Media Peternakan, April 2011, hlm.

19-22
EISSN 2087-4634

Versi online:
h p://medpet.journal.ipb.ac.id/
DOI: 10.5398/medpet.2011.34.1.19

Terakreditasi B SK Dikti No: 43/DIKTI/Kep/2008

Muscle Growth and Distribution in Fa ening Steer of Di erent Breeds

a,

R. Priyanto * & E. R. Johnson

Department of Animal Production and Technology, Faculty of Animal Science, Bogor Agricultural University
Jln. Agatis, Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
b
School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland
Kenmore, Qld 4069, Australia
(Received 28-10-2010; accepted 01-02-2011)

ABSTRACT
The breed pa erns in growth and distribution of muscle were studied using three breeds of beef
ca le entering fa ening phase. This study involved 23 grass-fed steer Brahman, 24 Hereford and 22
Brahman x Hereford crosses with a live weight range of 300 to 600 kgs. An allometric Huxley model
was used to study the growth and distribution pa erns of muscle tissue within wholesale cut. There
were several cuts in which the muscle growth coecients were signifi cantly di erent among breeds.
Comparisons of muscle weight distribution at log natural of 75 kg side muscle + bone weight (4.313 kg)
generally showed signifi cant between-breed di erences. Herefords tended to have more muscles in their
wholesale cuts than Brahmans and/or Brahman x Hereford crosses, except the muscles in Tenderloin, Rib
Set and Chuck. Brahmans had heavier Topside and Silverside than Herefords and Brahman x

Hereford crosses and the di erences were maintained at log natural of 114 kg side muscle + bone weight
(4.733 kg). At this heavier weight, there was a general tendency for Brahmans to have more muscle in their
wholesale cuts than the Brahman x Hereford steers, except the muscle in Loin and Neck + Sticking.

Key words: steer, fa ening phase, muscle growth, muscle distribution

in breed comparison for

muscularity and muscle to
bone ratio. In relation to
Saleable beef yield and its distribution within carcass the exacting specifi cations
have been intensively studied (Priyanto et al., 1999; Mukai et of modern beef, such
in
muscle
al., 2004; Hafi d & Priyanto, 2006, Vieira et al., 2006; Priyanto et variations
al., 2009). At lower fatness, it was reported that ca le withgrowth and distribution
larger frame size had be er yield percentages of saleable beef, become commercially very
if compared to that with smaller frame size (Priyanto et al.,important. The following
1999; Bidner et al., 2009). Such variations in beef yield werestudy was undertaken to
associated primarily with maturity type di erences becauseexamine the infl uence of
of the di erential growth pa erns of their carcass tissues beef ca le breed on muscle
(Priyanto et al., 1999; Priyanto et al., 2009). It is the carcasstissue and its distribution
muscle contributing predominantly to the yield of saleablethroughout the wholesale
cuts relative to fat-free
beef.
carcass weight in fa ening
Signifi cant between breed di erences were reported in steer.
muscle growth and distribution when the muscle in
wholesale cut was related to the total muscle within
MATERIALS
carcass despite the di erences were relatively small
AND
(Shahin et al., 1993, Mc Gee et al., 2007).
METHODS
Maturity type might be regarded as the fat-free
carcass weight (carcass muscle + bone) at which ca le show
a propensity to fa en. Purchas et al. (2002) used fat-free
This study involved
carcass weight as an e ective adjustment factor
69
grass-fed
steers,
comprising 23 Brahmans,
24 Herefords and 22
Brahman
x
Hereford
* Corresponding author:
Crosses which had enter,
Department of Animal Production and Technology, Faculty of Animal
or were progressing along,
Science, Bogor Agricultural University
their fat deposition phase.
Jln. Agatis, Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
The
steers
were
INTRODUCTION

Edisi April 2011 19

sequentially slaughtered at
approximately 300, 400,
500, and 600 kg liveweight. All steers were
fasted but access to water
24 hours prior to slaughter.
Following dressing, the
carcasses were divided
into two sides, weighed
o
and then chilled at 3 C for
24 hours. The right sides
were broken down into 15
wholesale cuts, namely
thin
fl
ank,
loin,
tenderloin, rump, thick fl
ank, topside, silverside,
shank, point end (PE)
brisket, navel end (NE)
brisket, shin, blade, rib set,
chuck, neck + sticking
(AUS-MEAT, 2003). The
cuts were then dissected
into
muscle,
fat,
intermuscular (IM) and
subcutaneous (SC) fats,
bone
and
connective
tissue. The weights of the
carcasses, the hot and
chilled sides, wholesale
cuts were recorded. All
dissection
products,
including muscle, IM fat,
SC fat,

ij

PRIYANTO & JOHNSON

Media Peternakan

accurate
results,
the
dependent variables were
bone and connective tissue from each cuts were weighed estimated using breed
and recorded. The computations of total muscle, muscle regressions at a particular
within wholesale cut and side muscle + bone weights were
X value and com-pared
based on recovered weights of the right side.
between breeds.
Because the carcass
Statistical Analysis
weight range covered both
traditional (light weight)

An allometric model, Y= X (Huxley, 1932), was usedand specifi c (heavy

to study the growth pa erns of the muscle tissue.
weight) markets, it was of
In order to obtain a linear relationship, the equation was particular
interest
to
transformed into log natural form. Breed e ects on the compare the
relationship between the weight of muscle in the wholesale Y values at two di erent
cut and the weight of side muscle + bone were examined values of the independent
using the following model:
variable (X), one where the
carcasses suitable for the
LnYij= Ln + Brdi + LnXij + (Brd)i LnXij + Eij traditional market and one
where they were suitable
Where
for the specifi c (hotel,
= muscle weight in wholesale cut of the jth animal restaurant and institution)
market.
from the ith breed
The
traditional
market

= intercept
prefer carcasses averaging
Brdi = fi xed e ect of the ith breed
200 kg which correspond to
Xij
= side muscle + bone weight of the jth
75 kg of side muscle + bone,
animal from the ith breed
while the specifi c market
prefers carcasses averaging
1
= regression coecient of Yij on Xij
300 kg or
2
(Brd)i = regression coecient of the ith breed
114 kg side muscle + bone
Eij
= residual error of the measurement of
Yij assumed to be normally distributed around weight.
2
a mean of zero with a variance of
RESULTS
This analysis allowed comparisons of breed regression coecients as suggested by Kaps & Lamberson
AND
(2004), and estimates of dependent variables (Ys) at a parDISCUSSIO
ticular independent variable (X). In order to obtain more
N

Table 1. Allometric
relationship
between muscle
weight of the
wholesale cut (Y)
and side muscle +
bone weight (X),
Ln Y = Ln a + b
Ln X

Wholesale cut

Topside
Silverside
Shank

The use of side muscle

+ bone weight as a regressor
in allometric relationships of
tissues in the side and in the
wholesale cuts is a sound
basis for indicating maturity
pa erns among breed types.
Relative to side muscle

+ bone weight, muscle

growth within wholesale
cut showed few breed
variations. There were
several cuts in which the
muscle growth coecients
were signifi cantly di
erent among breeds (Table
1) but the di erences were
small and did not follow
any particular pa ern.
As shown in Table 2,
comparison of muscle
weight distribution at log
natural of 75 kg side
muscle + bone weight
(4.313 kg) indicated that
Herefords had signifi cantly
(P<0.05)
more
muscle in thin fl ank, loin,
shank, brisket and blade
than Brahmans and or
Brahman
x
Hereford
crosses. Conversely, the
Herefords had sig-nifi
cantly (P<0.05) less muscle
in tenderloin, rib set and

Chuck

1.3770.063

Neck + sticking

1.1860.067

Means in the same row followed by a di erent le

Thin fl ank

PE brisket er di er signifi cantly (P<0.05); the weights of

Loin
Tender loin

NE brisketbone expressed in kg; All breed regression

coecients highly signifi cant (P<0.01).
Shin

Rump

Blade

muscle within wholesale cut and side muscle +

Thick fl ank

Rib set
20

Edisi

April 2011

Vol. 34 No. 1

MUSCLE GROWTH

At the heavier muscle

+ bone weight (log natural
chuck than the other two breeds. Meanwhile, Brahman of 114 kg or 4.733 kg),
had signifi cantly (P<0.05) heavier muscle in the topside there was a general
and silverside than Herefords and their cross-bred ca le. At tendency for Brahmans to
this side muscle + bone weight, the total muscle weight for
have more muscle in their
Herefords, Brahmans and Brahman x Hereford crosses
wholesale
cuts
than
were 59.96, 59.65, and 59.18 kg respectively.
Hereford and or Brahman
x Hereford steers (Table
PE brisket
NE brisket
Shin

Table 2. Least-squared mean (LSMean) of

muscle weight within wholesale cut
adjusted to the overall mean of

4.313 kg side muscle + bone weight

Blade
Rib set
Chuck
Neck + sticking

Wholesale cut
Thin fl ank
Loin
Tender loin
Rump
Thick fl ank

Means in the same

row followed by a
di erent le er di er
signifi cantly
(P<0.05); Expressed
in log natural value.

(LSMean)
of muscle
weight
within
wholesale
cut
adjusted to
the overall
mean
of
4.733
kg
side
muscle +
bone

weight
Wholesale cut

Topside
Silverside
Shank

Table

3. Leastsquared
mean

Edisi April 2011 21

Thin fl ank
Loin

3). However, the Brahman

had signifi cantly (P<0.05)
less muscle in the loin and
neck + sticking if compared
with the other two breeds.
Overall at this heavier
muscle +

Tender loin

0.9850.

Rump
Thick fl ank

2.0360.

Topside

2.1350.

Silverside

2.0510.

Shank

1.4630.

PE brisket
NE brisket

1.3730.

Shin

1.0580.

Blade

2.5420.

Rib set
Chuck

1.6310.

Neck + sticking

2.0240.

Means in the same row followed by a di erent le

er di er signifi cantly (P<0.05); Expressed in
log natural value.

1.7250.

1.4050.

2.1750.

PRIYANTO & JOHNSON

Media Peternakan

the di erences were small

and did not follow any
bone weight, the total muscle of Herefords, Brahmans and particular pa ern. At
Brahman x Hereford crosses were 92.88, 93.55, and 91.55 kg constant side muscle +
respectively.
bone weight, breed di
The present study indicated more muscle in the proximal ered signifi cantly in
hind limb region but less in the lumbar and shoulder regions muscle weight distribution
from Brahman steer relative to Hereford steer and the breed and the di erences were
di erences were more apparent in the heavier side muscle + more apparent in the
bone weight. Johnson et al. (2002) reported similar results that heavier side muscle + bone
the larger Indicus steer tended to have more muscle weight. The breed di
particularly in the proximal hind limb if compared to the erences in muscle weight
smaller British steers.
distribution, especially in
Despite several studies suggest that breed e ects arethe proximal hind-limb,
not
necessarily
not large enough to have any important infl uence on were
muscle weight distribution, noticeable di erences in the associated with breed
muscle weight of combined cuts were observed when two superiority
in
muscle
extreme breed types were compared. Double-muscled type development but rather to
ca le were obviously superior in the deposition of muscle maturity and size di
particularly in the proximal hind limb region if compared erences.
with normal ca le (Gotoh et al., 2009). Moreover, it was
reported that the doubleREFE
muscled ca le had almost twice the fi ber number of the
REN
normal ca le, indicating a more extensive hyperplasia of
CES
muscle fi bers during embryonic development (Wegner et
al., 2000).
AUS-MEAT. 2003. Technical
At a similar maturity level, carcasses from large and
Manual of Australian
small breeds di er in their weights and sizes. Therefore,
Meat. Australian Meat
di erences in maturity should be expected when muscle
and
Livestock
weight distribution between breeds is compared at a
Corporation,
Sydney.
constant total side muscle + bone weight as used in this
Meat Animals.
study.
Bidner, T. D., P. E. Humes, W.
Based on the demonstrated development of muscle E. Wya , D. E. Franke, M. A.
Persica, G. T. Gentry, &
from hind-limb to fore-limb (Priyanto et al., 2009), the
D. C. Blouin. 2009. Infl
smaller Hereford breed would have more muscle in the
uence of Angus and
fore-limb while the larger Brahman breed would have
Belgian Blue bulls mated
more muscle in the hind-limb. In this study, because
to Hereford x Brahman
Brahmans were less mature than Herefords, the heavier
cows on growth, carcass
muscle of the hind limb in the Brahman breed was not
traits, and longissimus
necessarily associated with superior muscle develop-ment
steak shear force. J.
in the region. Therefore, it was argued that breed di
Anim Sci. 87:1167-1173.
erences in muscle weight distribution, especially in the Gotoh, T., E. Albrecht, F.
proximal hind-limb, were not due to breed superior-ity in
Teuscher, K. Kawabata,
K.
Sakashita,
H.
muscle development but rather to maturity and size di
Iwamoto, & J. Wegner.
erences.
2009. Di erences in
In the heavier weight of carcass side (165 kg),
muscle and fat accretion in
Hereford and Brahman had similar total muscle weights
Japanese
Black
and
but they had obviously less total muscle if compared to
European ca le. Meat
Brahman x Hereford crosses (Priyanto et al., 1999).
Sci. 82: 3003008.
Meanwhile, this study indicated be er carcass muscling of Hafi d, H. & R. Priyanto.
Brahman steer relative to the cross-bred steer when
2006. Pertumbuhan dan
adjustment was made at similar fat-free carcass weight
distribusi
potongan
(maturity). The remarkably faster growing fat relative to
komersial karkas sapi
Australian Commercial
muscle in fa ening steer as reported by Priyanto et al. (2009)
Cross dan Brahman
suggest earlier mature of Brahman relative to Brahman x
Cross
hasil
Hereford cross breeds. Therefore, at similar carcass weight
penggemukan. Med. Pet.
the Brahman steer would have deposited more carcass fat
29: 63-69.
and consequently contained less carcass muscle.
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems
of Relative Growth.
CONCLUSION
Methuen, London.
Johnson, E. R., D. D. Charles,
& D. A. Baker. 2002. The
In fa ening steer, there were signifi cant di erences in
distribution of muscle
muscle growth coecient of several cuts. However,
and bone weight in
swamp buf-falo (Bubalus
bubalis), Bos indicus and
Bos
taurus
Steers.
Pertanika J. Trap. Agric.
Sci. 25: 1926.

22

Kaps, M. & W. R. Lamberson.

2004. Biostatistics for
Animal Science. CABI
Publishing, Oxfordshire.
Mc Gee1, M., M. G. Keane, R.
Neilan, A. P. Moloney, & P. J.
Ca rey. 2007. Body and
carcass measurements,
carcass
conformation
and tissue distribution of
high dairy genetic merit
Holstein, standard dairy
genetic merit Friesian
and
Charolais x HolsteinFriesian male ca le. Irish
J. Agric.
Food Res. 46: 129-147.
Mukai, F., M. Sadahira, & T.
Yoshimura.
2004.
Comparison of carcass
composition
among
Japanese Black, Holstein
and
their
crossbred
steers fa ening on farm.
Anim. Sci. J. 75:
393-399.
Priyanto, R., E. R. Johnson, &
D. G. Taylor. 1999. The
eco-nomic importance of
genotype in steers fed
pasture or lucerne hay
and prepared for the
Australian and Japanese
beef markets. NZ Journal
of Agric. Res. 42: 343404.
Priyanto, R., E. R. Johnson, &
D. G. Taylor. 2009. The
growth pa erns of
carcass tissues within
wholesale cuts in fa ening steer. J. Ind. Trop.
Anim. Agric. 34: 153-158.
Purchas, R. W., A. V. Fisher,
M. A. Price, & R. T. Berg.
2002.
Relationships
between beef carcass
shape and muscle to
bone ratio. Meat Sci. 61:
329-337.
Shahin, K. A., R. T. Berg, &
M. A. Price. 1993. The e
ect of breed-type and
castration on muscle
growth and distribu-tion
in ca le. Livestock Prod.
Sci. 33: 43-54.
Vieira, C., A. Cerdeno, E.
Serrano, & A. R. Mantecon.
2006.
Adult steer for beef
production : Breed e ect
on animal performance,
retail yield and carcass
quality. Czech J. Anim.
Sci. 51:467-474.
Wegner, J., E. Albrecht, I.
Fiedler, F. Teuscher, H. J.
Papstein,
& K. Ender. 2000.
Growth- and breedrelated
changes
of
muscle
fi
ber
characteristics in ca le. J.
Anim. Sci. 78:
1485-1496.
Edisi April 2011