| Sumu duck, Muscovy duck and Cherry Valley duck from Jiangsu WaterfowlResearch and Development Center were slaughtered at 10 week of age to comparetheir slaughtering performaces and meat quality traits. The results showed as follows:1.Comparison of slaughtering performancesThe slaughtering percentage of Sumu duck, Muscovy duck, Cherry Valley duckwere 81.75％, 79.44％and 82.01％, respectively, there were no significant differencesbetween them(P＞0.05).No significant differences were found in half net thoraxpercentage(Sumu duck, 76.53％,Muscovy duck, 74.35％,Cherry Valley duck,77.59％)(P＞0.05), whole net thorax percentage(Sumu duck, 69.26％, Muscovy duck,67.38％, Cherry Valley duck, 71.05％)(P＞0.05), Chest muscle percentage(Sumuduck, 12.99％, Muscovy duck, 15.70％, Cherry Valley duck, 15.78％)(P＞0.05) andLeg muscle percentage(Sumu duck, 10.04％, Muscovy duck, 12.26％, Cherry Valleyduck, 8.45％)(P＞0.05).The belly fat percentage of Sumu duck (2.36％) was lowerthan that of Muscovy duck (3.97％)(P＜0.05) and Cherry Valley duck (3.00％).The above results showed that there were no significant differences onslaughtering performaces excepting belly fat percentage between Sumu duck andMuscovy duck, Cherry Valley duck.2.Comparison of muscle's qualityNo significant difference were found in pH(Sumu duck, 6.08, Muscovy duck,6.04, Cherry Valley duck, 6.07)(P＞0.05), meat color(OD540) (P＞0.05), Waterdepletion capacity (Sumu duck, 35.33％, Muscovy duck, 33.43％, Cherry Valleyduck, 32.51％)(P＞0.05), Water holding capacity(Sumu duck, 51.86％, Muscovy duck,54.96％, Cherry Valley duck, 55.44％)(P＞0.05) and Cooking loss of Sumu duck(24.58％) was higher than that of Muscovy duck (21.16％) (P＜0.05).The above results showed that the Sumu duck's meat color was deeper thanCherry Valley duck's and its cooking loss was higher than Muscovy duck. there were no significant differences on the other factors between Sumu duck and Muscovy duck,Cherry Valley duck.3.Comparison of the nutrients contentsWater content of Sumu duck(72.26％) was lower than that of Muscovyduck(74.06％)(P＜0.01),and higher than that of Cherry Valley duck(71.67％)(P＞0.05). Fat content of Sumu duck (3.57％) was significantly higher than that ofMuscovy duck (2.12％)(P＜0.01) and lower than that of Cherry Valley duck (4.12％).No significant differences were found in dry materials (Sumu duck, 26.69％,Muscovyduck, 25.67％, Cherry Valley duck, 27.01％)(P＞0.05), protein content (Sumu duck,19.64％,Muscovy duck, 16.80％, Cherry Valley duck, 18.06％)(P＞0.05), totalcollagen (Sumu duck, 0.50％, Muscovy duck, 0.83％, Cherry Valley duck, 0.74％)(P＞0.05) and solubility of collagen (Sumu duck, 22.60％, Muscovy duck, 21.41％,Cherry Valley duck, 23.28％)(P＞0.05).The above results showed that there were no significantly differences onnutrients contents excepting water content between Sumu duck and Muscovy duck,Cherry Valley duck.4. Comparison of the anatomical performance in muscle fibersDiameters of the muscle fiber of Sumu duck(31.96μm) was higher than that ofMuscovy duck (28.65μm)(P＜0.01), and that of Cherry Valley duck (31.36μm)(P＞0.05). There were no differences in thickness of muscle bundle membranes betweenSumu duck(14.87μm), Muscovy duck(15.20μm),and Cherry Valley duck (15.08μm)(P＞0.05). The WBSF of Sumu duck(4.64kg) was higher than that of Muscovy duck(3.93kg)(P＜0.05), and that of Cherry Valley duck (4.23kg)(P＞0.05).From the above results, we could find that the slaughtering performances andmeat quality were no significantly different between Sumu duck and Cherry Valleyduck, and that Sumu duck have achieved the level of superior duck (Cherry Valleyduck). Compared with Muscovy duck, Sumu duck need to be further improved. |
PDF Full Text Request