Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:13:40.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of a quantitative trait locus for increased muscularity on carcass traits measured by subjective conformation and fat class scores and video image analysis in crossbred lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

E. Rius-Vilarrasa ,
R. Roehe ,
J. M. Macfarlane ,
N. R. Lambe ,
K. R. Matthews ,
W. Haresign ,
O. Matika  and
L. Bünger
E. Rius-Vilarrasa*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
R. Roehe
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J. M. Macfarlane
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
N. R. Lambe
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
K. R. Matthews
Affiliation:
EBLEX Limited, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes, MK6 1AX, UK
W. Haresign
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Llanbadarn Campus, Aberystwyth SY23 3AL, UK
O. Matika
Affiliation:
The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
L. Bünger
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: Elisenda.Rius@sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

A quantitative trait locus (QTL) for increased loin muscularity (TM-QTL) has previously been identified in purebred Texel sheep. Crossbred lambs born out of Mule ewes mated to heterozygous Texel sires for the TM-QTL were evaluated for a range of carcass traits. Lambs were genotyped and classified as carriers (n = 62) of a single copy of the TM-QTL and non-carriers (n = 49). In this study, the effects of the TM-QTL on carcass attributes were investigated using subjective classification scores for conformation and fatness, and measurements from a video image analysis (VIA) system. In addition, refined prediction equations to estimate weights of primal joints (leg, chump, loin, breast and shoulder) were obtained by calibrating the VIA system against computer tomography (CT) measurements in the loin region. The new refined prediction models increased the accuracy of prediction of all primal cuts on an average of 16% compared to previously derived standard VIA prediction equations. The coefficient of determination (R2) of the VIA system to predict in vivo CT measurements ranged from 0.39 to 0.72 for measurements of Musculus longissimus lumborum (MLL) area, width and depth, lumbar spine length, loin muscle volume and loin muscularity index. Using VIA estimates of CT-measured loin muscle traits, a significant increase in depth (+2.7%) of the MLL was found to be associated with the TM-QTL. Conformation and fatness scores and the shape of the carcass measured as individual lengths, widths and areas by VIA were not significantly influenced by the TM-QTL. Primal meat yields estimated using both standard and refined VIA prediction equations were not significantly affected by the TM-QTL. However, carcass ‘compactness’ was found to have significantly increased in carrier lambs. The weight of the dissected MLL estimated using VIA information was greater (+2.6%) for carriers compared to non-carriers. To conclude, neither the current industry carcass evaluation system for conformation and fatness nor the standard VIA system is able to identify the effect of the TM-QTL in the loin region in the moment. However, the calibration of the VIA system against CT measurements resulted in improved VIA prediction equations for primal meat yields and also showed moderate potential to estimate loin muscle traits measured by CT and to detect, partially, the effect of the TM-QTL on these traits.

Keywords

lambcarcass qualityconformationvideo image analysisQTL
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 11 , November 2009 , pp. 1532 - 1543
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Albertí, P, Ripoll, G, Goyache, F, Lahoz, F, Olleta, JL, Panea, B, Sañudo, C 2005. Carcass characterisation of seven Spanish beef breeds slaughtered at two commercial weights. Meat Science 71, 514–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J 2003. Planned carcase production. Sheep Management Matters – A Series on Sheep Management Topics From the Meat and Livestock Commission 8, 1–16.Google Scholar
Andrés, S, Murray, I, Navajas, EA, Fisher, AV, Lambe, NR, Bünger, L 2007. Prediction of sensory characteristics of lamb meat samples by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Meat Science 76, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, AS, Belk, KE, LeValley, SB, Dalsted, NL, Scanga, JA, Tatum, JD, Smith, GC 2003. An evaluation of the lamb vision system as a predictor of lamb carcass red meat yield percentage. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1488–1498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branscheid, W, Horeth, R, Dobrowolski-Kulmbach, A, Baulain-Neustadt, U, Tholen, E 2004. Estimation of the carcass composition – based on the combination of the video imaging analysis with other grading systems. Fleischwirtschaft 84, 98–101.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution 1970. Methods of test for meat and meat products, BS4401. Part 5. Determination of free fat content. British Standards Institution, London, UK.Google Scholar
Diaz, MT, Caneque, V, Lauzurica, S, Velasco, S, Ruiz de Huidobro, F, Perez, C 2004. Prediction of suckling lamb carcass composition from objective and subjective carcass measurements. Meat Science 66, 895–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, RA, McCormick, RJ, Brown, DR, Hinds, FC, Snowder, GD 1996. Collagen crosslinks in longissimus muscle from lambs expressing the callipyge gene. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2943–2947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, Y, Zhang, R, Hu, X, Li, N 2007. Application of genomic technologies to the improvement of meat quality of farm animals. Meat Science 77, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, IJ, Purchas, RW, Power, MT, Thompson, NA 1994. A comparison of Awassi-cross and Texel-cross ram lambs. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 54, 209–213.Google Scholar
Hopkins, DL 1996. The relationship between muscularity, muscle:bone ratio and cut dimensions in male and female lamb carcasses and the measurement of muscularity using image analysis. Meat Science 44, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, DL, Roberts, AHK 1995. The value of carcass weight, fat depth measures and eye muscle area for predicting the percentage yield of saleable meat in Australian grass-fed beef carcasses for Japan. Meat Science 41, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horgan, GW, Murphy, SV, Simm, G 1995. Automatic assessment of sheep carcasses by image-analysis. Animal Science 60, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indurain, G, Goñi, V, Horcada, A, Insausti, K, Hernández, B, Beriain, MJ 2008. Colour differences among carcasses graded with similar score for conformation and fatness. Animal 2, 1093–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, PL, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG, Purchas, RW, Blair, HT 2005. A directed search in the region of GDF8 for quantitative trait loci affecting carcass traits in Texel sheep. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1988–2000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, HE, Lewis, RM, Young, MJ, Wolf, BT 2002. The use of X-ray computer tomography for measuring the muscularity of live sheep. Animal Science 75, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karamichou, E, Richardson, RI, Nute, GR, Mclean, KA, Bishop, SC 2006. A partial genome scan to map quantitative trait loci for carcass composition, as assessed by X-ray computer tomography, and meat quality traits in Scottish Blackface Sheep. Animal Science 82, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Cook, GL, Grantley-Smith, M 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness. A review. Meat Science 17, 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kongsro, J, Røe, M, Aastveit, AH, Kvaal, K, Egelandsdal, B 2008. Virtual dissection of lamb carcasses using computer tomography (CT) and its correlation to manual dissection. Journal of Food Engineering 88, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koohmaraie, M, Shackelford, SD, Wheeler, TL, Lonergan, SM, Doumit, ME 1995. A muscle hypertrophy condition in lamb (callipyge): characterization of effects on muscle growth and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3596–3607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kröger, C, Bartle, CM, West, JG, Purchas, RW, Devine, CE 2006. Meat tenderness evaluation using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 54, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambe, NR, Navajas, EA, Bünger, L, Fisher, AV, Roehe, R, Simm, G 2009. Prediction of lamb carcass composition and meat quality using combinations of post-mortem measurements. Meat Science 81, 711–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambe, NR, Navajas, EA, Schofield, CP, Fisher, AV, Simm, G, Roehe, R, Bünger, L 2008. The use of various live animal measurements to predict carcass and meat quality in two divergent lamb breeds. Meat Science 80, 1138–1149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laville, E, Bouix, J, Sayd, T, Bibe, B, Elsen, JM, Larzul, C, Eychenne, F, Marcq, F, Georges, M 2004. Effects of a quantitative trait locus for muscle hypertrophy from Belgian Texel sheep on carcass conformation and muscularity. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3128–3137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, JM, Lambe, NR, Bishop, SC, Matika, O, Rius-Vilarrasa, E, Mclean, KA, Haresign, W, Wolf, BT, Bünger, L 2008. Effects of the TM-QTL muscling QTL on carcass traits in crossbred lambs. Animal 3, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcq, F, Larzul, C, Marot, V, Bouix, J, Eychenne, F, Laville, E, Bibe, B, Leroy, P, Georges, M 2002. Preliminary results of a whole-genome scan targeting QTL for carcass traits in a Texel × Romanov intercross. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Genetics As Applied to Livestock Production. Institut National de ;a Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Montpellier, France, communication no. 02-14.Google Scholar
Matika, O, Pong-Wong, R, Woolliams, JA, Low, J, Nieuwhof, GJ, Boon, S, Bishop, SC 2006. Verifying quantitative trait loci for muscle depth in commercial terminal sire sheep. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Instituto Prociência, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, communication no. 22-10.Google Scholar
Navajas, EA, Glasbey, CA, Mclean, KA, Fisher, AV, Charteries, AJL, Lambe, NR, Bunger, L, Simm, G 2006b. In vivo measurements of muscle volume by automatic image analysis of spiral computed tomography scans. Animal Science 82, 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navajas, EA, Lambe, NR, Bunger, L, Glasbey, CA, Fisher, AV, Wood, JD, Simm, G 2006a. Genetics of carcass shape and eating quality in sheep. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Langford Food Industry Conference, pp. 59–64. BSAS, Langford, UK.Google Scholar
Navajas, EA, Lambe, NR, Mclean, KA, Glasbey, CA, Fisher, AV, Charteris, AJL, Bunger, L, Simm, G 2007. Accuracy of in vivo muscularity indices measured by computed tomography and their association with carcass quality in lambs. Meat Science 75, 533–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purchas, RW, Davies, AS, Abdullah, AY 1991. An objective measure of muscularity: changes with animal growth and differences between genetic lines of Southdown sheep. Meat Science 30, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purchas, RW, Morris, ST, Grant, DA 1992. A comparison of characteristics of the carcasses from Friesian, Piedmontese × Friesian, and Belgian Blue × Friesian bulls. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, D, Herrendörfer, G, Bock, J, Busch, K 1978. Verfahrensbibliothek Versuchsplanung und – auswertung – Band 1. VEB Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Rius-Vilarrasa, E, Bünger, L, Matthews, KR, Maltin, CA, Hinz, A, Roehe, R 2009. Evaluation of Video Image Analysis (VIA) technology to predict meat yield of sheep carcasses online under UK abattoir conditions. Meat Science 82, 94–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, SD, Koohmaraie, M, Cundiff, LV, Gregory, KE, Rohrer, GA, Savell, JW 1994. Heritabilities and phenotypic and genetic correlations for bovine postrigor calpastatin activity, intramuscular fat content, Warner-Bratzler shear force, retail product yield, and growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 72, 857–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanford, K, Richmond, RJ, Jones, SDM, Robertson, WM, Price, MA, Gordon, AJ 1998. Video image analysis for on-line classification of lamb carcasses. Animal Science 67, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walling, GA, Visscher, PM, Wilson, AD, Mcteir, BL, Simm, G, Bishop, SC 2004. Mapping of quantitative trait loci for growth and carcass traits in commercial sheep populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2234–2245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed