Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
New Marbling Research and Implants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MikeC" data-source="post: 500852" data-attributes="member: 1604"><p>Some Angus Association articles about implants being detriminal to quality grades needs to be examined more closely. Note* FAT = LIPID</p><p></p><p>"Implanting resulted in larger (P 0.10) HCW and LM area for heifers and steers. However, implanting did not affect (P > 0.10) dressing percent, fat thickness, percentage of KPH, yield grade, or marbling score. <strong>Intramuscular lipid content</strong> and concentrations of major fatty acids did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments. Percentage of SC adipocytes was greater at larger diameters ( > 150 µm), whereas the majority of i.m. adipocytes were at small to middle diameters (50 to 150 µm). The number of i.m. adipocytes per gram of tissue was greater (P < 0.05) for SP than C and also were greater (P < 0.05) than the number of s.c. adipocytes in SP heifers. In experiment 2, adipocytes per gram of tissue tended to be greater (P = 0.07) for SP than C and were greater (P < 0.01) for i.m. than s.c. In experiment 1, average cell diameter and volume did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments and tissues, but in experiment 2 both cellularity traits were greater (P < 0.01) for s.c. than for i.m.. Implanting did not alter mRNA expression of ACC, SCD, or LPL in i.m. adipose tissue. <strong>This study shows that anabolic implants do not appear to have direct effects on i.m. lipid deposition. </strong>"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MikeC, post: 500852, member: 1604"] Some Angus Association articles about implants being detriminal to quality grades needs to be examined more closely. Note* FAT = LIPID "Implanting resulted in larger (P 0.10) HCW and LM area for heifers and steers. However, implanting did not affect (P > 0.10) dressing percent, fat thickness, percentage of KPH, yield grade, or marbling score. [b]Intramuscular lipid content[/b] and concentrations of major fatty acids did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments. Percentage of SC adipocytes was greater at larger diameters ( > 150 µm), whereas the majority of i.m. adipocytes were at small to middle diameters (50 to 150 µm). The number of i.m. adipocytes per gram of tissue was greater (P < 0.05) for SP than C and also were greater (P < 0.05) than the number of s.c. adipocytes in SP heifers. In experiment 2, adipocytes per gram of tissue tended to be greater (P = 0.07) for SP than C and were greater (P < 0.01) for i.m. than s.c. In experiment 1, average cell diameter and volume did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments and tissues, but in experiment 2 both cellularity traits were greater (P < 0.01) for s.c. than for i.m.. Implanting did not alter mRNA expression of ACC, SCD, or LPL in i.m. adipose tissue. [b]This study shows that anabolic implants do not appear to have direct effects on i.m. lipid deposition. [/b]" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
New Marbling Research and Implants
Top