Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-5k9ck Total loading time: 0.659 Render date: 2022-06-25T00:11:42.729Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Factors influencing beef eating quality 2. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on muscle fibre characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C.A. Maltin
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
G.E. Lobley
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
C.M. Grant
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
L.A. Miller
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
D.J. Kyle
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
G.W. Horgan
Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, UK
K.R. Matthews
Meat and Livestock Commission, Winterhill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX, UK
K.D. Sinclair
Scottish Agricultural College, (Ferguson Building), Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA, UK
Get access


Eighteen purebred steers of three genotypes, Aberdeen Angus (AA), Charolais (CH) and Holstein (HO), were divided within genotype into three groups of six animals and offered one of three different levels of feeding either moderate (M/M) or high (H/H) both for 20 weeks or moderate for the first 10 weeks followed by high for the remaining 10 weeks (M/H). Growth rates during the final 10 weeks of the experimental period differed between dietary regimen (M/M = 0·87; M/H = 1·25; and H/H = 1·02 kg/day; s.e.d. = 0·08; P < 0·001). Over the entire 20 week experimental period animals offered the M/M level of feeding grew more slowly (0·97 kg/day) than those offered the M/H and H/H level of feeding (1·20 kg/day; s.e.d. = 0·06; P < 0·001). Mean growth rates for CH, HO and AA steers were 1·21, 1·13 and 1·03 kg/day (s.e.d. = 0·06; P < 0·05). The animals were all slaughtered at a fixed age of 18 months, according to the Meat and Livestock Commission Blueprint for beef and, 48 h post mortem, samples of m. longissimus lumborum (LL) and m. vastus lateralis (VL) were removed for analyses.

Muscle fibres were classified histochemically, according to their contractile and metabolic properties, and muscle fibre size was measured. Fibre type frequency was calculated and, in LL, the total fibre number of the muscle was estimated. There was little impact of feeding level, or consequentially growth rate, on muscle fibre frequency and size. The effects seen were confined mainly to LL where there were significant differences between the M/M and H/ H groups with respect to fast twitch glycolytic fibres (mean % frequency (M/M = 40·1 and H/H = 44·3; s.e.d. = 1·4; P < 0·01); mean % area (M/M = 51·9 and H/H 56·0; s.e.d. = 1·5; P < 0·05)) and apparent total fibre number (M/ M = 35·0; and H/H = 41·9 ✕ 104; s.e.d. = 1·7; P < 0·05) which were greater in H/H than in M/M groups. However, in both LL and VL the predominant differences were related to genotype; in particular, overall fibre size was smallest in CH, while slow oxidative (SO; type I) fibre area was highest in AA. For LL, analysis across all animals showed a positive relationship between SO area, % area, % frequency and overall acceptability of meat at 14 days as evaluated by a trained sensory panel. No such relationship was observed for VL. The data suggest that in this study manipulation of feeding level has only a small impact on muscle fibre characteristics and that the differences between genotype and muscle type may be more important in determining the variability of overall acceptability than growth rate.

Growth, development and meat science
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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.)


Aberle, E. D., Reeves, E. S., Judge, M. D., Hunsley, R. E. and Perry, T. W. 1981. Palatability and muscle characteristics of cattle with controlled weight gain: time on a high energy diet. Journal of Animal Science 52: 757763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allingham, P. G., Harper, G. S. and Hunter, R. A. 1998. Effect of growth path on the tenderness of the semitendinosus muscle of Brahman-cross steers. Meat Science 48: 6573.Google Scholar
Antonio, J. and Gonyea, W. J. 1993. Skeletal muscle fiber hyperplasia. Medical Science of Sports and Exercise 25: 13331345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashmore, C. R., Tompkins, G. and Doer, L. 1972. Postnatal development of muscle fibre types in domestic animals. Journal of Animal Science 34: 3741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillie, A. G. and Garlick, P. J. 1991. Responses of protein synthesis in different skeletal muscles to fasting and insulin in rats. American Journal of Physiology 260: E891-E896.Google Scholar
Blanchard, P. 1994. The influence of lean tissue growth rate on pork tenderness. Meat Focus International November: 457458.Google Scholar
Boehm, M. L., Kendall, T. L., Thompson, V. F. and Goll, D. E. 1998. Changes in the calpains and calpastatin during postmortem storage of bovine muscle. Journal of Animal Science 76: 24152434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calkins, C. R., Seideman, S. C. and Crouse, J. D. 1987. Relationship between rate of growth, catheptic enzymes and meat palatability in young bulls. Journal of Animal Science 64: 14481457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campo, M. M., Sanudo, C., Panea, B., Alberti, P. and Santolaria, P. 1999. Breed type and ageing time effects on sensory characteristics of beef strip loin steaks. Meat Science 51: 383390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouse, J. D., Koohmaraie, M. and Seideman, S. D. 1991. The relationship of muscle fibre size to tenderness of beef. Meat Science 30: 295302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilers, J. D., Tatum, J. D., Morgan, J. B. and Smith, G. C. 1996. Modification of early post-mortem pH and use of postmortem aging to improve beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 74: 790798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishell, V. K., Aberle, E. D., Judge, M. D. and Perry, T. W. 1985. Palatability and muscle properties of beef as influenced by preslaughter growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 61: 151157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimoto, S., Watanabe, J., Ogawa, R. and Kanamura, S. 1994. Age-related changes in fibre number, fibre size, fibre type composition and adenosine triphosphatase activity in rat soleus muscle. Anatomisicher Anzeiger 176: 429435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garlick, P. J., Maltin, C. A., Baillie, A. G., Delday, M. I. and Grubb, D. A. 1989. Fiber-type composition of nine rat muscles. II. Relationship to protein turnover. American Journal of Physiology 257: E828E832.Google Scholar
Gazzola, C., O’Neill, C. J. and Frisch, J. E. 1999. Comparative evaluation of the meat quality of beef cattle breeds of Indian, African and European origins. Animal Science 69: 135142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5, release 3 reference manual. Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goldspink, G. 1980. Growth of muscle. In Development and specialization of skeletal muscle (ed. Golspink, D. F.), pp. 1935. Society for Experimental Biology seminar series 7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Grobet, L., Martin, L. J., Poncelet, D., Pirottin, D., Brouwers, B., Riquet, J., Schoeberlein, A., Dunner, S., Menissier, F., Massabanda, J., Fries, R., Hanset, R. and Georges, M. 1997. A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene causes the double-muscled phenotype in cattle. Nature Genetics 17: 7174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, G. S., Allingham, P. G. and Le Feuvre, R. P. 1999. Changes in connective tissue of m. semitendinosus as a response to different growth paths in steers. Meat Science 53: 107114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearnshaw, H., Arthur, P. F., Shorthose, W. R., Sinclair, A. J., Johnston, D. and Stephenson, P. D. 1998. Evaluation of Angus, Charolais and Hereford as terminal sires on Hereford and first-cross cows. III. Meat quality of progeny. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 49: 10091019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, D. B., Cuthbertson, A., Homer, D. L. M. and McMenamin, P. 1997. Eating quality of beef from different sire breeds. Meat Science 64: 403408.Google Scholar
Hunt, M. C. and Hedrick, H. B. 1977. Profile of fiber types and related properties of five bovine muscles. Journal of Food Science 42: 513516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. R. 1996. Beef carcase characteristics that may be of value in selecting for genetic merit. Australian Veterinary Journal 73: 233240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, A., Enfalt, A.-C., Essen-Gustavsson, B., Lundstrom, K., Rydhmer, L. and Stern, S. 1993. Muscle histochemical and biochemical properties in relation to meat quality during selection for increased lean tissue growth rate in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 930938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Jung, H. G., Crouse, J. D., Varel, V. H. and Cundiff, L. V. 1995. Growth, digestive capability, carcass, and meat characteristics of Bison bison, Bos taurus, and Bos ✕ Bison. Journal of Animal Science 73: 12711281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, D. 1994. Growth, fatness and breed effects on carcase and eating quality. Meat Focus International August: 334335.Google Scholar
Lobley, G. E., Sinclair, K. D., Grant, C. M., Miller, L. A., Mantle, D., Calder, A. G., Warkup, C. C. and Maltin, C. A. 2000. The effects of breed and level of nutrition on whole body and muscle protein metabolism in pure-bred Aberdeen Angus and Charolais beef steers. British Journal of Nutrition 84: 275284.Google Scholar
Maltin, C. A., Delday, M. I., Hay, S. M., Innes, G. M. and Williams, P. E. V. 1990. Effects of bovine pituitary growth hormone alone or in combination with the b -agonist clenbuterol on muscle growth and composition in veal calves. British Journal of Nutrition 63: 535545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltin, C. A., Sinclair, K. D., Warriss, P. D., Grant, C. M., Porter, A. D., Delday, M. I. and Warkup, C. C. 1998. The effect of age at slaughter, genotype and finishing system on the biochemical properties, muscle fibre type characteristics and eating quality of bull beef from suckled calves. Animal Science 66: 341348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltin, C. A., Warkup, C. C., Matthews, K. R., Grant, C. M., Porter, A. D. and Delday, M. I. 1997. Pig muscle fibre characteristics as a source of variation in eating quality. Meat Science 47: 237248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1991. A blueprint for improved consistent quality beef. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Melton, C., Dikeman, M., Tuma, H. J. and Kropf, D. H. 1975. Histochemical relationships of muscle biopsies with bovine muscle quality and composition. Journal of Animal Science 40: 451456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melton, C., Dikeman, M., Tuma, H. J. and Schales, R. R. 1974. Histological relationships of muscle biopsies to bovine meat quality and carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 38: 2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockerman, H. W., Jaworek, D., Van Stavern, B., Parrett, N. and Pierson, C. J. 1984. Castration and sire effects on carcase traits, meat palatability and muscle fibre characteristics in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 59: 981990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, J. B., Barnard, R. J., Edgerton, V. R., Gillespie, C. A. and Stempel, K. E. 1972. Metabolic profiles of three fibre types of skeletal muscle in guinea pigs and rabbits. Biochemistry 11: 26272633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remignon, H., Gardahaut, M. F., Marche, G. and Ricard, F. H. 1995. Selection for rapid growth increases the number and size of muscle fibres without changing their type. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility 16: 95102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, S.D., Wheeler, T. L. and Koohmaraie, M. 1995. Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 33333340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Lobley, G. E., Horgan, G. W., Kyle, D. J., Porter, A. D., Matthews, K. R., Warkup, C. C. and Maltin, C. A. 2001. Factors influencing beef eating quality. 1. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on organoleptic properties and instrumental texture. Animal Science 72: 269277.Google Scholar
Sjöström, M., Lexell, J., Eriksson, A. and Taylor, C. C. 1991. Evidence of fibre hyperplasia in human skeletal muscles from healthy young men? A left-right comparison of the fibre number in whole anterior tibialis muscles. European Journal of Applied Physiology 62: 301304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steven, J., Warkup, C. C., Matthews, K. R., Delday, M. I. and Maltin, C. A. 1997. Immunocytochemical localization of the calpain proteolytic system in porcine muscle. In Calpains: their role in pathology and new therapeutic opportunities, Proceedings of a conference held at University of Oxford, April 1997.Google Scholar
Summers, P. J. and Medrano, J. F. 1994. Morphometric analysis of skeletal muscle growth in the high growth mouse. Growth, Development and Aging 58: 135148.Google Scholar
Swatland, H. J. 1994. Structure and development of meat animals. Technomic Publishing Company Inc.1, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Thomson, B. C., Hosking, B. J., Sainz, R. D. and Oddy, V. H. 1997. The effect of nutritional status on protein degradation and components of the calpain system in skeletal muscle of weaned wether lambs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 129: 471477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timson, B. F., Bowlin, B. K., Dudenhoeffer, G. A. and George, J. B. 1985. Fiber number, area and composition of mouse soleus muscle following enlargement. Journal of Applied Physiology 58: 619624.Google Scholar
Valin, C., Touraille, C., Vigneron, P. and Ashmore, C. R. 1982. Predicition of lamb meat quality traits based on muscle biopsy fibre typing. Meat Science 6: 257263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, M., Therkildsen, M., Henckel, P., Jensen, L. R., Andersen, H. R. and Sejrsen, K. 2000. Influence of feeding intensity, grazing and finishing feeding on meat and eating quality of young bulls and the relationship between muscle fibre characteristics, fibre fragmentation and meat tenderness. Meat Science 54: 187195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. D., Enser, M., Fisher, A. V., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. I. and Sheard, P. R. 1999. Manipulating meat quality and composition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58: 363370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamora, F., Debiton, E., Lepetit, J., Lebert, A., Dransfield, E. and Ouali, A. 1996. Predicting variability of ageing and toughness in beef m. longissimus lumborum et thoracis. Meat Science 43: 321333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Factors influencing beef eating quality 2. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on muscle fibre characteristics
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Factors influencing beef eating quality 2. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on muscle fibre characteristics
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Factors influencing beef eating quality 2. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on muscle fibre characteristics
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *