[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re[2]: pectoral muscles
In my self-appointed role of Comparative Physiology Cop, allow me to correct a
few mistatements and misconceptions in the posts repeated below.
1. White meat in chicken is pale in color not because of lower hemoglobin
content, and not because of a reduced blood supply, but because of lower
myoglobin content (and also lower mitochondrial density). Myoglobin is an
oxygen-binding protein similar to hemoglobin, but it is found inside muscle
cells themselves, where it helps to unload oxygen from blood to muscle cell, and
also stores some oxygen within the muscle for later use.
2. Chicken pectorals are low in myoglobin (and mitochondria) not because of
disuse atrophy, but because they are composed of specialized muscle cells called
white glycolytic fibers. This type of muscle tissue is specialized for rapid,
short-term bursts of power output that is metabolically supported by anaerobic
pathways (don't require oxygen; therefore don't require myoglobin or
mitochondria). Chickens have white pectorals not because they don't use them
much, but as an adaptation to what they use them for: quick bursts of flight for
escape purposes.
3. Such quick bursts actually require MORE power (mechanical energy per unit
time) than sustained forward flapping fight. The tension and strain on the
muscle attachments are likely to be HIGHER for such burst flight than for
sustained forward flight. White muscle generates more power than red muscle
(because anaerobic pathways supply energy faster, and because without
mitochodria taking up space, contractile muscle fibrils are more densely
packed). Thus white muscles are not merely "sufficient," they are _better_
suited to certain functions than red muscles. However, anaerobically supported
power output cannot be sustained for more than a couple of minutes; there's the
trade-off.
4. According to the most recent attempt to collate the data, Galliform birds as
a group do not have notably low resting metabolic rates. Even if they did, the
metabolic rate could not be _caused_ by the anatomy of the ventilatory apparatus
(metabolic rate is caused by cellular activities that use energy and generate
heat). Ventilation must be sufficient to support the maximum sustained rate of
oxygen consumption which, in contrast to resting metabolic rate, _is_ relatively
low in Galliformes.
OK,
CC Peterson
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: pectoral muscles
Author: <m_troutman@hotmail.com> at SMTP
Date: 6/12/98 2:46 PM
<<At first glance, it is a logical conclusion. But then I thought about
chickens. Galliform birds like chickens have large pectoral muscles like
most other birds but are generally weak flyers (except for migratory
quail) as they spend much of their time on the ground and fly in short,
quick bursts. Anyone who savors chicken breasts can appreciate the white
meat of the pectorals, which is the result of a lower hemoglobin content
than, say the legs.>>
According to Terry Jones, it is possible that the galliform resting
metabolism is lower than most other birds, presumeably because of the
incised sternum which would mean that the airsacs are not being
ventilated to the same as other birds. The same is maintained for
tinamous. The deeply incised sternum may also preclude very strong
forces being exerted by the pectoralis and supracoracoideus. The low
hemogobin count is probably due to many factors, the most obvious is
that the "disuse" of the forelimbs (when a muscle is not used the blood
supply to it diminishes, hence making it "white").
<<So now the question is raised. Are large muscle attachments on bones
sufficient evidence to say that the associated muscles could be used
strenously over a long period of time? Or is this the wrong way to
approach it? Titanis may have had large pectoral muscles, but perhaps
they weren't high in hemoglobin. Would such muscles be sufficient to
allow Titanis to swipe at its prey and pin it down? If we envision a
scenario between Titanis and a pronghorn antelope (the scene depicted in
the article), Titanis would be swiping at the antelope, taking stabs with
its large dagger-like main claws and trying to grasp unto its victim by
pinning it between the large and small claw. Such a death struggle would
hardly have been a long, protracted event, so perhaps Titanis didn't need
"hemoglobin rich" breast muscles. Maybe "white meat" muscles were
sufficient for the job.>>
The large muscle attachments are indicative of strong muscles, in
galliforms the muscle attachments are comparatively weaker than other
birds (with the exception of Megapodidae and Quercymegapodidae). As I
have noted above the low hemoglobin count is due to the "disuse" of a
body part (this counts only for bird muscles as far as I know). What is
seen in phorusrhacids is a rearrangements of the flight muscles that they
inherited to a musclature that would be advantageous to a predatory
animal.
>PS. Where can I get a detailed article about Robert Chandler's work >on
Titanis?
He has something coming out soon in JVP. And he published some thing in
a Florida museum journal (I lost the ref).
Matt Troutman
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com