Next Article in Journal
Milk Production of Lacaune Sheep with Different Degrees of Crossing with Manchega Sheep in a Commercial Flock in Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Soybean Meal Substitution by Raw Chickpea Seeds on Thermal Properties and Fatty Acid Composition of Subcutaneous Fat Tissue of Broiler Chickens
Previous Article in Journal
Udder Measurements and Their Relationship with Milk Yield in Pelibuey Ewes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Chickpea in Substitution of Soybean Meal on Milk Production, Blood Profile and Reproductive Response of Primiparous Buffaloes in Early Lactation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/ani10030519
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quality and Physicochemical Traits of Carcasses and Meat from Geese Fed with Lupin-Rich Feed

by
Joanna Kuźniacka
1,
Marcin Hejdysz
2,
Mirosław Banaszak
1,
Jakub Biesek
1,*,
Sebastian Kaczmarek
3,
Małgorzata Grabowicz
4,
Andrzej Rutkowski
3 and
Marek Adamski
1
1
Department of Animal Breeding, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP - University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Department of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, UP Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wołyńska 33, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
3
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Management, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wołyńska 33, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
4
Department of Physiology, Zoophysiotherapy and Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP - University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz, UTP - University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2020, 10(3), 519; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030519
Submission received: 9 February 2020 / Revised: 17 March 2020 / Accepted: 18 March 2020 / Published: 20 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Alternatives Protein in Animal Nutrition)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In the past, lupin seeds were not used in poultry feeding because of their alkaloid content, which affected the growth performance, producing negative results. Nowadays, new cultivars of lupins have reduced the anti-nutrition content and have been characterized by a high level of protein, similar to the level in soybean meal. Goose production is not popular and, generally, should be done by an extensive or semi-intensive system, which is corelated with small costs of feeds. Lupins can be used for crops where it is not possible to produce soybean (environmental conditions). Our study indicated that it is possible to produce goose meat with a good quality, where the feeding was based on various cultivars of lupins. Yellow, as well as white, lupin-rich feed had a positive effect on the meat traits and meat quality. Narrow-leaved lupin worsens the growth performance.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyze the quality of geese meat receiving feed with soybean meal (group 1), yellow lupin (group 2), narrow-leaved lupin (group 3), or white lupin (group 4). In total, 400 male White Kołuda® geese were randomly assigned to four groups, with 10 replicates and 10 birds each, during the 77-day rearing period. After the end of the rearing period, 10 birds from each group were slaughtered and dissected. Meat quality traits were measured. Based on the production results, it can be concluded that geese use fodder with yellow and white lupin to the same degree as in the case of the control group and higher body weight gain was recorded in the first rearing period. In contrast, the use of narrow-leaved lupin in mixtures for geese worsened the feed used. Meat traits were similar in all groups, including the content of muscles and fat in the carcass (p > 0.05), excluding abdominal fat. The weight of abdominal fat and its proportion in the carcass were higher (p < 0.05) in geese from group 4. A higher (p < 0.05) pH was found in group 1. The protein and intramuscular fat content in breast muscles was highest (p < 0.05) in geese from group 4, and a higher water content was found in group 1. The protein content in leg muscles was higher in group 3, and the fat content was higher in group 4 (p < 0.05). The color and water-holding capacity of meat were comparable in all groups (p > 0.05). The analysis revealed a positive effect of replacing soybean meal with alternative protein sources, especially yellow and white lupin, on the growth performance and quality of goose meat.

1. Introduction

Most broiler geese produced in Poland (95%) are two-strain crossbreeds designated W31 (White Kołuda Geese®). They are reared for 13 weeks, and for the last 3 weeks before slaughter, fattened on oats. There is a possibility to rear younger geese for slaughter, which includes 10–11 weeks without fattening by oats [1,2,3]. Meat quality is an important issue for potential consumers. The quality assessment of meat products is based on physical traits. For consumers, the color of meat and its water-holding capacity play important roles. These traits determine the suitability of raw meat for further processing. They also influence the economic aspect of meat production. The quality of meat from broiler geese depends on the genotype, age of birds, and their management system, particularly the diet. The quality and quantity of muscle tissue in the carcass of birds depend on the composition of feed used in their diet. The diet of young oat geese (commercial: White Kołuda® geese) should contain 22.0–15.0% of crude protein and 12–11.7 MJ of metabolizable energy (ME) [3,4,5,6]. These geese are a crossbreed (W31) of two strains (W11 × W33) and characterized by a good quality of meat and fat in carcasses, which adds to the flavor of meat [1]. Soybean meal (SBM) is a popular protein-rich component of feed used in poultry diets. It is usually sourced from genetically modified organisms (GMO). Interest in alternative sources of vegetable protein has been increasing because of the need to secure the supply of protein for agricultural production in Poland [7,8,9]. Lupin seeds are a good source of protein, as well as dietary fiber and other nutritional components [10]. High-protein sources such as yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.), narrow-leaved lupin (Lupinus angustifolius), or white lupin (Lupinus albus) can be used in poultry diets. Lupins contain up to 40% protein. New cultivars of lupin contain reduced levels of alkaloids and other antinutrients. In the past, high levels of these compounds created problems with the use of lupins in poultry diets because they reduced the palatability and intake of feed [11,12,13,14,15]. Nowadays, lupin seeds have a lower concentration of alkaloids than in the past, but the other antinutritional factors are still present in seeds, and the contents of alkaloids and raffinose depend on the species and variety of lupins [16]. The content of alkaloids or non-starch-polysaccharides (NSP) could have an unbeneficial effect on energy utilization and even diarrhea [17]. NSP may have an impact on growth performance. Additionally, raffinose and phytate-phosphorus are from antinutritional substances that could negatively affect poultry production [18] The content of antinutritional factors depends on the cultivar and growing season of plants. This was discussed by Kaczmarek et al. (2014), where the nutritional value of narrow-leaved lupin was studied. Chiofalo et al. [19] reported that lupin seeds are interesting material to use in animal feed. The quality of diets could be improved by using lupin seeds. In the study of Biesek et al. [20], geese were fed with soybean meal, as a control, and with yellow lupin seeds with the addition of potato protein, and brewers’ yeast. The authors obtained the final product (meat after fattening by oats) and concluded that it could be used as a protein source in goose diets, especially on small-scale farms, with their own crop resources. Haraf [21] reviewed the research, and dealt with the impact of goose nutrition and the genotype on carcass characteristics and meat quality. The review discussed how nutrition affects the quality of meat and modifying the composition of feed can give producers different results for the final product. It was mentioned in the review that the replacement of soybean meal with other protein components (e.g., sunflower meal and yellow lupin seeds) may affect the modification of the fatty acid profile in goose meat, as recommended by dietitians. According to Hejdysz et al. [18], the use of white or yellow lupin in chicken diets resulted in good growth performance parameters. This was in line with the research of Smulikowska et al. [22], as well as Olver and Jonker [23], who recommended this lupin species.
The tested hypothesis is as follows: Lupin seeds of various cultivars used as a high-protein component as a substitute for soybean meal in complete feed have an effect on the quality of meat from geese.
The aim of the present study was to analyze the quality of meat from broiler geese receiving balanced feed containing protein sourced from yellow lupin, narrow-leaved lupin, white lupin, potato protein, and brewers’ yeast as substitutes for soybean meal.

2. Materials and Methods

This study aimed to examine meat quality. It is part of a large multiannual project (information in the Acknowledgement section) on the use of protein sources from vegetables in monogastric animal feeding. The research material was obtained after professional slaughter. All research methods and procedures were conducted according to the relevant European Union (EU) directives and the protocol for this study was approved by the Local Ethics and Animal Experimentation Committee at Poznan University of Life Science, and followed all the requirements in relation to animal welfare.

2.1. Lupin Seeds

Table 1 presents the chemical composition and value of the seeds of the narrow-leaved lupine, Sonet cv.; yellow lupin, Mister cv.; and white lupin, Butan cv. (commercial cultivars). Seeds were obtained from two plant breeding stations in Przebędowo and Wiatrowo (Poland). A hammer mill, model RG11 (Zuptor, Gostyń, Poland), was used to ground the seeds. A 2.0 mm screen was used.

2.2. Animals and Diets

The study was conducted on 400 males of White Kołuda® geese, divided into four groups, with 10 replicates and 10 birds per group. Geese were reared for 77 days in pens (3 × 2 m) on litter and with a limited range (5 × 3 m), according to the commonly used technology of goose rearing. Geese were kept in pens where the temperature was 22–24 °C (at the beginning, an additional source of heat was provided, resulting in a temperature of 32 °C). The first 3 weeks’ light duration was 24 h, and then 16 h per day. Group 1 (control) received balanced feed containing soybean meal (SBM), and group 2 (experimental) received balanced feed containing yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.). Group 3 (experminetal) was fed a diet based on narrow-leaved lupin (Lupinus angustifolius), and group 4 (experminetal) was fed a diet based on white lupin (Lupinus albus). Lupins were in ground form. Feed was in the form of a complate granulated mix. The diet of birds from groups 2, 3, and 4 also contained protein sourced from potato and brewers’ yeast. There were two feeding phases. On days 1–42 of rearing, the birds received feed containing 50% of protein concentrate with minerals, and they then received feed with 40% of protein concentrate with minerals on days 43–77. The second component of the diet (50–60%) was triticale. The composition of feed and concentrate is presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Values are based on the recommended allowances and nutritive value of feedstuffs [25]. Feed and concentrates were obtained by using the program HYBRIMIN WinFumi 7.

2.3. Growth Performance

In the study, the body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calcuted. Each parameter was checked for three periods, separately, that is, 0–42 d, 43–77 d, and for the whole rearing period of 0–77 d.

2.4. Chemical Analyses

Using a 0.5 mm sieve, lupin seeds and experimental diets were ground as representative samples. The analysis was done in two repetitions for dry matter, crude protein, and ether extract by methods 943.01, 976.05, and 920.39, respectively [26]. The level of starch in experimental seeds was determined with the diagnostic assay kit (Megazyme International; AOAC 2005; 2007, method 996.11). The neutral detergent fiber (aNDF-NDF, with heat-stable amylase and expressed inclusive of residual ash, method 973.18) was determined. The AA content was determined on an AAA-400 Automatic Amino Acid Analyzer (INGOS s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic), using ninhydrin for postcolumn derivatization (procedure 994.12; AOAC [26]). In this study, alkaloids were analyzed via gas chromatography (GC) (Shimadzu GC17A, Kyoto, Japan) using a capillary column (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA). Raffinose, stachyose, and verbascose were the oligosaccharides. These substances were determined by high-resolution gas chromatography, as well as the phytate content of lupin meals. The content of NSP was analyzed by gas–liquid chromatography (neutral sugars) and colorimetry (uronic acids), with modifications. The viscosity of the water extract of lupin seeds was measured in vitro by the method described by Kaczmarek et al. [27]. The chemical analyses of lupin seeds and diets used in our study were similar to the methods described in the research of Kuźniacka et al. [28].

2.5. Meat Quality

After the end of the rearing period (77th day), 10 birds from each group were slaughtered (according to the regulations applied in the poultry industry). Birds were chosen randomly. Birds were without feed on the slaughter day. The slaughtering procedure was done by cutting the head (rapid bleeding), after prior stunning with an electric current. Plucked and gutted carcasses, excluded head and feet were analyzed for qualitative parameters. All analyses of meat quality were conducted one day after the slaughter (24 h). The pH value of breast muscles was measured 15 min post-mortem (pH15). Carcasses were placed in cold storage (2 °C; 24 h) and the pH was measured again (pH24) using a CX-701 pH-meter with a knife electrode (Elmetron, Zabrze, Poland). The test of pH was done at a depth of 2.5 cm below the surface of breast muscles. The carcasses were weighed on RADWAG scales with an accuracy to the nearest 0.01 g (Radwag, Radom, Poland). Carcasses were dissected [29], and the following parts were separated: Breast muscles; leg muscles; skin with subcutaneous fat (included legs’ skin); abdominal fat; offal (liver, heart, and gizzard); wings with skin; neck with skin; and total carcass remains, including the trunk and leg (femur and hip) bones. Each carcass element was weighed. Whole breast and leg muscles (without separating parts) were used in the other analysis. The color of breast (pectoralis major) and leg (biceps femoris) muscles was analyzed with a colorimeter (Konica Minolta, model CR400, Tokyo, Japan), calibrated using the white calibration plate no. 21033065 and the D65Y86.1x0.3188y0.3362 scale. The color was graded according to the International Commission on Illumination’ system for L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) [30]. The color was measured on the surface of the muscles. Color was measured for each breast and leg muscle from group once (10 measurements per group). Drip loss from breast muscles was measured. Breast muscles were weighed post-mortem, suspended in transparent bags with holes for water leakage, and after 24-h storage at 2 °C, were weighted again [31]. The water-holding capacity of breast and leg muscles was analyzed using a method by Grau and Hamm [32]. Pooled samples of homogenized muscles (0.300 g ± 5%) were wrapped in Whatman grade 1 filter paper and kept under a 2 kg pressure for 5 min. There were 10 repetitons of analysis per group for breast and leg muscles. The water-holding capacity of meat was calculated based on the difference in weight before and after the test. Pooled samples of homogenized breast and leg muscles, without separating tendons and intramusclur fat (90 g), from each study group were analyzed in a laboratory for the content of protein, collagen, salt, connective tissue, fat, and water, according to the PN-A-82109:2010 [33] standard with the FoodScan apparatus from FOSS (Warsaw, Poland), using the Near InfraRed Transmission (NIT) spectrometer calibrated for the artificial neural network (ANN).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Numerical data were analyzed using statistical software STATISTICA 10.0 PL (2011). Mean values of the examined parameters were calculated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The pooled standard error of the mean (SEM) was also calculated. The significance of differences between groups was verified with the post-hoc Scheffe test at the significance level of p < 0.05. Differences between groups were considered significant when the p-value was <0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical Composition of Lupin Seeds

Lupin seeds were characterized by the different contents of protein and the other substances. The most protein-rich seeds were found in yellow lupin seeds (over 421 g/kg DM), whereas the ether extract in this cultivar was the smallest level (55.1 g/kg DM), without statistical differences (p > 0.05). The results of neutral detergent fiber, total oligosaccharides (RFO), and the phytate P showed that yellow lupin seeds had the highest content of these substances, which was a negative trait. Generally, there were no significant differences between lupin species that were used in our study. In another study, the authors [34] reported that lupin seeds are a good alternative to substitute soybean meal. They also showed that yellow lupin is the most protein-rich plant, compared to narrow-leaved and white lupin, which was confirmed in our research. Kuźniacka et al. [28] also used yellow and narrow-leaved lupin. They reported a higher content of protein in narrow-leaved lupin (30.3%) than in our study, but the protein in yellow lupin seeds was at a similar level. Differences could also be found in the NDF content. In the study of Rutkowski et al. [35], the NDF content was higher in narrow-leaved and yellow lupin seeds than in our research. It could have been affected by the other crops that were used. Musco et al. [36] studied the chemical composition of three lupin species, which were Lupins albus, Lupinus luteus, and Lupinus angustifolius. They showed that the differences within one species can be very high, depending on the variety that was used. However, all of the cited authors mentioned that lupin seeds are rich in protein and are a promising replacement to soybean. Nowadays, consumers need a wider choice on the agri-food market. There are also many expectations in terms of limiting genetically modified products, and in many countries, it is not possible to produce soybean meal due to the prevailing conditions. Lupins could be an alternative and their cultivation on poultry meat farms will allow producers to be self-sufficient.

3.2. Growth Performance

The mortality of geese was very low and not more than 1%. In the first rearing period (0–42 d), the highest body weight gain (BWG) in groups of geese fed with yellow lupin (4.054 kg) and white lupin (4.023 kg) was found in comparison to the control group, where the soybean meal was the protein source (3.806 kg), p < 0.0001. In the second period of rearing (43–77 d), as well as in the whole rearing period (0–77 d), no statically significant differences were found between groups (p > 0.05). In the same groups (2 and 4), feed intake was also higher than in the control group (1) in the first period, but in the second period (43–77 d), geese fed with narrow-leaved lupin were characterized by a higher feed intake than other groups (p < 0.05). Finally, during the whole rearing period, treatment groups had a higher feed intake (more less by 0.85–1.32 kg) than the control group (p < 0.05). The feed conversion ratio (FCR) in the first period was the highest in the 3rd group, where geese were fed with feed based on narrow-leaved lupin (2.40 kg/kg), than in the other groups. Too high FCR is a negative trait, because geese need to intake more for 1 kg of body weight gain. The smallest FCR, without statistical confirmation (p > 0.05), was in the group of geese fed with yellow lupin (2.21 kg/kg). At the end of the rearing period, the FCR paramter was also the highest in the 3rd group (3.30 kg/kg). The worst growth performance in the 4th group, where geese were fed with narrow-leaved lupin, was noted (Table 4). The reason for decreased growth performance could be due to the chemical composition of lupin seeds. In Table 1, a high concentration of soluble NSP in narrow-leaved lupin seeds was found compared to the other lupin species (p > 0.05). As Kaczmarek et al. (27) reported, non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) contents negatively affect the growth and feed intake. This was confirmed by Hejdysz et al. [37]. In another study, yellow lupin in the diets of 10-week-old geese did not affect the body weight gain [38]. Similarly, Laudadio and Tufarelli [39] did not find a negative effect of white lupin on broiler chickens’ growth performace. Smulikowska et al. [22] reported lower performance of chickens fed with narrow-leaved and yellow lupin, but those with narrow-leaved-rich diets had the worst FCR (p < 0.05). Mikulski et al. [40] concluded that narrow-leaved lupin in turkeys’ diets could be used, without a negative effect on the growth performance. The differences between our results and the other studies could be due to the use of different species of birds and various cultivars of lupins, and there could have been an effect of maintaince conditions or production technology.

3.3. Carcass Traits

The analysis of meat traits in broiler geese did not show significant differences between groups, p > 0.05 (Table 5). The pre-slaughter body weight was highest in birds fed white lupin (group 4). Birds from the control group (1) were 186.67 g lighter than in group 4, but 333.33 g heavier than birds fed narrow-leaved lupin (group 3). Differences in the carcass weight were similar. The dressing percentage was highest, above 63%, in groups 1 and 4, without statistical confirmation. It was related to the carcass weight and muscle weight, which are related to the live body weight of each bird, FI, and FCR. This result was more than 2% higher than in group 3. The weight of offal in group 2 was 3.96 g lower than in group 1. The weight of carcass remains was highest in groups 2 and 4 (over 1 kg). Groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) for the weight of muscles (Table 6). Bieliński et al. [41] fed Italian White geese a diet with the inclusion of sweet lupin at a level of 12–15% per feed ration. After a 10-week rearing period, they found no negative effect of the tested feed on the performance parameters of geese, weight gain, or egg laying. A study by Biesiada-Drzazga et al. [38] investigated the effects of yellow lupin (25–50%) as a substitute for soybean meal in a goose diet. The study revealed that a diet containing yellow lupin did not deteriorate the weight of the carcass or breast and leg muscles from 10-week-old birds. The weight of the carcass and content of muscles in our study also showed no differences when lupins were included in the diet. However, the highest weight and proportion of breast muscles in the carcass were found in group 2, but without statistical confirmation (p > 0.05). The weight of leg muscles, total weight of muscles, and their proportion in the carcass were slightly higher in group 1 (p > 0.05). The weight of abdominal fat and its proportion in the carcass were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in group 4 compared to group 1. The total content of fat in the carcass was lowest in group 3, but the differences with other groups were not significant (Table 6). Biesiada-Drzazga [42] also tested the effect of yellow lupin and sunflower meal as a partial replacement of SBM and reported that geese fed this diet had a reduced weight of breast muscles and significantly lower content of fat in the carcass. On the other hand, our study found a significantly higher content of abdominal fat in geese fed white lupin. The content of fat in the carcass of geese fed different lupin species was also higher than in geese fed the SBM diet, although the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). This could be due to the other (higher) level of fat (ether extract) in seeds of lupins than in soybean meal. A 10% dietary inclusion of yellow lupin per feed ration for White Kołuda geese® was also tested by Pietrzak et al. [43]. Their study showed, similar to our findings, no negative effects of yellow lupin on the quality parameters of the carcass or meat. The diet with the inclusion of white lupin increased the content of fat in breast and leg muscles. Similarly, Biesek et al. [20] did not find a negative effect on most carcass traits, excluding leg muscles and their percentage content in carcasses. However, the values of the obtained results in the cited research were higher. Probably, there was an effect of fattening by oats (the technology of fattening by oats casues more fat in goose carcasses) and age (longer rearing period, until 16 weeks) of geese when slaughtered.

3.4. Physicochemical Traits

The value of the pH for breast muscles measured 24 h post-mortem was significantly higher in group 1 (p < 0.05) than in group 4 (Table 7). This could have been caused by the slaughter process and related to stress. However, the reduced pH (pH15 to pH24) indicated normal glycolysis in the muscle tissue after slaughter. The color and water-holding capacity of breast and leg muscles did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The drip loss measured in our study in all groups was in the range of 0.92–0.98% (p > 0.05). The juiciness of muscles expressed as the value of drip loss was comparable in all analyzed groups. Augustyńska-Prejsnar and Sokołowicz [44] concluded that a lower value of drip loss indicates a higher juiciness of meat. The color of the meat depends on myoglobin. Its concentration in muscles depends on its physiological activity and the type of muscle fibers [45]. A higher myoglobin content is found in muscle containing fibers that oxidize more slowly [46]. The ability to retain water (drip loss) may depend on the mechanism associated with protein markers [47]. Meat that loses less water is characterized by suitability for further technological processing and has a significant impact on the texture of meat [48]. The lack of significant differences in lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) in the breast muscles and leg muscles in our own research indicates no differences in the structure of goose muscles in each group. Biesek et al. [20] showed that the color of breast and leg muscles, as well as the chemical composition of muscles, were similar to our results. It could indicate that legumes have the same effect, or that the genotype of geese, which is White Kołuda® geese, gave the described results. The lower ability in terms of the water-holding capacity in the muscle tissue may be due to an increase in the space between the fibers due to the muscle and the sarcomere shortening process of rigor mortis. A lack of significant differences in the ability of water retention between groups indicates that the sarcomere shortening process was similar in each group. The meat aging degradation of cytoskeletal proteins results in slackening of the sarcomere structure and may allow the meat to retain water [49]. The contents of protein, salt, and fat were significantly higher in group 4 than in the other groups. The content of connective tissue was significantly higher in groups 1 and 3, while group 3 was characterized by a significantly higher content of collagen. The significantly highest content of water was found in breast muscles from group 1. Group 3 was characterized by a significantly higher content of protein in leg muscles. The content of collagen and connective tissue was higher in groups 1 and 3. The content of salt and fat was higher in group 4. The significantly highest (p < 0.05) content of water was found in leg muscles from groups 2 and 3 (Table 7 and Table 8). According to Tyra and Mitka [50], a higher content of fat, which is the carrier of flavors, may improve the palatability of meat. Similarly, Gumułka and Połtowicz [51] obtained a protein content in muscles of White Kołuda® geese of over 21% and 20%, a little bit more than in our research. It could be affected by differences in bird conditions or nutrition. The collagen and connective tissue plays a main role in the tenderness of meat. If the content is too high, meat can be characterized by a lower tenderness and juiciness. It also depends on the age of birds [52], but in our study, birds were the same age. According to Jamroz and Kubizna [53,54], the level of lupins in feed mixture for geese should be 5–10% for growing birds and 10–15% for adult birds.

4. Conclusions

To conclude, the proposed feed rations containing 34.49% of yellow lupin, 34.2% of narrow-leaved lupin, and 35% of white lupin can be used as substitutes for diets with a 32.5% inclusion of soybean meal. The study demonstrated that the inclusion of lupins in a goose diet had a positive effect on the quality of meat. The use of narrow-leaved lupin had no negative effect on the meat traits, but worsened the growth performance. The obtained results indicate that this type of rearing with the use of yellow and white lupin as a subsitute to soybean had no negative effect and the next stage, which is fattening by oats, could be done. More studies on this subject should be conducted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization J.B., M.H., M.A., and J.K.; methodology, J.B., M.H., and M.A.; software, S.K.; validation, A.R.; formal analysis, M.B., J.B., and M.H.; investigation M.G., J.B., M.H., and M.B.; resources, M.A. and A.R.; data curation, M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B., M.H. and J.K., writing—review and editing, M.A. and M.H.; visualization. A.R. and M.H.; supervision, M.A., A.R., and M.H.; project administration, A.R.; funding acquisition A.R. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was carried out under the measure “Qualitative assessment of animal raw materials produced based on domestic sources of vegetable protein” of the Multiannual Programme “Increased use of domestic feed protein to produce high-quality animal products under the conditions of sustainable development” [Resolution No. 222/2015].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Buzała, M.; Adamski, M.; Janicki, B. Characteristics of performance traits and the quality of meat and fat in Polish oat geese. World Poult. Sci. J. 2014, 70, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lewko, L.; Gornowicz, E.; Pietrzak, M.; Korol, W. The effect of origin, sex and feeding on sensory evaluation and some quality characteristics of goose meat from Polish native flocks. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2017, 17, 1185–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Smulikowska, S.; Rutkowski, A. Nutritional recommendations and nutritional value of poultry feeds. Cooperative work. In Fifth Edition—Changed and Supplemented; Institute of Physiology and Animal Nutrition: Jabłonna, Poland, 2019; pp. 58–65. ISBN 978-83-951612-1-6. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  4. Sirirat, N.; Lu, J.-J.; Tsung-Yu Hung, A.; Chen, S.-Y.; Lein, T.-F. Effect of Different Levels of Nanoparticles Chromium Picolinate Supplementation on Growth Performance, Mineral Retention, and Immune Responses in Broiler Chickens. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kuźniacka, J.; Adamski, M.; Czarnecki, R.; Banaszak, M. Results of Rearing Broiler Chickens Under Various Systems. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barbera, S. WHC trend, an up-to-date method to measure water holding capacity in meat. Meat Sci. 2019, 152, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Księżak, J.; Święcicki, W.; Szukała, J.; Rutkowski, A.; Jerzak, M.; Barszczewski, J. Improvement of Domestic Sources of Vegetable Protein, Their Production, Marketing System and Use in Animal Feed; Final Report on the Implementation of the Multiannual Programme for 2011–2015; IUNG-PIB: Puławy, Poland, 2015; pp. 5–71. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaczmarek, S.A.; Hejdysz, M.; Kubis, M.; Rutkowski, A. Influence of graded inclusion of white lupin (Lupinus albus) meal on performance, nutrient digestibility and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2016, 57, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sońta, M.; Rekiel, A. Production and use of Fabaceae in feed. Part 2. Use of Fabaceae in animal diet. Przeg. Hodow. 2017, 1, 19–25. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  10. Piasecka-Jóźwiak, K.; Księżak, J.; Słowik, E.; Chabłowska, B. The use of lupin flour as nutritional additive to organic wheat sourdough bread. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2018, 63, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chilomer, K.; Kasprowicz-Potocka, M.; Gulewicz, P.; Frankiewicz, A. The influence of lupin seed germination on the chemical composition and standardized ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids in pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 97, 639–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Milczarek, A.; Osek, M. Effectiveness of using faba bean seeds and corn distillers’ grains with solubles as a partial replacement of soybean meal in the feeding of Pulawska pigs. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootech. 2014, 13, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jansen, G.; Jürgens, H.-U.; Schliephake, E.; Seddig, S.; Ordon, F. Effects of the growing system and season on the alkaloid content and yield of different sweet L. angustifolius genotypes. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2015, 88, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hejdysz, M.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; Rutkowski, A. Extrusion cooking improves the metabolizable energy of faba beans and amino acid digestibility in broilers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 212, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kaczmarek, S.A.; Hejdysz, M.; Kubis, M.; Kasporiwcz-Potocka, M.; Rutkowski, A. The nutritional value of yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.) for broilers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 222, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rutkowski, A.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; Hejdysz, M.; Jamroz, D. Effect of extrusion on nutrients’ digestibility, metabolizable energy and nutritional value of yellow lupin seeds for broiler chickens. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2016, 16, 1059–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Jezierny, D.; Mosenthin, R.; Weiss, E. The use of grain legumes as a protein source in pig nutrition: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 157, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hejdysz, M.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; Rogiewicz, A.; Rutkowski, A. Influence of graded levels of meals from three lupin species on growth performance and nutrient digestibility on broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2019, 60, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiofalo, B.; Lo Presti, V.; Chiofalo, V.; Gresta, F. The productive traits, fatty acid profile and nutritional indices of three lupin (Lupinus spp.) species cultivated in a Mediterranean environment for livestock. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 171, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Biesek, J.; Kuźniacka, J.; Banaszak, M.; Adamski, M. The Quality of Carcass and Meat from Geese Fed Diets with or without Soybean Meal. Animals 2020, 10, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Haraf, G. Influence of feeding and geese genotype on carcass dissection and meat quality—The review of research. Nauk. Inż. Technol. 2014, 1, 24–42. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  22. Smulikowska, S.; Konieczka, P.; Czerwinski, J.; Mieczkowska, A.; Jankowiak, J. Feeding broiler chickens with practical diets containing lupin seeds (L. angustifolius or L. luteus): Effects of incorporation level and mannanase supplementation on growth performance, digesta viscosity, microbial fermentation and gut morphology. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2014, 23, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Olver, M.D.; Jonker, A. Effect of Sweet, Bitter and Soaked Micronised Bitter Lupins on Broiler Performance. Br. Poult. Sci. 1997, 38, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gdala, J.; Buraczewska, L. Chemical composition and carbohydrate content of seed from several lupin species. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 1996, 5, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Smulikowska, S.; Rutkowski, A. Recommended Allowances and Nutritive Value of Feedstuffs. In Poultry Feeding Standards, 5th ed.; The Kielanowski Institute of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, PAS: Jabłonna, Poland, 2018; pp. 58–65. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  26. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association Official Analytical Chemists, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kaczmarek, S.A.; Kasprowicz-Potocka, M.; Hejdysz, M.; Mikuła, R.; Rutkowski, A. The nutritional value of narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) for broilers. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2014, 23, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kuźniacka, J.; Biesek, J.; Banaszak, M.; Rutkowski, A.; Kaczmarek, S.; Adamski, M.; Hejdysz, M. Effect of Dietary Protein Sources Substituting Soybean Meal on Growth Performance and Meat Quality in Ducks. Animals 2020, 10, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ziołecki, J.; Doruchowski, W. Methods for the Evaluation of Meat Quality and Yield; Publisher COBRD: Poznań, Poland, 1989; pp. 1–22. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  30. CIE. Colorimetry; Publication CIE 15.2; Central Bureau of CIE: Vienna, Austria, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  31. Honikel, K.O. The water binding of meat. Fleischwirtschaft 1987, 67, 1098–1102. [Google Scholar]
  32. Grau, R.; Hamm, R. Eine einfache Methode zur Bestimmung der Wasserbindung in Fleisch. Fleischwirt 1952, 4, 295–297. [Google Scholar]
  33. PN-A-82109:2010. Raw and processed meat—Determination of fat, protein and water content. Near InfraRed Transmission (NIT) spectrometry with calibration for artificial neural network (ANN). 2010. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  34. Burgos-Diaz, C.; Opazo-Navarrete, M.; Wandersleben, T.; Soto-Anual, M.; Barahona, T.; Bustamante, M. Chemical and Nutritional Evaluation of Protein-Rich Ingredients Obtained through a Technological Process from Yellow Lupin Seeds (Lupinus luteus). Plant Food Hum. Nutr. 2019, 74, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rutkowski, A.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; Hejdysz, M.; Nowaczewski, S.; Jamroz, D. Concentrates made from legume seeds (Lupinus angustifolius, Lupinus luteus and Pisum sativum) and rapeseed meal as protein sources in laying hen diets. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2015, 15, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Musco, N.; Cutrignelli, M.I.; Calabro, S.; Tudisco, R.; Infascelli, F.; Grazioli, R.; Lo Presti, V.; Gresta, F.; Chiofalo, B. Comparison of nutritional and antinutritional traits among different species (Lupinus albus L., Lupinus luteus L., Lupinus angustifolius L.) and varieties of lupin seeds. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 101, 1227–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hejdysz, M.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; Rogiewicz, A.; Rutkowski, A. Influence of graded dietary levels of meals from three lupin species o the excreta dry matter intestianal viscosity, excretion of total and free sialic acids, and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 241, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Biesiada-Drzazga, B.; Górski, J.; Górska, A. Analysis of slaughter value and muscle fibre thickness of selected muscles in goose broilers as related to feeding applied during the rearing period. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2006, 24 (Suppl. 2), 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  39. Luadadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Dehulled-micronised lupin (Lupinus albus L. cv. Multitalia) as the main protein source for broilers: Influence on growth performance, carcass tratis and meat fatty acid composition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 2081–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mikulski, D.; Zduńczyk, Z.; Juśkiewicz, J.; Rogiewicz, A.; Jankowski, J. The effect of different blue lupine (L. angustifolius) inclusion levels on gastrontestinal function, growth performance and meat quality in growing-finishing turkeys. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 198, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bieliński, K.; Skarżyński, Ł.; Pakulska, E. Faba beans, peas, sweet lupin seeds, flaxseed meal and rapeseed meal as protein sources in goose diet. Rocz. Nauk. Zootech. 1982, 9, 247–262. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  42. Biesiada-Drzazga, B. Effects of dietary inclusion of sunflower meal and yellow lupin meal on the quality of muscle and fatty tissue in geese. Rocz. Inst. Przem. Mięs. Tłuszcz. 2008, 46, 25–34. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  43. Pietrzak, D.; Mierzejewska, E.; Mroczek, J.; Michalczuk, M.; Damaziak, K.; Makarski, M.; Adamczak, L. Effect of diet and sex on selected quality parameters of meat from White Kołuda geese. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Rol. 2013, 574, 49–56. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  44. Augustyńska-Prejsnar, A.; Sokołowicz, Z. Effect of breed and thermal treatment on the breast muscle quality of organically reared hens after their first year of use as layers. Żywn. Nauk. Technol. Jakość 2018, 25, 151–162. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mancini, R.A.; Hunt, M.C. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 100–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Picard, B.; Lefaucheur, L.; Berri, C.; Duclos, M. Muscle fibre ontogenesis in farm animal species. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 2002, 42, 415–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Zhang, M.; Wang, D.; Xu, X.; Xu, W. Comparative proteomic analysis of proteins associated with water holding capacity in goose muscles. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bedane, T.F.; Altin, O.; Erol, B.; Marra, F.; Erdogdu, F. Thawing of frozen food products in a staggered through-field electrode radio frequency system: A case study for frozen chicken breast meat with effects on drip loss and texture. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 50, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pearce, K.L.; Rosenvold, K.; Andersen, H.J.; David, L.; Hopkins, D.J. Water distribution and mobility in meat during the conversion of muscle to meat and ageing and the impacts on fresh meat quality attributes—A review. Meat Sci. 2011, 89, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Tyra, M.; Mitka, I. Effect of intramuscular fat (IMF) on quality (sensory) parameters of meat. Wiadom. Zootech. 2015, 4, 50–56. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  51. Gumułka, M.; Połtowicz, K. Comparison of carcass traits and meat quality of intensively reared geese from a Polish genetic resource flock to those of commercial hybrids. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 839–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Weston, A.R.; Rogers, R.W.; Althen, T.G. Review. The Role of Collagen in Meat Tenderness. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2002, 18, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jamroz, D.; Kubizna, J. Some beneficial effects of legume antinutritive substances. Krmiva 2007, 49, 317–346. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jamroz, D.; Kubizna, J. Harmful substances in leguminous seeds—Their negative and beneficial properties. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2008, 11, 389–404. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition of seeds of three lupin species (g/kg DM) 1.
Table 1. Chemical composition of seeds of three lupin species (g/kg DM) 1.
ComponentNarrow-Leaved LupinYellow LupinWhite Lupin
Dry matter887885886
Crude protein261421351
Ether extract57.255.1109
Starch9.0210.611.1
Neutral detergent fiber218253224
Total oligosaccharides (RFO 2)60.011280.7
Raffinose12.310.97.21
Stachyose28.363.364.2
Verbascose19.437.59.3
Phytate P6.207.825.10
Alkaloids0.420.410.18
Total NSP 3401317292
Soluble NSP 4176.158.566.1
Simple sugars 510.414.612.8
Viscosity (cP) 62.141.631.55
Amino acids (g/100g of crude protein)
Asp9.019.5110.31
Thr3.132.853.63
Ser4.474.514.85
Glu20.721.319.51
Pro4.113.343.95
Gly3.643.623.84
Ala3.042.983.28
Met + cys1.612.522.09
Val3.473.233.92
Ile3.633.674.15
Leu6.427.127.01
Tyr3.332.484.34
Phe3.673.664.21
Lys4.274.524.62
His2.642.782.47
Arg10.3111.6210.44
1 Each value represents the mean of two replicates. 2 RFO, raffinose family oligosaccharides. 3 NSP, non-starch polysaccharides. 4 Soluble NSP were calculated as the difference between NSP and NDF (neutral detergent fiber) [24]. 5 Includes glucose and fructose. 6 Water extract viscosity. Value based on the recommended allowances and nutritive value of feedstuffs [25]. Value was calculated in an in vivo experiment.
Table
Table 2. Composition of feed used during a 77-day rearing period of broiler geese.
Table 2. Composition of feed used during a 77-day rearing period of broiler geese.
Days 1–42Group 1
1234
Triticale, %50505050
Concentrates, %50505050
Calculated nutritional value of feed
Metabolizable energy (ME), MJ/kg11.5511.5411.5311.53
Crude protein, %20.5220.5120.4420.47
Calcium, %1.001.001.001.00
p-available, %0.400.400.410.41
Lysine, %1.171.101.101.10
Methionine, %0.410.410.410.41
Valine, %0.890.801.000.97
Threonine, %0.810.810.810.81
Na, %0.160.160.160.16
Cl, %0.140.140.140.14
Days 43–771234
Triticale, %60606060
Concentrates, %40404040
Calculated nutritional value of concentrates
Metabolizable energy (ME), MJ/kg11.6511.6711.6411.66
Crude protein, %18.0118.0318.0018.01
Calcium, %0.810.810.810.81
p-available, %0.360.360.360.36
Lysine, %0.900.900.900.90
Methionine, %0.450.450.450.45
Valine, %0.730.730.730.73
Threonine, %0.700.700.700.70
Na, %0.160.160.160.16
Cl, %0.140.140.140.14
1 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin.
Table
Table 3. Composition of concentrates used during a 77-day rearing period of broiler geese.
Table 3. Composition of concentrates used during a 77-day rearing period of broiler geese.
Composition of concentrates, %Group 1
1234
Soybean meal, 44%65---
Yellow lupin-68.98--
Narrow-leaved lupin--68.4-
White lupin---70
Potato protein-386
Brewers’ yeast-386
Triticale in concentrate23.04121.222
Soybean oil5.25.47.68.8
Premix 22222
Fodder chalk221.921.58
Monocalcium phosphate1.521.741.542.16
NaHCO30.840.80.80.8
Fodder salt0.180.120.140.14
L-lysine-0.320.080.14
DL-methionine0.20.40.280.32
L-threonine0.020.24-0.02
Tryptophan--0.020.04
Calculated nutritional value of concentrates
Metabolizable energy (ME), MJ/kg10.7910.7910.7710.79
Crude protein, %31.4231.4331.4431.47
Calcium, %1.921.921.921.92
p-available, %0.560.560.560.56
Lysine, %1.821.821.821.82
Methionine, %0.650.650.650.65
Valine, %1.141.141.141.14
Threonine, %1.281.281.281.28
Na, %0.310.310.310.31
Cl, %0.190.190.190.19
1 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin. 2 The compound premix provides per kg of diet: Cu, 10 mg; Fe, 60 mg; Mn, 80 mg; Zn, 60 mg; I, 1.5 mg; Se, 0.3 mg; vitamin A, 10.000 IU; vitamin D, 2500 IU; vitamin E, 25 IU; vitamin K, 1.0 mg; vitamin B1, 2.0 mg; vitamin B2, 8.0 mg; vitamin B6, 2.5 mg; vitamin B12, 0.01 mg; vitamin PP (nicotinamide pancreatic polypeptide), 30.0 mg; vitamin B5, 15.0 mg; vitamin B9, 0.5 mg; and biotin, 0.15 mg.
Table
Table 4. Productivity paramters of geese during the rearing period.
Table 4. Productivity paramters of geese during the rearing period.
GroupBWG 0–42BWG 43–77BWG 0–77FI 0–42FI 43–77FI 0–77FCR 0–42FCR 43–77FCR 0–77
13.81 b2.746.648.53 b11.81 b20.34 b2.25 b4.383.07 b
24.05 a2.726.878.99 a12.41 b21.40 a2.21 b4.613.12 b
33.54 c2.946.588.48 b13.18 a21.66 a2.40 a4.553.30 a
44.02 a2.916.889.09 a12.10 b21.19 a2.26 b4.253.08 b
SEM0.040.060.060.060.150.150.020.080.03
p<0.00010.4570.144<0.00010.0030.0050.0050.4110.029
a, b, mean values marked in columns with different letters are significantly different between groups, p < 0.05; 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin; days: 0–42, 43–77, and 0–77. BWG, body weight gain (kg); FI, feed intake (kg); FCR, feed convertion ratio (kg/kg).
Table
Table 5. Meat traits of 77-day-old broiler geese *.
Table 5. Meat traits of 77-day-old broiler geese *.
Group 1Pre-Slaughter Body Weight (g)Weight of Carcass (g)Dressing Percentage (%)Weight and Proportion in CarcassWeight of Offal (g)Carcass Remains (g)
Neck with SkinWings
g%g%
16743426263.26348.08.13675.015.87369.19054
26910431862.48272.06.38638.014.73365.21128
36410389460.99285.47.30562.614.40325.9967.1
46930438563.37346.37.95632.514.51335.91001
SEM135.0887.700.7118.253.7626.343.4513.7056.06
p-value0.5250.1970.6480.2470.4100.1010.1630.3320.371
* No significant differences, p-value > 0.05; 1 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin.
Table
Table 6. Content of muscles and fat in 77-day-old broiler geese.
Table 6. Content of muscles and fat in 77-day-old broiler geese.
Group 1Weight and Proportion in Carcass
Breast MusclesLeg MusclesTotal MusclesSkin with Subcutaneous FatAbdominal FatTotal Fat
g%g%g%g%G%g%
1606.614.23642.915.10125029.33108625.51135.2 b3.16 b122218.17
2650.914.98575.913.51122728.48970.622.43185.5 a,b4.39 a,b115616.77
3547.814.23562.614.52111128.75901.423.06176.0 a,b4.46 a,b107716.72
4583.213.32621.014.27120427.60112725.70223.1 a5.08 a135019.61
SEM26.783.4924.103.4849.412.9449.533.1211.063.8858.583.37
p-value0.2720.4480.1400.5200.1720.6970.0680.0800.0330.0380.0960.165
a, b, mean values marked in columns with different letters are significantly different between groups, p < 0.05; 1 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin.
Table
Table 7. Physicochemical parameters of breast muscles from 77-day-old broiler geese.
Table 7. Physicochemical parameters of breast muscles from 77-day-old broiler geese.
Group 1pH15pH24Color 2Water-Holding Capacity (%)Drip Loss (%)Protein (%)Collagen (%)Salt (%)Connective Tissue (%)Fat (%)Water (%)
L*a*B*
18.177.98 a38.9718.293.1639.500.9820.82 d1.40 a,b0.53 b6.71 b3.16 c74.71 a
27.857.79 a,b36.9819.454.0636.560.9220.59 c1.27 a,b0.58 b6.15 c3.64 b73.89 d
37.977.89 a,b39.3017.603.2236.720.9621.01 b1.53 a0.60 b7.28 a3.19 c74.20 b
48.027.71 b40.2717.483.0336.090.9521.77 a1.16 b1.07 a5.32 d3.90 a72.47 c
SEM3.723.732.553.343.922.734.003.213.994.023.783.911.06
p-value0.0650.0020.2740.3420.6170.6430.992<0.00010.002<0.00010.004<0.0001<0.0001
a, b, mean values marked in columns with different letters are significantly different between groups, p < 0.05; 1 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin; 2 L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness.
Table
Table 8. Physicochemical parameters of leg muscles from 77-day-old broiler geese.
Table 8. Physicochemical parameters of leg muscles from 77-day-old broiler geese.
Group 1Color 2Water-Holding Capacity (%)Protein (%)Collagen (%)Salt (%)Connective Tissue (%)Fat (%)Water (%)
L*a*b*
142.2614.284.2334.5719.03 c1.57 a,b0.53 c8.24 a7.23 b71.95 b
242.9713.864.1135.1119.53 b1.39 c0.55 c7.11 c5.72 c73.09 a
343.0615.695.2234.6419.99 a1.62 a0.61 b8.12 a,b5.39 d73.06 a
440.8515.304.2638.6718.88 d1.46 b,c0.94 a7.73 b8.92 a70.13 c
SEM2.413.483.882.753.263.974.023.733.821.13
p-value0.4740.5120.6790.342<0.00010.002<0.00010.001<0.0001<0.0001
a, b, mean values marked in columns with different letters are significantly different between groups, p < 0.05; 1 1, control group fed with soybean meal; 2, experimental group fed with yellow lupin; 3, experimental group fed with narrow-leaved lupin; 4, experimental group fed with white lupin; 2 L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuźniacka, J.; Hejdysz, M.; Banaszak, M.; Biesek, J.; Kaczmarek, S.; Grabowicz, M.; Rutkowski, A.; Adamski, M. Quality and Physicochemical Traits of Carcasses and Meat from Geese Fed with Lupin-Rich Feed. Animals 2020, 10, 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030519

AMA Style

Kuźniacka J, Hejdysz M, Banaszak M, Biesek J, Kaczmarek S, Grabowicz M, Rutkowski A, Adamski M. Quality and Physicochemical Traits of Carcasses and Meat from Geese Fed with Lupin-Rich Feed. Animals. 2020; 10(3):519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030519

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuźniacka, Joanna, Marcin Hejdysz, Mirosław Banaszak, Jakub Biesek, Sebastian Kaczmarek, Małgorzata Grabowicz, Andrzej Rutkowski, and Marek Adamski. 2020. "Quality and Physicochemical Traits of Carcasses and Meat from Geese Fed with Lupin-Rich Feed" Animals 10, no. 3: 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030519

APA Style

Kuźniacka, J., Hejdysz, M., Banaszak, M., Biesek, J., Kaczmarek, S., Grabowicz, M., Rutkowski, A., & Adamski, M. (2020). Quality and Physicochemical Traits of Carcasses and Meat from Geese Fed with Lupin-Rich Feed. Animals, 10(3), 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030519

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop