Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:34:42.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass composition of double-muscled cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

E. R. Johnson
E. R. Johnson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
Get access

Abstract

1. An anatomical explanation of the observed differences between double-muscled and phenotypically normal cattle was sought by detailed dissection of the sides of six double-muscled Santa Gertrudis steers and six Brangus steers.

2. Relative to carcass weight the double-muscled steers had a significantly greater proportion of muscle and a significantly lower proportion of bone and fat than the Brangus steers. Relative to muscle plus bone weight the muscle proportion was greater and the bone proportion lower in the double-muscled steers.

3. The musculature of the double-muscled steers exhibited a gradient of hypertrophy: 12 muscles (234g/kg of total muscle weight) were grossly hypertrophied, 56 muscles (565g/kg) were hypertrophied to a lesser degree and 28 muscles (195g/kg) showed either a minor degree of hypertrophy or no hypertrophy.

4. The grossly hypertrophied muscles were generally the larger, superficial muscles of the proximal pelvic limb and shoulder area. The muscles showing least hypertrophy were mostly small muscles located in the deeper areas of the carcass, particularly around the spine and in the proximal hindlimb, and in the proximal and distal forelimb.

5. Abnormalities of shape in double-muscled cattle may be attributed largely to altered proportions of total muscle and total fat, and to changes in weight distribution within the musculature.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , August 1981, pp. 31 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

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
Butterfield, R. M. 1963. Estimation of carcase composition: the anatomical approach. In Symp. on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Anims (ed. Tribe, D. E.), Pap. No. 4, pp. 1–13. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1966. Muscular hypertrophy of cattle. Aust. vet. J. 42: 37–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charles, D. D. and Johnson, E. R. 1976. Muscle weight distribution in four breeds of cattle with reference to individual muscles, anatomical groups and wholesale cuts. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 86: 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, O. G., Knapp, B. Jr, and Phillips, R. W. 1943. The muscle-bone ratio as an index of merit in beef and dual-purpose cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2: 42–49.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. H. G. and Robinson, D. W. 1970. Hereditary muscular hypertrophy in the bovine: metabolic response to nutritional stress. J. Anim. Sci. 31: 776–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. R. and Pryor, W. J. 1974. Studies of fat distribution in the bovine carcass. III. Influence of intramuscular fat on the weight of total dissected muscle, muscle/bone ratio and the growth coefficients of muscle groups. Aust. J. agric. Res. 25: 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, J. F. 1952. Muscular hypertrophy and “black cutter” beef. J. Hered. 43: 157–158.Google Scholar
Kidwell, J. F., Vernon, E. H., Crown, R. M. and Singletary, D. B. 1952. Muscular hypertrophy in cattle. J. Hered. 43: 62–68.Google Scholar
Lawrie, R. A., Pomeroy, R. W. and Williams, D. R. 1964. Studies in the muscles of meat animals. IV. Comparative composition of muscles from ‘doppelender’ and normal sibling heifers. J. agric. Sci. Camb. 62: 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, T. G., Lovell, J. E., Woodcock, L. R., St. Clair, L. E. and Romans, J. R. 1971. Body composition of muscular hypertrophied cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 33: 195 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
MacKellar, J. C. 1960. The occurrence of muscular hypertrophy in South Devon cattle. Vet. Rec. 72: 507–510.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. 1963. Symptoms of muscular hypertrophy in heterozygous steers. Anim. Prod. 5: 57–65.Google Scholar
Neuvy, A. and Vissac, B. 1962. [Contribution to the study of the Culard phenomenon.] Union Nationale des Livres Généalogiques. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Oliver, W. M. and Cartwright, T. C. 1968. Double muscling in cattle. A review of expression, genetics and economic implication. Tech. Rep. Texas A. and M. Univ., Coll. Stn, No. 12.Google Scholar
Ouhayoun, J. and Beaumont, A. 1968. [Study of th e double-muscled character. III. Microscopical comparison of muscles from normal and double-muscled ‘Charolais’ steers.] Annls Zootech. 17: 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W., and Williams, D. R. 1962. Muscular hypertrophy in cattle. Anim. Prod. 4: 302 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Raimondi, R. 1957. [Study of ’double-rumped“Piedmontese cattle.] Annali Accad. Agric. Torino, No. 99.Google Scholar
Rollins, W. C., Julian, L. M. and Carroll, F. D. 1969. A note on the body composition of a double-muscled female and a normal female from a linebred Aberdeen Angus herd. Anim. Prod. 11: 111–114.Google Scholar
Rollins, W. C., Tanaka, M., Nott, C. F. G. and Thiessen, R. B. 1972. On the mode of inheritance of double-muscled conformation in bovines. Hilgardia 41: 433–455.Google Scholar
Swatland, H. J. and Kieffer, N. M. 1974. Fetal development of the double muscled condition in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 38: 752–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vissac, B. 1968. [Study of the double-muscled character. II. Morphological characteristics.] Annls Zootech. 17: 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vissac, B., Menissier, F. and Perreau, B. 1971. [The Culard character. A review of rearing.] Station de Génétique, Quantitative et Appliquee, CNRZ-INRA.Google Scholar