Matching type to purpose

http://piedmontese.org/Marbling%20in%20double%20muscled%20steers.htm

Marbling in double muscled steers

Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein - Agriculture Canada
June, 2003

Some breeds of cattle are prone to double muscling. These animals have enlarged muscles, giving them the appearance of being the weight lifters of the cattle world!

Double muscling in cattle is the result of a natural mutation of the myostatin gene. Normally this gene stops muscle development, but the timing is off because of the mutation of the gene.

There are a number of breeds that are prone to carrying the gene for double muscling, with two of these being the Piedmontese and the Parthenais. Both breeds have been in existence for a long time with the first official herdbook for the Piedmontese established in Italy in 1897, and for the Parthenais in France in 1893. Both breeds are raised in Alberta.

One of the attractions of double-muscled cattle is the leanness of their carcasses. Backfat is generally found to be less in double-muscled cattle than in cattle with normal muscling. Whether or not this affects the amount of marbling fat in the muscle is open to dispute.

Some studies have found reduced marbling in double-muscled cattle while others have found no effect of double muscling on carcass marbling.

As part of a large study to determine growth performance and carcass characteristics of cattle with varying degrees of marbling genetics, we included Piedmontese and Parthenais steers. The objectives of this portion of the study were to compare backfat depths and marbling of double-muscled and non double-muscled steers, and to determine if double-muscled steers have altered plasma hormone profiles that might explain how the gene for extra muscle growth is being expressed.

We compared the data from 10 Piedmontese and 8 Parthenais double-muscled steers with data obtained from 38 non double-muscled (control) steers). The control group had 19 Angus, 10 Hereford, 3 Holstein, 3 Hereford x Charolais and 3 Hereford x Simmental calves in it.

Calves began the trial at weaning. During the first 2 weeks we put the calves on a roughage diet. We then adapted the calves over a 4-week period to a diet of 80% barley, 15% barley silage and 5% pelleted supplement, which they received until slaughter.

We weighed calves at weaning and every 28 day until slaughter. We also measured ultrasonic backfat depth when we weighed them. We assigned the control group for slaughter when their backfat depths approached 12 mm.

However, we assigned the double-muscled steers for slaughter at 500 kg liveweight, instead of at 12 mm of backfat, since they were slow to deposit backfat. We had the calves slaughtered at the Lacombe Research Centre, where blue tag data was collected by certified AAFC beef graders.

Carcass marbling was scored on an inverse 10-point scale where a score of '1' is maximum marbling and a score of '10' is zero marbling. Average live weight at slaughter was slightly higher in double-muscled steers compared to control steers (506 vs. 488 kg). As we expected, double-muscled steers had much less backfat than control steers (5.1 vs. 12.1 mm) at slaughter.

Despite this, carcass marbling was similar for both the double-muscled and control steers (8.6 vs. 8.6 marbling score), supporting the view that while double muscling results in less external carcass fat, it does not adversely affect marbling. This is important since marbling is believed to have a role in determining the palatability of beef.

We collected blood samples from the steers three times during this study for the measurement of several hormones known to be involved in the partitioning of energy into either muscle or fat. Plasma insulin concentrations were similar in the double- muscled and control steers (1.2 vs. 1.3 ng/mL).

The concentration of plasma triiodothyronine, a thyroid hormone, was slightly lower in double-muscled compared to control steers (1.9 vs. 2.1 ng/mL). Plasma thyroxine, another thyroid hormone, was also lower in double-muscled compared to control steers (7.3 vs. 9.3 µg/dL). We also found that plasma cortisol, an adrenal hormone was substantially higher in the double-muscled steers (12.3 vs.6.9 µg/dL).

Our study indicates that Piedmontese and Parthenais steers put on much less backfat without reducing the amount of muscle marbling. These breeds have adrenal and thyroid hormone concentrations that are different from those of normally muscled cattle, an indication that the mutated myostatin gene may be expressing itself through these hormonal systems to alter muscular development and fat deposition in these cattle.








printed courtesy of:
ALBERTA BEEF MAGAZINE LTD - www.albertabeef.ca

Click your BACK button to return to www.piedmontese-napa.com

Larry has crossed Pied on his cows and eaten the product...I started to have Pied at the Gathering on Friday night, but he talked me out of it...saying it would take a lot of sauce to give it taste...anyway, given the toughness of some of the Angus that we had, maybe Pied with sauce would have been a better choice...although, my steak was excellent...consistency seems a bigger problen than marbling?

I have several hundred straws of pied semen from the Leachman dispersal if anyone wants to experiment.

I did quite bit of work with the Belgian Blues several years ago. The marbling in the 1/2 blood carcasses (crossed on angus and hereford) seemed dependent on the backfat. If we fed them long enough to have backfat, then we would get marbling. If we harvested them before the backfat was over a quarter of an inch, then they were lean. We actually had them American Heart Association approved at one time, but didn't have access to enough cattle to keep it going. It was a costly learning experience and taught me a lot about human nature. The angus/BB cross beef was tender and I like it lean. The trick is you have to shorten the cooking time compared to marbled beef. The marbled beef is much more forgiving and cooks slower. The full bloods were supposed to be bland, but I finally got to try part of one this Spring and the roasts and hamburger were really good.

Ron - suddenly in the mood for a late night snack.

I'm confused by this post - doesn't it go against mating seperate but complimentary types together in a Trueline concept? When you look at the cattle featured - seedstock bulls and cows that are already mongrelized having been bred to Angus bulls to turn them red or black. Isn't this an example of selling "production" stock as "parent" stock where most of the heterosis has already been captured by the seedstock salesman. What's left for the commercial guy?
The few Piedmontese that hit the UK got pretty short shrift with a reputation as hard calvers. Of course they were Pieds not Pied x Angus.

In regards to double muscling:

If you have semen on




Hyline Travel Agent



C T R Double Take 400

O C C Prototype 847P

please let me know.

Grassfarmer wrote:

I'm confused by this post - doesn't it go against mating seperate but complimentary types together in a Trueline concept? When you look at the cattle featured - seedstock bulls and cows that are already mongrelized having been bred to Angus bulls to turn them red or black. Isn't this an example of selling "production" stock as "parent" stock where most of the heterosis has already been captured by the seedstock salesman. What's left for the commercial guy?
The few Piedmontese that hit the UK got pretty short shrift with a reputation as hard calvers. Of course they were Pieds not Pied x Angus.

That one little myostatin gene trumps everything else in this situation. That's why I think that using a Pied bull, whether fullblood or mongrelized, fits perfectly with the Truline concept. Using terminal bulls homozygous for the inactivated myostatin gene on a maternal herd of cows with strong marbling genetics would produce incredibly consistent seedless fruit due to the complimentarity of just a few genes.

Grassfarmer wrote:

I'm confused by this post - doesn't it go against mating seperate but complimentary types together in a Trueline concept? When you look at the cattle featured - seedstock bulls and cows that are already mongrelized having been bred to Angus bulls to turn them red or black. Isn't this an example of selling "production" stock as "parent" stock where most of the heterosis has already been captured by the seedstock salesman. What's left for the commercial guy?
The few Piedmontese that hit the UK got pretty short shrift with a reputation as hard calvers. Of course they were Pieds not Pied x Angus.

Being a huge fan of studies, "without reducing the amount of muscle marbling" cought my interest. I presumed Double Muscling would decimate marbling. DM, being a newly identified trait with potentially positive economic properties in some highly proven cattle I am fairly familiar with in pedigree who would not necessarily be a complete reshuffling of the deck, I wanted to research it a bit. Sitting here at 1/3 to 1/4 normal capacity, I am planning an experiment or two when normalcy returns.


On the other hand, what better to use on a herd of corriente cows than muscular Angus bulls?

Keystone wrote:

In regards to double muscling:

If you have semen on




Hyline Travel Agent

Rito 3B17 of 0G10 Bando

C T R Double Take 400

O C C Prototype 847P

please let me know.

Sure could save those Pied breeders a lot of time trying to make homo black/ homo polled "Naturalean" bulls. I'm assuming that the myostatin gene mutation in the Angus is a bit milder than the Pied version, which in turn would be a bit milder than the Belgian Blue version. The Pied gene seems to me the most "user-friendly"version, while also providing the most "bang for the buck." It would be interesting to test all the different breeds with myostatin gene mutations side by side in an experiment similar to the one that started this thread, to see how the different forms compare to each other in F1 carcass characteristics.

Tom D wrote:

Keystone wrote:

In regards to double muscling:

If you have semen on




Hyline Travel Agent

Rito 3B17 of 0G10 Bando

C T R Double Take 400

O C C Prototype 847P

please let me know.

Sure could save those Pied breeders a lot of time trying to make homo black/ homo polled "Naturalean" bulls. I'm assuming that the myostatin gene mutation in the Angus is a bit milder than the Pied version, which in turn would be a bit milder than the Belgian Blue version. The Pied gene seems to me the most "user-friendly"version, while also providing the most "bang for the buck." It would be interesting to test all the different breeds with myostatin gene mutations side by side in an experiment similar to the one that started this thread, to see how the different forms compare to each other in F1 carcass characteristics.

you guys are Tru-Lining it for sure now...not only to you inbreed, create lines, etc... but you test them for complimentarity in the seedless fruit...

Keystone wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

I'm confused by this post - doesn't it go against mating seperate but complimentary types together in a Trueline concept? When you look at the cattle featured - seedstock bulls and cows that are already mongrelized having been bred to Angus bulls to turn them red or black. Isn't this an example of selling "production" stock as "parent" stock where most of the heterosis has already been captured by the seedstock salesman. What's left for the commercial guy?
The few Piedmontese that hit the UK got pretty short shrift with a reputation as hard calvers. Of course they were Pieds not Pied x Angus.

Being a huge fan of studies, "without reducing the amount of muscle marbling" cought my interest. I presumed Double Muscling would decimate marbling. DM, being a newly identified trait with potentially positive economic properties in some highly proven cattle I am fairly familiar with in pedigree who would not necessarily be a complete reshuffling of the deck, I wanted to research it a bit. Sitting here at 1/3 to 1/4 normal capacity, I am planning an experiment or two when normalcy returns.


On the other hand, what better to use on a herd of corriente cows than muscular Angus bulls?

agcenter.com
TIME FOR A TECHNOLOGY UPDATE



It has been a long time since the last major retooling of the nation's beef plants. Currier Holman, founder of IBP, along with Andy Anderson redesigned the beef plants and in the process added fabrication of beef cuts -- something unheard of in those days. Since then the hide pullers have gotten better and many different tools have been improved but no real innovation has occurred to change the way the beef business operates.



Changing the beef business is not easy and means providing new technologies to meet the needs of today's changing world. Two particular areas cry out for change. Beef plants need tools for forecasting eating quality of the beef that is being produced. This need starts with identifying the factors that influence a positive eating experience and at the same time recognizing that an eating experience is somewhat subjective -- meaning not every person wants the same type beef. The heartland issue is separating beef into categories of the product that can consistently replicate the same eating experience.



Testing the meat for juiceiness, tenderness, flavor, and taste means getting down to the core of the product and learning more about the genetic makeup. The genome of all animals is being charted and the relationship between certain genetic markers and the factors governing the eating experience are the secret to understanding and linking these markers with the price paid for the cattle or beef - up and down the beef chain.



Informing a producer that a meat processor will be basing payments of premiums and discounts based on genetics will cause a continuing furor and controversy. This is good because debating the measurements of beef and the value of beef should be an ongoing debate. This is an important part of learning and improving and has been missing from the industry. Beef producers are paid on the same factors they were paid for 50 years ago. That is not good.



Another area in need of change is cutability. Yield Grade is the only method of determining red meat cut out and with Holsteins it is useless and with beef cattle it is still subjective, made by a USDA grader, and inaccurate. Accurately measuring red meat yield is critical to cost control and price signals necessary to send to producers. Cargill did some good work in this area in the 1970s on muscle score but this entire area is in need of an update. Imaging the carcass is the likely tools for this need. MRI and Cat Scan imaging has developed and the cost has declined and might be perfect for beef.



The same type change is needed up the beef chain in purchasing feeder cattle and calves. Change usually occurs when an innovator discovers a new technology and the technology is so good that it overcomes the competition. The beef industry needs innovators.

Unlike in mice, a myostatin null mutation in cattle causes a
reduction in sizes of internal organs and only a modest increase
in muscle mass (20–25% in the Belgian Blue breed as compared
with 200–300% in myostatin-deficient mice). It is possible
that cattle may be nearer to a maximal limit of muscle size
after generations of selective breeding for large muscle mass,
unlike mice, which have not been similarly selected. In this
regard, even in cattle breeds that are not heavily muscled, the
myostatin sequence contains two adjacent nonconservative
amino acid differences (EG vs. KE) in the C-terminal region,
compared with all other species examined. Although the
functional significance of these differences is unknown, it is
possible that these two changes represent a partial loss-offunction
allele that became fixed in the population during
many years of cattle breeding.
For agricultural applications, there are some disadvantages
to double-muscled cattle, namely the reduction in female
fertility, lower viability of offspring, and delay in sexual
maturation (19). However, in the Belgian Blue breed, the
increased muscle mass and increased feed efficiency largely
offset these drawbacks (20). The fact that a null mutation in the
myostatin gene in cattle results in animals that are still viable
and fertile and produce high-quality meat demonstrates the
potential value of producing an increase in muscle mass in
other meat animals such as sheep, pig, chicken, turkey, and fish
by disrupting myostatin function. Indeed, the high degree of
sequence conservation in animals ranging from mammals to
birds to fish suggests that the biological function of myostatin
has been conserved widely throughout the animal kingdom.

Tom D wrote:

http://www.anaborapi.it/en/

how would an Angus double muscle compare to a Pied in characteristics?

If anyone has/knows of a homozygous double muscled Angus, I would like to see a picture and would like to see the animal if possible. I would likewise be curious about their comparison to the Piedmontese, Blondes, and Belgian Blues. I suspect they would be similar to Piedmontese and Blondes, but with less muscle mass as this trait has not been selected for in the Angus breed. I do think that a homozygous Angus animal would have several advantages in True Line application. The solid black color and polled traits would provide more traditional marketing options - like the local salebarn. The coloring of Belgian Blue cross calves was probably the primary detriment of the breed. The shorthorn color scheme usually got them docked at the local salebarn - especially at the time they were common/popular.

The marbling of the Piedmontese cross calves puzzles me - unless the studies were done at later/higher finishing weights. We also butchered some Piedmontese and Blonde crosses and they were similar to the Belgian Blues, but with a lessor percentage of beef compared to carcass weight. The limited data also suggested that they were less tender by shear force testing. I can't remember the name of the plant in Colorado that did the work for us. We have since moved and I think all the data went to file 13. If I find the info, I would be willing to share it (if anyone was interested).

I'm full of dumb questions so I'll let this one out to make room for a new one in the future. Back when all the rage was belt buckle cattle, the selection for smaller size seemed to collect the dwarf gene so that it became obvious. Does the selection of Angus or any other breed for increased muscling, in comparison, also seem to collect and/or expose the muscling defects, such as double muscling? Does selection for a particular shape of muscling, that I call rounded or bulging, as in smaller framed yet heavy weigh cattle increase the rate of collection? I'm guessing that this would assume that phenoytpe is linked to the genetic defect somehow.

EddieM wrote:

I'm full of dumb questions so I'll let this one out to make room for a new one in the future. Back when all the rage was belt buckle cattle, the selection for smaller size seemed to collect the dwarf gene so that it became obvious. Does the selection of Angus or any other breed for increased muscling, in comparison, also seem to collect and/or expose the muscling defects, such as double muscling? Does selection for a particular shape of muscling, that I call rounded or bulging, as in smaller framed yet heavy weigh cattle increase the rate of collection? I'm guessing that this would assume that phenoytpe is linked to the genetic defect somehow.

I`ve read those inferences that selection created dwarfs etc...I disregard it...same in this case...

The list of tested free animals for DM continues to grow. We will never know where the DM mutation first occured but it may of been in several of the popular herds of the past. Most likely alot of the genetic defects were imported at the same time as angus to this country. Identify the defect and manage them accordingly to dollar impact to the beef industry.

de·fect (dfkt, d-fkt)
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.

Is double muscling really a defect? Genetic variation/mutation - yes, but I don't think it meets the definition of defect. I don't disagree that it should be monitored in the general Angus gene pool, but I view it more like the red gene. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is the potential of an excellent seedless fruit application. There are also potential health benefits - especially if the resultant leaner meat is palatable and tender. Sorry to ramble, but I am curious what others think.

What say ye?

R V wrote:

de·fect (dfkt, d-fkt)
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.

Is double muscling really a defect? Genetic variation/mutation - yes, but I don't think it meets the definition of defect. I don't disagree that it should be monitored in the general Angus gene pool, but I view it more like the red gene. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is the potential of an excellent seedless fruit application. There are also potential health benefits - especially if the resultant leaner meat is palatable and tender. Sorry to ramble, but I am curious what others think.

What say ye?

based on the limited knowledge I have, I agree