Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T06:48:53.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of muscle-bone relationships in the hind limb of goats and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. R. Anous
M. R. Anous
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain-Shams University, PO Box 68 Hadayek Shoubra, 11241 Cairo, Egypt
Get access

Abstract

Muscle to bone weight relationships within anatomical regions (proximal-distal division into pelvic, thigh and lower leg groups) and subregions (division within regions into gluteal, intrinsic pelvic, cranial, caudal and medial thigh, and cranial and caudal lower leg groups) of the hind limb and also of its most important muscles (no. = 11) were compared between goats and sheep using the method of multivariate analysis of the centred data. In this comparison, a total of 39 animals was considered: 13 male kids of the Alpine breed (K) and a sample of 26 male lambs derived from different breeds or crossbreeds representing, in equal numbers, lambs having good conformation (LGC) and poor conformation (LPC). Lambs were chosen on the basis of the hindlimb length the means of which were 22·9 (s.e. 1·5), 29·3 (s.e. 1·8) and 29·1 (s.e. 2·5) cm for LGC, LPC, and K, respectively. Corresponding cold carcass weights were 19·71 (s.e. 347), 17·28 (s.e. 1·77) and 10·84 (s.e. 0·56) kg.

In both comparisons (K-LGC and K-LPC) the two species were systematically distinguished by the size of the following ratios: (pelvic muscles/os coxae + leg muscles /tibia) relative to thigh muscles/femur (for regions), which was lower in lambs than in kids; intrinsic pelvic muscles/os coxae relative to caudal thigh muscles/femur (for subregions), which was higher in kids than in lambs. For individual muscles, they were distinguished by the size of the following ratios: rectus (emoris/femur relative to semimembranosus/femur (or gluteus medius/os coxae) in the comparison K-LGC, which was higher in lambs than in kids, and vastus lateralis/femur relative to sum of pectineus + gracilis/femur (or gastrocemius/tibia) in the comparison K-LPC, which was lower in kids than in lambs. The results show that the muscle-bone ratios of the anatomical regions, subregions and the most commercially important muscles in the hindlimb can be used as discriminant characteristics of species.

Keywords

goatsmuscle bone ratiosheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , August 1991 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Anous, M. R. 1987. Contribution a l'étude des relations existant entre Ie développement des supports osseux et des muscles du membre pelvien des Caprini. Thèse d'Etat, Université de PARIS-SUD, Centre d'Orsay, France.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New concepts of cattle growth. Sydney University Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L. and Boccaid, R. 1967. Critères modernes d'amelioration génétique des population bovines dans le monde. Le rapport Muscle/Os, critere de selection des bovins de boucherie. Atti Del II. Simposio Internazionale Di Zootecnia, Milano, 14-16 April, pp. 149–155.Google Scholar
Fourie, P. D., Kirton, A. H. and Jury, K. E. 1970. Growth and development of sheep. II. Effect of breed and sex on the growth and carcass composition of the Southdown and Romney and their cross. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture Research 13: 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and the development of mutton qualities in sheep. 2nd ed. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hankins, O. G., Knapp, B. and Phillips, R. W. 1943. The muscle-bone ratio as an index of merit in beef and dual-purpose cattle. journal of Animal Science 2: 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1978. Bone growth and development with particular reference to breed differences in carcass shape and lean to bone ratio. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine 2: 149–166.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, J. 1976. Analyse des donees centrees. In Introduction aux analysis statistiques multidimensionelles, pp. 175–183. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Pálsson, H. 1939. Meat qualities in the sheep with special reference to Scottish breeds and crosses. Part I. Carcass measurements and "sample joints" as indices of quality and composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 24: 544–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahin, K. A. and Berg, R. T. 1987. Influence of bone growth on muscle growth and bone-muscle relationships in double-muscled and normal cattle. Animal Production 44: 219–225.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. and Romberg, B. 1963. An effect of gravity on bone development in lambs. Nature, London 200: 438–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar