966. Muscle: bone ratio and fat percentage as measures of beef carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1968. Growth patterns of bovine muscle, fat and bone. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 611–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfeild, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. University of Sydney Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Ball, C. and Dodsworth, T. L. 1976. Growth and carcass characteristics of purebred and crossbred cattle with special reference to their carcass lean: bone ratios. Anim. Prod. 23: 341–348.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1962. The relationship between the weight of a tissue in a single joint and the total weight of the tissue in a side of beef. Anim. Prod. 4: 37–46.Google Scholar
Charles, D. D. and Johnson, E. R. 1976. Breed differences in amount and distribution of bovine carcass dissectible fat. J. Anim. Sci. 42: 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., McDonald, I. and Fowler, V. R. 1964. The effect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded. Anim. Prod. 6: 141–154.Google Scholar
Harte, F. J. and 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: 153–170.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Meij, G. J. W. Van Der. 1973. [Carcass composition of newborn bull calves.] Uit het Instituut voor Zootechniek der Riiksuniversiteit te Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. and 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. and Berg, R. T. 1974. Influence of breed and sex on growth patterns and linear relationship among major bovine tissues. Proc. 1st Wld Conf. Genet, appl. Livest. Prod. 3: 839–849. Editorial Garsi, Madrid.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1968. Developmental studies of body composition. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 36: 167–181.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1973. The effect of body-weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. J. agric. Set, Camb. 80: 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. and Tulloh, N. M. 1968a. Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. II. Dissected components of the commercially dressed and jointed carcass. Aust. J. agric. Res. 19: 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. and Tulloh, N. M. 19686. Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. III. Dissected components of the commercially dressed carcass, following anatomical boundaries. Aust. J. agric. Res. 19: 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Lang, C. P. and Tulloh, N. M. 1976. A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. 1964. The carcase compositions of sheep, cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. Proc. Tech. Conf. on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, Melbourne (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 5: 1-5: 16. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar