Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:58:45.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the muscles of meat animals. IV. Comparative composition of muscles from ‘doppelender’ and normal sibling heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. A. Lawrie ,
R. W. Pomeroy  and
D. R. Williams
R. A. Lawrie
Affiliation:
Low Temperature Research Station, Downing Street, Cambridge
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
Low Temperature Research Station, Downing Street, Cambridge
D. R. Williams
Affiliation:
Low Temperature Research Station, Downing Street, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Fourteen muscles from a normal 46-week-old Friesian heifer and from its 40-week-old half-sister, which showed the pronounced muscle hypertrophy of ‘doppelender’ cattle, were analysed for moisture, hydroxyproline, sodium, potassium, total nitrogen, and intramuscular fat: the iodine number of the latter was determined. In four of the muscles sarcoplasmic, myofibrillar and stroma nitrogens were also estimated.

2. Hypertrophy was associated with a mean increase in the percentage of total nitrogen, with markedly lower percentages of hydroxyproline and of intramuscular fat, and with a decreased K/Na ratio.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 89 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Blaxter, K. L. & Wood, W. A. (1952). Brit. J. Nutr. 6, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. & Pomeroy, R. W. (1963). In preparation.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, A. L. & Young, F. G. (1953). J. Endocrin. 9, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Orowth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Helander, E. (1957). Acta physiol. Scand. (Suppl.) 41, 141.Google Scholar
Kidwell, J. F., Vernon, E. H., Crown, R. M. & Singletary, C. (1952). J. Hered. 43, 62.Google Scholar
Kochakian, C. D. & Tillotson, C. (1957). J. Endocrin. 60, 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1953a). Biochem. J. 55, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1953b). J. Physiol. 121, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1961) J. Agric. Sci. 56, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A., Pomeroy, R. W. & Cuthbertson, A. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 60, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. (1954). Bereth. Forsegslab., Kbh., no. 272.Google Scholar
Mckellar, J. C. (1960). Vet. Eec.. 72, 507.Google Scholar
Mcmeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276, 387, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcmeekan, C. P. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, J. (1931). Chemical Embryology, vol. III. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. & Williams, D. (1963). In preparation.Google Scholar