Zum Wachstum von Skelett, Körpermasse und Muskelfaserdurchmesser der Pute (<i>Meleagris gallopavo</i>) vom Schlupf bis zum 224. Lebenstag

Salomon, Franz-Viktor; Anger, T; Krug, H; Gille, Uwe; Pingel, H.

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0264.1990.tb00907.x

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both fiber types showed a sigmoid growth pattern, a pattern frequently found for growth processes in higher vertebrates and previously reported for FTG fiber growth in turkeys (Anger, 1987;Salomon et al, 1990). One advantage of the Janoschek growth curve is that its point of inflection is optional and highly flexible (for details see Gille and Salomon, 1995a).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…The fiber composition of the M. pectoralis in birds shows close relationships to the mode of flight. In birds performing short bursting flights, as in many Galliformes, this muscle is almost exclusively composed of FTG fibers (Ashmore and Doerr, 1971;Salomon et al, 1990;Ono et al, 1993;Smith et al, 1993). On the contrary, the M. pectoralis of most birds exhibit-ing sustained flapping flights only contains FTO fibers, which allow almost as powerful contractions as FTG fibers but are more fatigue resistant (Caldow and Furness, 1993;Rosser et al, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Posthatching myofiber development in the M. pectoralis of White Pekin Ducks

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A posthatching transformation of fast-twitch oxidative-glycolytic (FTO) to fast-twitch glycolytic (FTG) fibers in the breast muscle in domestic chickens and turkeys is well documented. There is, however, no information on the situation in Anseriformes having a M. pectoralis with a mixed fiber composition in adults. Differences in the growth of the different fiber types were reported for some muscles in ducks as well as in other birds. They are examined in the main flight muscle using growth curve analysis, until now mostly applied to the analysis of overall growth. Methods: Biopsies were taken longitudinally from the M. pectoralis, Pars thoracica, of 40 White Pekin Ducks at 11 different ages from hatching through day 146. The samples were processed for a combination of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide tetrazolium reductase and myosin adenosine triphosphatase after acid preincubation at pH 4.1. Mean fiber diameter was determined for the different fiber types in relation to age. The Janoschek growth curve was fitted to these values. Results: FTG fibers were first detected at 20 days of age. Thereafter, the fiber composition hardly changed. When distinguishable by enzyme histo-chemistry, FTG fibers were already larger in diameter than FTO. There were only gradual differences in the growth pattern. FTG fibers, however, showed much higher absolute, percentage, and relative growth rates. The radial growth of myofibers is slow when compared to other one-dimensional measurements. Conclusions: Fiber transformation seems to take place within a short age period. However, further studies are necessary to discriminate effects resulting from sample depth. FTG fibers are presumably recruited from those FTO fibers that show higher growth rates. Growth curve analysis, more frequently used in gross morphological studies, provides an analytical tool for evaluating growth processes of cells and tissues as well. Fiber size differences are mainly due to a higher growth rate in FTG fibers, whereas the growth patterns show only minor differences. Anat. Rec. 250:154-158, 1998.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Posthatching myofiber development in the M. pectoralis of White Pekin Ducks

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By using the Janoschek functions. Salomon et al (1988Salomon et al ( , 1990 found analogous results with 0.352, 0.394, 0.414 and 0.303 (y + /A) and 52.3, 74.4, 27.6 and 24.3 d (t + ) for chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese, respectively.…”

Section: Growth Patternmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Some comparisons of growth, fat deposition and efficiency of meat production in domestic birds, ie chickens and turkeys ( Galliforms), ducks and geese (Anseriforms), have been presented by Nixey (1986) and Shalev and Pasternak (1989). Further comparative analyses of the growth patterns in poultry were carried out by Salomon et al (1988Salomon et al ( , 1990 and Anthony et al (1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of growth curves in poultry

Knízetová¹,

Hyánek²,

Hyánková³

et al. 1995

Genet Sel Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compares the growth patterns of chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese. The growth curves and their parameters were estimated by the Richards function. In this work, weight data of females of current sire lines (62 chickens, 47 ducks and 42 geese) and commercial medium-type hybrids (27 turkeys) were used. Birds were fed ad libitum and weighed at 7 or 14 d intervals up to 18-28 weeks of age. The accuracy of the curve fit was high in all species (R 2 = 0.9840 to 0.9994). The ratios y + /A (weight at the inflection point over mature weight), which determine the shape of the growth curve, were 0.370, 0.358, 0.407 and 0.261 in chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese, respectively. Only the growth pattern of the Galliforms did not significantly differ from the Gompertz type of growth (y + /A = 0.368). The age at the inflection point confirmed the high early growth of geese (t + = 21.1 d) and ducks (t + = 25.5 d). The chickens finished the autoacceleration phase of growth at 47.7 d and turkeys at 74.0 d of age. The phenotypic correlations between the inflection parameters t + and y + were higher in waterfowl than in chickens and turkeys. The inflection parameter t + and y + were positively associated with the maturing index k in ducks and geese, and negatively in chickens and turkeys. The evolutionary aspects of the interspecific differences are discussed. growth curve / turkey / waterfowl / chicken / evolution Résumé-Étude comparative des courbes de croissance de volaille. L'article compare les patrons de croissance du poulet, de la dinde, du canard et de l'oie. Les courbes de croissance et leurs paramètres ont été estimés selon l'équation de Richards. L'analyse a porté sur les poids de femelles de lignées paternelles courantes (62 poulets, 47 canards et 42 oies) et de 27 dindes (hybrides commerciaux de type moyen). Les oiseaux ont été nourris ad libitum et pesés régulièrement jusqu'à l'âge de 18 à 28 sem. La précision de l'ajustement des courbes est élevée pour les !! espèces (R 2 = 0,9840 à 0,9994). Le rapport y + /A (poids au point d'inflexion sur poids adulte) qui définit la forme de la courbe de croissance est de 0,370, 0,358, 0,407 et 0,261 pour le poulet, la dinde, le canard et l'oie respectivement. Seul le patron de croissance des Galliformes ne diffère pas significativement de la fonction de Gompertz (y + /A = 0, 368). L'âge au point d'inflexion confirme la précocité de croissance de l'oie (t + = 21, 1 j) et du canard (t + = 25, 5 j). La période d'auto-accélération de la croissance dure 47,7 j chez le poulet et 74 j chez la dinde. Les corrélations phénotypiques entre les paramètres d'inflexion t + et y + sont plus élevées chez le canard et l'oie que chez le poulet et la dinde. Les liaisons entre les paramètres d'inflexion t + et y + et l'index de maturation k sont positives chez le canard et l'oie et négatives chez le poulet et la dinde. Les aspects évolutifs des différences interspécifiques sont discutés dans l'article.

show abstract

“…Further comparative analyses of the growth patterns in poultry were carried out by Salomon et al (1988Salomon et al ( , 1990 and Anthony et al (1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%