Double muscled steak

Help Support Steer Planet:

colosteers

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
93
There has been topics on here about double muscled cattle.  I thawed t-bones and took a picture of one.

Steer was a Maine x and weighed 1300 and hung for 21 days.  Extremely lean, surprisingly tender and juicy enough---  but really tasteless or no flavor.  Really helps to cook on a BBQ grill and use plenty of hickory or mesquite wood chips, but still better than chicken or pork.

This one steer pretty much filled a 28 cubic ft. chest freezer and still gave away the heart and liver because we don't eat it- and didn't have room either.

This t-bone is probably an end cut and by far not the biggest.  Hope this file comes through and if somebody can re-size or neaten this up-- feel free to do so.

Have a good one
 

Attachments

  • double muscled steak 001.jpg
    double muscled steak 001.jpg
    700 KB · Views: 4,136

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
Supposedly the cell count is the same, so the cells are essentially filled with more liquid. Would like to at it under the microscope.
 

Dale

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
450
Double muscling is to be avoided from the research I've seen.  The problems with the quality of the product are just the beginning.  There are many issues with fertility and calving.  It is difficult to imagine how cattle wound up that tight, could walk to water or graze in large pastures.  It is not easy to use double muscling and and "practical" or "functional" in the same sentence--"train wreck" comes to mind.  Are some of the double muscled cattle tethered in Europe?  Non-lethal genetic recessives can be even more costly than lethal.  Crossing with double muscled cattle is way better in theory than practice.

Selecting for heavy muscling could result in animals that are heterozygous for double muscling.  Somewhere else it was suggested that breeding for a certain phenotype leads to genetic recessives.  It is possible to breed around recessives (when there is a genetic test), but that's not for everyone.  There are likely lots of extra expenses of production--double muscling trait carries lots of baggage with it.  If double muscling is not a tasty product, it is just one more way to lose sales of beef.       
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
Selecting for heavy muscling probably can not cause a snp for double muscling.  If it did, it would probably be in science and nature.

The dm carriers I've seen pics of don't appear to be dm.  Some early Maine bulls are dm'd and also heavily muscled. 

Probably not causal. 
 

colosteers

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
93
Knabe--  which cells are you talking about and what would you be looking for under a microscope?  Also, do you know if this is like th in that it takes both parents to be carriers?

Dale--  agree with you, not easy to calve (lost 2 more 3/4 sibs to this one when hip locked calving, cows were down for a while), soundness is an issue, and would much rather be eating a choice or a prime.

Obviously we didnt purposely breed for this, and trying to avoid any more?

Have a good one
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
colosteers said:
Knabe--  which cells are you talking about and what would you be looking for under a microscope?  Also, do you know if this is like th in that it takes both parents to be carriers?

the muscle cells of a double muscled cut versus a non double muscled cut.

supposedly the cells should be bigger with the double muscled cut, rather than more of them versus the non-double muscled cut.

yes, you need a copy from both parents unless it's piemontaise where you only need one copy as they have a snp way distal compared to the mutants of other breeds which are more proximal to see an effect with respect to tenderness, but without a size difference in the cut.
 

KSUwildcat2009

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
111
knabe said:
colosteers said:
Knabe--  which cells are you talking about and what would you be looking for under a microscope?  Also, do you know if this is like th in that it takes both parents to be carriers?

the muscle cells of a double muscled cut versus a non double muscled cut.

supposedly the cells should be bigger with the double muscled cut, rather than more of them versus the non-double muscled cut.

yes, you need a copy from both parents unless it's piemontaise where you only need one copy as they have a snp way distal compared to the mutants of other breeds which are more proximal to see an effect with respect to tenderness, but without a size difference in the cut.

Muscle fibers in a double muscled animal are not bigger, but rather there are more of them.  Myostatin is a negative regulator of muscle development which means at a point in development, myostatin is turned on and tells the fetus to stop differentiating cells into the precursors of muscle cells.  In a double muscled animal, there is nothing to tell them to quit differentiating and therefore we see about twice as many muscle fibers. 

The Piedmontese mutation is no different from the rest in the sense of inheritance.  To have a double muscled Piedmontese you have to have 2 copies of the mutated allele.  The Piedmontese mutation location doesn't change the fact that it still screws up the protein produced just as bad as if there's a missing piece.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
different animals apparently have different responses,  some, the cells are bigger, while in cattle there are more cells, but less connective tissue.  will keep looking for a specific citation.

after further review, the mass may be increased in single copy animals which would be why some bulls don't breed "consistently" even though they "are" other than the expression of one gene.
 

KSUwildcat2009

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
111
Most of what I've read, especially in cattle, says that its more so due to the increase in number but there is a small increase in size so as a general rule I consider it a number increase.  If you find a citation, send it my way.  I'd be interested.

The double muscled phenotype can be considered a co-dominant.  One copy of the mutated allele will show an increase in muscling but two copies gives the definitive double muscled phenotype.  There's been a dominant mutation noted in mice but I'm not sure it's a true dominant, more like seeing the same intermediate phenotype.  I'd have to go back and read the paper again.
 

SHAGGY

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
148
Location
Hillsboro, Ohio
I have a calf that im not sure whether he is double muscled or not. Is this something that can be tested with a hair sample or blood sample, and if so where could i have it tested at. What problems would i run into if i used him to breed some angus cows next year. I hate to throw him away cause he was the last calf i got out of my best cow. Thanks for any info.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
SHAGGY said:
I have a calf that im not sure whether he is double muscled or not. Is this something that can be tested with a hair sample or blood sample, and if so where could i have it tested at. What problems would i run into if i used him to breed some angus cows next year. I hate to throw him away cause he was the last calf i got out of my best cow. Thanks for any info.

igenity tests for five variants which includes the one in angus, the two in maine's, the one in piedmontaise and two others.
 
Top