Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T12:11:50.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of breed and sex on the allometric growth patterns of major bovine tissues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. Mukhoty  and
R. T. Berg
H. Mukhoty
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
R. T. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Get access

Summary

The influence of breed and sex on relative growth patterns of muscle, bone and fat in beef cattle has been investigated. Comparisons were made of growth coefficients estimated using Huxley's (1932) allometric equation relating muscle, bone or fat to muscle plus bone using data from the dissection of half carcasses of 63 young bulls, 106 steers and 22 heifers representing a number of breed groups. Growth coefficients for muscle and for bone were found to be similar among different breed groups of bulls, steers and heifers. The proportion of muscle increased and that of bone decreased as the size of animal, measured by muscle plus bone, increased. Muscle and bone weights adjusted to common muscle plus bone weights were significantly different among breed groups within sex. Differences in amount of muscle relative to bone were therefore established at earlier stages of growth and maintained over the period represented in the present study.

Growth coefficients for fat were significantly different among breed groups within sexes.

Sex within breed group had no statistically significant influence on growth coefficients for muscle or for bone. Muscle and bone weights adjusted to a common muscle plus bone weight were similar for sex groups within all breed group comparisons. Sex did not have a marked effect on rate of fattening since differences between growth coefficients for fat (between sexes, within breeds) were not statistically significant—although in all comparisons growth coefficients for fat were lowest for bulls, intermediate for steers and highest for heifers. Sexes differed in weight of fat adjusted to common muscle plus bone weight, heifers being fatter than steers and steers fatter than bulls, a difference probably resulting more from early onset of the fattening phase in heifers, followed by steers, rather than relative rate of fattening.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 1971 , pp. 219 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1971

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

Bancroft, T. A. 1968. Topics in Intermediate Statistical Methods. Ch. I. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Ia.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 McElroy, L. W. 1968. The University of Alberta beef breeding project. 47th Annual Feeders' Day Report, pp. 23–28. Dept. of Anim. Sci., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Von Bertalanffy, L. 1960. Principles and theory of growth. In Fundamental Aspects of Normal and Malignant Growth, (ed. Nowinski, W. W.), pp. 137–259. Eisevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Brungardt, V. H. 1968. Changes in the composition during maturation of Holstein steers. Proc. 21st Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference, pp. 115–133. American Meat Science Association.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and May, N. D. S. 1965. Muscles of the Ox. University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966. A classification of bovine muscle based on their relative growth patterns. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callow, E. H. 1948. Comparative studies of meat. II. The changes in the carcass during growth and fattening, and their relation to the chemical composition of the fatty and muscular tissues. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 174–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, V. R. 1967. Body development and some problems of its evaluation. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 195–211. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Haecker, T. L. 1920. Investigations in beef production. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Stn, No. 193.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Laird, A. K., Tyler, S. A. and Barton, A. D. 1965. Dynamics of normal growth. Growth 29: 233–248.Google ScholarPubMed
Tulloh, N. M. 1963. The carcass compositions of sheep, cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 5: 1–16, C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Williams, E. J. 1959. Regression Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.Google Scholar