| Literature DB >> 35268201 |
Violeta Razmaitė1, Artūras Šiukščius1, Giedrius Šarauskas1.
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of commercial diet supplemented with rapeseed and camelina seed cakes on the physical and technological attributes of goose meat quality. The breast and thigh muscles from thirty geese of both sexes of the Lithuanian native breed Vištinės fed the diet containing either rapeseed cake (group 1) or camelina cake (group 2) at the age of 13 weeks were used for the evaluation of physical and technological attributes. The diet did not affect the colour of goose meat; however, females showed higher (p < 0.05) values of breast yellowness (b*) and hue angle (h). The camelina group demonstrated higher (p < 0.001) cooking losses of breast and thigh muscles and also higher (p < 0.05) EZ drip loss and thawing loss of thigh muscles compared with the rapeseed group. Females had higher (p < 0.05) cooking loss of the breast, whereas males had higher (p < 0.05) cooking loss of the thigh. The growth rate of geese and their slaughter time showed an effect (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) on pH of thigh muscles. Higher (p < 0.01) hardness of the breast muscle in the camelina group compared with the rapeseed group was detected by the texture profile analysis (TPA) as well as other parameters such as cohesiveness and gumminess, chewiness. Despite some differences in technological meat quality attributes, the quality of goose meat produced with diet supplementation of 10% of rapeseed cake and camelina seed cake can be considered as suitable.Entities:
Keywords: colour; goose; local breed; meat; moisture; quality properties; texture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268201 PMCID: PMC8909784 DOI: 10.3390/ani12050632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Composition of goose feed and its nutritive value.
| Ingredients, % | Group | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |
| Wheat | 31.12 | 32.42 |
| Barley | 14 | 14 |
| Maize | 10 | 10 |
| Peas | 15 | 15 |
| Sunflower meal | 11.75 | 10.39 |
| Sunflower oil | 1 | 1 |
| Rape cake | 10 | - |
| Camelina cake | - | 10 |
| Brewers’ yeast | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| Oyster shell | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Fodder chalk | 1.75 | 1.79 |
| Premix “Calvet” | 1 | 1 |
| Fodder salt | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Monocalcium phosphate | 1.38 | 1.4 |
| Calculated nutritional value of concentrates | ||
| Metabolizable energy (ME), MJ/kg | 10.79 | 10.90 |
| Crude protein, g/kg | 180.06 | 180.05 |
| Lysine, g/kg | 8.44 | 8.28 |
| Methionine + cistine, g/kg | 6.05 | 5.87 |
| Fibre, g/kg | 58.62 | 60.69 |
| Ca, g/kg | 14.72 | 14.74 |
| P, g/kg | 8.17 | 8.13 |
| Fat, g/kg | 37.67 | 38.32 |
Characteristics of geese used for meat quality evaluation.
| Variables | Group | SED | Sex | SED | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | C | F | M | G | S | GR | D | |||
| Body weight, kg | 4.58 | 4.45 | 0.101 | 4.46 | 4.56 | 0.102 | 0.228 | 0.339 | 0.000 | 0.089 |
| Age, days | 88.6 | 89.4 | 0.834 | 89.3 | 88.7 | 0.842 | 0.385 | 0.464 | 0.001 | - |
| Daily gain, g | 37.0 | 41.5 | 2.680 | 38.4 | 40.1 | 0.568 | 0.108 | 0.568 | - | 0.001 |
| Carcass weight, kg | 2.83 | 2.68 | 0.073 | 2.71 | 2.80 | 0.073 | 0.055 | 0.229 | 0.000 | 0.253 |
R-rapeseed; C-camelina; F-female; M-male; G-group; S-sex; GR-growth rate; D-slaughter day; SED-standard error of difference; p- values of GLM LSD tests for goose growth rate and slaughter day were significantly different at p < 0.001.
Effects of diet and sex on goose meat colour from different anatomical location.
| Colour Parameters | Group | SED | Sex | SED | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | C | F | M | G | S | GR | D | ||||
| Breast | |||||||||||
| L* | 42.42 | 41.69 | 2.563 | 43.84 | 40.27 | 2.585 | 0.780 | 0.180 | 0.204 | 0.513 | |
| a* | 18.51 | 18.23 | 0.391 | 18.50 | 18.24 | 0.394 | 0.482 | 0.507 | 0.582 | 0.398 | |
| b* | 6.14 | 6.34 | 0.423 | 6.81 | 5.67 | 0.426 | 0.648 | 0.014 | 0.625 | 0.173 | |
| C | 19.53 | 19.32 | 0.445 | 19.74 | 19.11 | 0.449 | 0.647 | 0.174 | 0.494 | 0.289 | |
| h | 18.20 | 19.11 | 1.081 | 20.12 | 17.20 | 1.090 | 0.406 | 0.013 | 0.865 | 0.188 | |
| Thigh | |||||||||||
| L* | 41.64 | 42.26 | 0.794 | 41.42 | 42.48 | 0.801 | 0.447 | 0.195 | 0.082 | 0.291 | |
| a* | 18.57 | 18.40 | 0.303 | 18.79 | 18.18 | 0.305 | 0.571 | 0.058 | 0.422 | 0.538 | |
| b* | 5.93 | 6.14 | 0.362 | 6.18 | 5.89 | 0.365 | 0.571 | 0.425 | 0.922 | 0.309 | |
| C | 19.51 | 19.41 | 0.364 | 19.79 | 19.12 | 0.368 | 0.800 | 0.081 | 0.480 | 0.434 | |
| h | 17.64 | 18.40 | 0.883 | 18.16 | 17.87 | 0.890 | 0.398 | 0.743 | 0.807 | 0.316 | |
R-rapeseed; C-camelina; F-female; M-male; G-group; S-sex; GR-growth rate; D-slaughter day; SED-standard error of difference; L*-lightness; a*-redness; b*-yellowness; C-chroma; h-hue angle; p values of GLM LSD tests for goose sex were significantly different at p < 0.05.
Effects of diet and sex on goose meat pH and moisture loss.
| Variables | Group | SED | Sex | SED | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | C | F | M | G | S | GR | D | ||||
| Breast | |||||||||||
| pH | 5.88 | 5.86 | 0.033 | 5.85 | 5.89 | 0.034 | 0.628 | 0.295 | 0.596 | 0.749 | |
| Drip loss, % | 2.18 | 1.99 | 0.436 | 2.30 | 1.87 | 0.440 | 0.659 | 0.337 | 0.510 | 0.553 | |
| Thawing loss, % | 3.98 | 4.13 | 0.663 | 4.13 | 3.99 | 0.668 | 0.824 | 0.836 | 0.077 | 0.567 | |
| Cooking loss, % | 41.47 | 38.43 | 0.830 | 41.00 | 38.90 | 0.837 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.711 | 0.491 | |
| Thigh | |||||||||||
| pH | 6.18 | 6.12 | 0.069 | 6.20 | 6.09 | 0.070 | 0.416 | 0.121 | 0.036 | 0.008 | |
| Drip loss, % | 0.81 | 1.52 | 0.292 | 1.29 | 1.05 | 0.294 | 0.022 | 0.434 | 0.135 | 0.199 | |
| Thawing loss, % | 2.71 | 4.62 | 0.829 | 3.29 | 4.04 | 0.836 | 0.031 | 0.378 | 0.407 | 0.895 | |
| Cooking loss, % | 58.53 | 61.57 | 0.830 | 59.00 | 61.10 | 0.837 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.711 | 0.491 | |
R-rapeseed; C-camelina; F-female; M-male; G-group; S-sex; GR-growth rate; D-slaughter day; SED-standard error of difference; p values of GLM LSD tests for goose group, sex, growth rate and slaughter day were significantly different at p < 0.05 and p < 0.001.
Effects of diet and sex on Warner–Bratzler test parameters on goose meat.
| Variables | Group | SED | Sex | SED | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | C | F | M | G | S | GR | D | |||
| Breast | ||||||||||
| Shear of force, N | 1.01 | 1.09 | 0.050 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 0.051 | 0.127 | 0.870 | 0.291 | 0.879 |
| Toughness, N | 971.42 | 983.32 | 7.057 | 975.98 | 978.77 | 7.117 | 0.105 | 0.699 | 0.436 | 0.168 |
| Thigh | ||||||||||
| Shear of force, N | 1.40 | 1.57 | 0.136 | 1.45 | 1.52 | 0.137 | 0.213 | 0.591 | 0.651 | 0.256 |
| Toughness, N | 969.87 | 972.75 | 15.431 | 983.91 | 958.71 | 15.561 | 0.854 | 0.118 | 0.896 | 0.967 |
R-rapeseed; C-camelina; F-female; M-male; G-group; S-sex; GR-growth rate; D-slaughter day; SED-standard error of difference; N-Newtons.
Effects of camelina and rapeseed diet and sex on goose meat texture evaluated by texture profile analysis.
| TPA Parameters | Group | SED | Sex | SED | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | C | F | M | G | S | GR | D | |||
| Breast | ||||||||||
| Cohesiveness | 2.02 | 2.34 | 0.086 | 2.16 | 2.21 | 0.086 | 0.001 | 0.568 | 0.060 | 0.506 |
| Gumminess, N | 8.27 | 11.11 | 1.075 | 9.95 | 9.43 | 1.084 | 0.014 | 0.640 | 0.220 | 0.496 |
| Hardness N | 16.67 | 26.04 | 2.260 | 21.85 | 20.87 | 2.642 | 0.002 | 0.715 | 0.085 | 0.381 |
| Springiness | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.007 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.007 | 0.292 | 0.744 | 0.316 | 0.815 |
| Chewiness, N | 7.02 | 9.36 | 0.938 | 8.41 | 7.97 | 0.946 | 0.020 | 0.646 | 0.277 | 0.506 |
| Thigh | ||||||||||
| Cohesiveness | 2.38 | 2.52 | 0.131 | 2.52 | 2.38 | 0.135 | 0.273 | 0.306 | 0.726 | 0.489 |
| Gumminess, N | 7.83 | 6.79 | 1.561 | 5.90 | 8.72 | 1.618 | 0.510 | 0.089 | 0.901 | 0.287 |
| Hardness N | 17.99 | 16.62 | 3.319 | 14.90 | 19.72 | 3.439 | 0.682 | 0.169 | 0.977 | 0.517 |
| Springiness | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.007 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.007 | 0.692 | 0.067 | 0.676 | 0.173 |
| Chewiness, N | 6.44 | 5.63 | 1.297 | 4.81 | 7.26 | 1.344 | 0.535 | 0.076 | 0.911 | 0.264 |
R-rapeseed; C-camelina; F-female; M-male; G-group; S-sex; GR-growth rate; D-slaughter day; SED-standard error of difference; N-Newtons; p values of GLM LSD tests for group were significantly different at p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.