Shaping Goose Meat Quality: The Role of Genotype and Soy-Free Diets

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of genotype and diet on geese from crossbreeding meat lines Tapphorn (T) and Eskildsen (E). This study was conducted on 240 crossbred geese assigned to two dietary groups: an SBM diet group fed a standard soybean-based diet and an LPS diet group fed a yellow lupin-based diet. Birds were reared under identical management conditions and slaughtered at 17 weeks of age. The following traits were recorded: meat colour (CIELab), pH₂₄, cooking loss, breast and thigh muscle texture (shear force and energy), and sensory traits. The results showed a significant effect of both genotype and diet on meat quality. The LPS diet lowered shear force and energy (by ~11%, p < 0.001), reduced cooking loss in breast muscles (by ~5%, p < 0.001), and improved the juiciness and flavour of thigh muscles. The ET genotype positively influenced the meat colour intensity (lower L*, higher a*), while the lupin-based diet improved technological parameters, especially the water-holding capacity. The results confirm that replacing soybean meal with yellow lupin protein is an effective nutritional strategy that can improve goose meat quality and sustainability without compromising the sensory quality. These outcomes support developing soy-free feeding strategies in goose production to meet consumer expectations and reduce reliance on imported feed.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the dynamic development of the poultry sector has been observed worldwide, resulting from the growing demand for poultry meat, including goose meat. Changing consumer preferences and increasing nutritional awareness have led to the search for production methods that not only improve meat quality but also make production more efficient and sustainable [1]. Geese are increasingly valued in Europe for their meat quality and sustainable production potential [2].

China is the largest producer of geese in the world, accounting for over 90% of global production [3]. In Europe, goose breeding is mainly concentrated in Poland, Hungary, and Germany. Poland holds a leading position among goose meat exporters, supplying high-quality products mainly to Western European markets. The breeding is dominated by highly specialized breeds such as the White Kołuda Goose, characterized by a fast growth rate, good feed conversion efficiency, and high meat quality [2,4].

One of the key elements in optimizing goose production is the use of crossbreeding methods to obtain the heterosis effect [5]. Appropriate genetic combinations can lead to improvements in the growth rate, feed conversion, and slaughter parameters, which translates into higher production efficiency [6,7]. In this study, the Tapphorn (T) and Eskildsen (E) lines were used, which belong to German meat goose lines with high production potential. Crossbreeding these lines offers a possibility to improve meat traits and meet market demand for heavier carcasses [7].

In addition to the genetic aspects, feeding plays a key role in the quality of goose meat. In traditional feeding systems, the dominant source of protein is soybean meal; however, rising production costs and issues related to the ecological sustainability of breeding necessitate the search for alternatives [8]. Among them, yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus) is promising due to its high protein content, balanced amino acid profile, and reduced levels of antinutritional compounds [9,10].

Feeding affects many meat quality indicators, such as fat content, fatty acid composition, water retention, pH, and sensory traits [11,12]. Studies suggest that yellow lupin may enhance tenderness and water-holding capacity without compromising technological parameters such as cooking loss or meat colour [8,13,14].

Meat colour, water-holding capacity, and texture are important indicators of technological and sensory meat value, affecting consumer acceptance [14]. The goose muscle colour parameters (L*—lightness, a*—redness, b*—yellowness) are influenced by both genotype and diet, although studies show that genotype has a more dominant effect [14].

Water-holding capacity, assessed via cooking loss, is another key indicator. Lupin feeding has been associated with reduced thermal losses and better juiciness. These effects may result from differences in the muscle protein structure and pH-dependent protein hydration [7,15,16]. Higher pH values after slaughter tend to improve meat colour and tenderness, while rapid postmortem pH decline can impair water retention and texture [17].

The role of the genotype is also reflected in the muscle structure and composition. Local goose breeds often show smaller muscle fibre diameter and higher protein content, contributing to greater tenderness compared to commercial lines [18]. Differences in the intramuscular fat and collagen content have also been shown to affect meat quality between traditional and intensive genotypes, such as Zatorska and White Kołuda geese [18].

Kuźniacka et al. [19] reported that replacing soybean with lupin in goose diets did not negatively affect breast muscle tenderness but improved the water-holding capacity, which influences perceived juiciness. Texture perception is multifactorial and depends on muscle mechanics, shape, moisture, and fat levels—all contributing to the sensory impression during chewing [20]. Texture is another critical quality attribute. It is often measured via shear force or texture profile analysis.

Although the effects of lupin-based diets and goose genotype on meat quality have been studied separately, little is known about their combined effects in crossbred geese from German meat lines.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of genotype and dietary protein source (soybean meal vs. yellow lupin) on meat quality in crossbred Tapphorn and Eskildsen geese. We analysed the growth performance, feed efficiency, and selected physicochemical, textural, and sensory traits. These results may support the development of sustainable and soy-free feeding strategies for goose production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Animals and Design

This study was conducted on a total of 240 crossbred geese obtained through the reciprocal crossbreeding of two German meat-type goose lines: Tapphorn (T) and Eskildsen (E). Two hybrid groups were formed: TE (♂ Tapphorn × ♀ Eskildsen) and ET (♂ Eskildsen × ♀ Tapphorn), each consisting of 120 birds (60 males and 60 females). The birds were randomly assigned to dietary treatments at the start of the feeding trial. The birds were fed as follows:

SBM: diet based on soybean meal as the primary protein source.

LPS: diet with soybean meal replaced by locally sourced protein-rich components, including yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.).

The detailed composition of the feed mixtures provided to the geese in each group is shown in

Table 1. Feed composition of experimental diets for geese.

Composition of Concentrates %	Feeding Group
	SMB Starter	SBM Grower	TE Starter	ET Grower
Soybean meal, 44%	17.5	9.8	-
Yellow lupin, 37%			13.5	8.0
Broad bean			14	10.0
Maize, 9.5%	24	26.06	23.1	27.0
Triticale	21.17	25.0	14	22.0
wheat	20	26.0	17	21.0
Canola meal, 33.7%	11	9.5	11	8.0
Soybean oil	2.6	0.6	3.1	0.8
Premix 2	1	1.0	1	1.0
Monocalcium phosphate	0.98	0.84	0.73	1.0
Fodder chalk	0.8	0.42	1.22	0.39
NaHCO3	0.43	0.36	0.43	0.32
Fodder salt	0.06	0.11	0.04	0.14
L-lysine	0.24	0.06	0.31
DL-methionine	0.11	0.08	0.18	0.13
L-threonine	0.11	0.08	0.17	0.12
Calculated nutritional value of concentrates
Metabolizable energy (ME), MJ/kg	11.79	11.79	11.76	11.77
Crude protein, %	19	19.0	19	19.0
Calcium, %	1	1.0	1	1.0
p-available, %	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
Lysine, %	1.1	1.1	0.97	0.69
Methionine, %	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.35
Valine, %	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75
Threonine, %	0.81	0.81	0.81	0.66
Na, %	0.16	0.16	0.16	0.16
Cl, %	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.14

.

This design resulted in four experimental groups (n = 60 birds each): TE SBM; TE LPS; ET SBM; ET LPS. Each group included 30 males and 30 females. Although sex was balanced, it was not included as a fixed effect in the statistical model. The birds were reared under identical environmental and management conditions, with free access to feed and water. The birds were kept in groups of six (three males and three females) per pen; however, all measurements (growth, sampling, and meat quality assessment) were performed individually, and each bird was treated as the experimental unit. The feeding trial continued until the birds reached slaughter weight (17 weeks of age). After slaughter, samples of breast and leg muscles were collected for subsequent physicochemical, textural, and sensory analyses. After slaughter, samples of breast and leg muscles were collected from the right side of each carcass. A pH measurement was performed on the chilled muscles after 24 h of storage at 10 °C. Subsequently, samples were vacuum-packed and frozen at −28 °C. After storage, the meat was thawed at 4 °C for 24 h and used for colour analysis, cooking loss, texture measurements, and sensory evaluation.

2.2. pH Measurement

Muscle pH₂₄ (24 h post mortem) was measured in the cranial end of the fillet (near the wing joint area) using a pH meter equipped with a combination spear tip electrode (Model 205, Testo SE & Co. KGaA, Titisee-Neustadt, Germany). The electrode was calibrated at pH 4.01 and 7.00 before measuring. The pH was measured by inserting the electrode directly into the muscle at a minimum depth of 1 cm.

2.3. Colour Parameters

The colour and pH of the breast muscles were measured at approximately 24 h postmortem. Only breast muscles were used for pH and colour measurements; no such measurements were performed for leg muscles. The colour changes were determined by the measurement of Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) L*, a*, b* values (L*—lightness, a*—redness, b*—yellowness) with a Minolta Chroma Meter CR 200 colorimeter (Osaka, Japan). Prior to obtaining the colour values, the colorimeter was calibrated to manufacturer recommendations utilizing the provided standard white calibration tile. The calibration values were entered according to the Y, x, and y calibration scheme (D65) and entered as 84.8, 0.3203, and 0.3378, respectively. The colour values (L*, a*, b*) were measured 3 times (cranial, medial and caudal locations) on the dorsal surface (bone side, in contact with the Pectoralis major muscle), then the average values of L*, a*, b* were recorded respectively.

2.4. Cooking Loss

Fresh breast muscle samples and whole goose legs were placed in plastic bags and frozen to −23 °C 24 h after slaughter. Samples were thawed prior to analysis at 4 °C for 24 h. The samples were placed on smoke sticks and heated in the PEK-MONT steam smoking and cooking chamber (Bielsk, Poland) at a steam temperature of 90 °C. The meat samples were heated to an internal temperature of 78 °C, then stored at 4 °C overnight. The amount of cooking loss was expressed as a percentage based on the difference in sample weights before and after heating, after removing the samples from the testing bags.

2.5. Texture Analysis

For the texture analysis, the samples used were those after the cooking loss assessment. The Meullenet-Owens Razor Shear (MORS) method was conducted using the texture analyser model TA-XT2i (Stable Micro Systems Ltd., Surrey, UK). The texture parameters were expressed as maximum shear force (N) and shear energy (N × mm). Shear energy was calculated as the area under the force–deformation curve from the beginning to the end of the test. The blade was penetrated 20 mm into the muscle. All samples (breast and thigh muscles) were analysed in 9 replicates at room temperature. Force–time deformation curves were obtained with a 25 kg load cell applied at a crosshead speed of 5.0 mm/s. Other operating conditions of the apparatus were as follows: pre-test speed 1.0 mm/s; post-test speed 5.0 mm/s; data acquisition rate 200 PPS; and applied force 5 g. Breast and thigh muscles of all goose types were included in the analysis.

2.6. Sensory Evaluation

A sensory evaluation of both breast and leg meat was conducted by trained panellists to assess the organoleptic qualities of the meat samples. A total of 17 individuals participated in the evaluation of breast meat, while 18 panellists assessed leg meat. The evaluation panel was trained and prepared for this task. Each member evaluated the product according to his or her individual impression, which corresponded to the quality of the product related to a specific feature. The analysis focused on five sensory attributes: odour intensity, flavour intensity, tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability. An unstructured linear scale in the form of an 80 mm segment was used for the sensory evaluation. The intensity scale had limit value descriptions for each analysed distinguishing feature, where 1 referred to a very undesirable quality and 9 to a very desirable one.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Data on the breast muscle colour parameters (L*, a*, b*) were subjected to a statistical analysis using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), including the fixed effects of genotype and feeding system, as well as their interaction. The statistical significance was assessed at p < 0.05. Differences between group means were evaluated using Tukey’s post-hoc test. The computations were performed using the STATISTICA 13.3 software (TIBCO Software Inc.).

3. Results

The analysis of the impact of genetic factors (genotype) and environmental factors (feeding system) included the evaluation of the meat colour parameters (CIE Lab*), pH₂₄, cooking loss, textural properties, and sensory traits of breast and leg goose meat. The results were presented in Table 1,

Table 2. Mean values of genotype and dietary protein source on meat pH (24 h post-mortem) in geese.

	TE SBM	ET SBM	TE LPS	ET LPS	SEM	Genotype	Diet	G × D
pH24	5.72 a	5.76 b	5.81 c	5.83 c	0.0046	0.00619	<0.001	0.98361

Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b, c) differ significantly at p < 0.05.

,

Table 3. Means of genetic and nutritional factors on breast muscle colour in geese.

Group	TE SBM	ET SBM	TE LPS	ET LPS	SEM	Genotype	Diet	G × D
L*	50.69 b	47.39 a	47.32 a	47.55 a	0.1181	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
a*	12.88 bc	13.18 c	12.65 b	12.07 a	0.0551	0.214	<0.001	<0.001
b*	2.02 b	2.08 b	1.69 b	1.22 a	0.0591	0.089	<0.001	0.020

Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b, c) differ significantly at p < 0.05.

,

Table 4. Means of the thermal drip (%) in goose muscles depending on genotype and feeding system.

Group	TE SBM	ET SBM	TE LPS	ET LPS	SEM	Genotype	Diet	G × D
Thermal leakage in the breast muscles [%]	30.79 c	29.65 bc	25.38 a	27.68 b	1.2423	0.005	<0.001	0.2958
Thermal leakage in the leg muscles [%]	31.52 ab	28.54 a	32.95 b	29.61 ab	2.1770	<0.001	0.278	0.916

Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b, c) differ significantly at p < 0.05.

,

Table 5. Means of genotype and dietary treatments on the shear force and shear energy of goose breast and thigh muscles.

Group		TE SBM	ET SBM	TE LPS	ET LPS	SEM	Genotype	Diet	G × D
Breast muscles	Force [N]	16.61 a	17.14 c	15.80 b	15.27 a	0.18810	<0.001	<0.001	0.734
	Shear energy [N × mm]	245.71 c	239.84 c	220.22 b	211.01 a	3.25253	<0.001	<0.001	0.391
Legs	Force [N]	14.78 a	15.84 b	15.37 ab	15.06 a	0.20403	0.035	0.523	<0.001
	Shear energy [N × mm]	175.22 a	204.66 b	176.01 a	196.61 b	3.33572	<0.001	0.762	0.211

Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b, c) differ significantly at p < 0.05.

and

Table 6. Means of the genetic groups and dietary treatments on the sensory attributes of breast meat in geese.

Breast Meat	TE SBM	ET SBM	TE LPS	ET LPS	SMB Diet	LPS Diet	SEM
Odour intensity	5.3	5.5	4.9	4.3	5.4	4.6	0.2612
Flavor intensity	4.9	4.8	3.9	5.3	4.6	4.8	0.2599
Tenderness	4.2	3.9	3.5	4.9	4.1	4.2	0.2507
Juiciness	4.2	4.1	4.1	5.4	4.2	4.7	0.2804
Overall acceptability	5	4.8	3.6	4.6	4.9	4.1	0.2732

No statistically significant differences were found for any sensory attributes (p > 0.05).

and subjected to detailed statistical interpretation, taking into account both the main effects and interactions between the studied factors.

3.1. pH Value

The ultimate pH measured 24 h post mortem (pH₂₄) in the goose breast muscles was significantly influenced by both genotype (p < 0.01) and dietary protein source (p < 0.001) (Table 2). The highest pH₂₄ values were observed in the birds from the LPS diet, with the ET LPS and TE LPS groups reaching 5.83 and 5.81, respectively, compared to 5.76 in the ET SBM group and 5.72 in TE SBM. The applied diet had a more pronounced effect than genotype, and no significant interaction between the two factors was detected.

3.2. Colour Analysis

Meat colour is one of the key quality attributes, strongly influencing consumer perception and purchasing decisions. It reflects not only the sensory characteristics but also the physiological condition of the muscle tissue and its technological properties. In this study, the impact of genetic (genotype) and environmental (feeding system) factors on the colour parameters of goose breast muscles was evaluated, expressed in the CIE-Lab colour space. The obtained results are presented in Table 3 and subjected to a detailed statistical analysis.

The L* parameter, indicating meat lightness, showed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.001) (Table 3). The highest L* value was recorded in the TE SBM group (50.69), indicating a lighter meat colour. In comparison, the L* values in the ET SBM (47.39), TE LPS (47.32), and ET LPS (47.55) groups were significantly lower and did not differ statistically from each other (p > 0.05). An ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of genotype, feeding system, and their interaction (p < 0.001) on L* values, indicating a complex mechanism influencing meat lightness. The a* parameter, representing the intensity of red colouration, also showed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.001). The highest a* value was observed in the ET SBM group (13.18), while the lowest was found in the ET LPS group (12.07). The TE SBM (12.88) and TE LPS (12.65) groups showed intermediate values. Both the feeding system and the genotype by feeding interaction had a highly significant effect (p < 0.001) on a*, whereas the genotype alone did not show a statistically significant influence. The b* parameter, reflecting the intensity of yellow colouration, also showed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.001). The highest b* values were found in the ET SBM group (2.08) and TE SBM group (2.02), while the lowest were in the ET LPS (1.69) and ET LPS group (1.22), indicating a significant decrease in the yellowness. A statistical analysis showed a significant effect of the feeding system (p < 0.001) and the genotype × feeding interaction (p < 0.05), while the genotype alone had no significant influence.

The results indicate that both the genetic and feeding factors affect the colour of the goose breast muscles, with the feeding system playing a dominant role in all the colour parameters (L*, a*, b*). Genotype had a significant effect on lightness (L*), while the interaction between the genotype and feeding system significantly affected all analysed parameters.

3.3. Cooking Loss

Cooking loss is a fundamental parameter in meat quality assessment, affecting its texture, juiciness, and technological suitability. As a result of the thermal denaturation of the proteins (accompanied by muscle fibre shrinkage), and the formation of new cross-linking bonds, the water content in heated meat decreases. This affects its sensory and technological properties, as well as its commercial value. Genetic and dietary factors play an important role in shaping the meat’s water-holding capacity, as demonstrated by the results of the conducted study (Table 4).

An analysis of the results showed significant differences between the groups in terms of the cooking loss in goose meat. The genotype had a significant effect on water loss in both the breast and thigh muscles. The SBM diet groups showed significantly higher cooking loss values compared to the LPS diet groups, suggesting that dietary modification may positively influence the water-holding capacity of muscles. For the breast muscles, the highest values were recorded in the TE SBM group (30.79%), followed by ET SBM (29.65%), ET LPS (27.68%), and the lowest in the TE LPS group (25.38%). These results confirm a beneficial effect of the lupin-based LPS diet on reducing cooking loss. In the case of the thigh muscles, although the differences between the groups were less pronounced, a significant effect of the genotype on water retention was still observed. The lowest cooking loss was noted in the ET SBM group (28.54%), followed by ET LPS (29.61%), TE SBM (31.52%), and the highest in the TE LPS group (32.95%). These findings suggest a more complex relationship between genotype and diet in thigh muscles. The differences between groups may result from variations in the cell membrane structure and muscle protein composition depending on the genotype, as well as from the influence of diet on cellular metabolism and water content in muscle tissue.

3.4. Texture Analysis

Meat texture and tenderness are key quality traits influencing consumer acceptance and processing suitability. These properties depend on many factors, including genetic and dietary ones, which can affect the muscle structure, collagen composition, and water-holding capacity. The measurement of shear force and shear energy provides valuable information about meat tenderness, helping to assess how different production systems affect its quality. The aim of this study was to analyse the effects of the genotype and feeding system on the shear force and shear energy of goose breast and thigh muscles.

The results in Table 5 show that in the breast muscles, the highest shear force was recorded in the ET SBM group (17.14 N), followed by the TE SBM group (16.61 N), TE LPS (15.80 N), and the lowest in the ET LPS group (15.27 N). These values indicate that the LPS diet reduced shear force and thus improved tenderness, especially in the ET genotype. Similarly, the shear energy values were the highest in ET SBM (239.84 N × mm) and TE SBM (245.71 N × mm), while lower values were noted for TE LPS (220.22 N × mm) and ET LPS (211.01 N × mm), again confirming the beneficial effects of the lupin-based diet.

For the thigh muscles, shear force was the highest in ET SBM (15.84 N), slightly higher in TE LPS (15.37 N) than ET LPS (15.06 N), and lowest in TE SBM (14.78 N). The differences were less distinct than in the breast muscles. The shear energy values followed a similar pattern, with the highest in ET SBM (204.66 N × mm) and ET LPS (196.61 N × mm), and the lowest in TE SBM (175.22 N × mm) and TE LPS (176.01 N × mm). These results suggest that both genotype and diet influenced the texture traits, with a more pronounced effect observed in the breast muscles.

3.5. Sensory Evaluation

The sensory evaluation of breast and leg meat revealed significant differences influenced by both genetic factors (TE and ET crossbreeds) and dietary factors (SBM and LPS diets) (Table 6 and

Table 7. Means of the genetic groups and dietary treatments on the sensory attributes of leg meat in geese.

Leg Meat	TE SBM	ET SBM	TE LPS	ET LPS	SBM Diet	LPS Diet	SEM
Odour intensity	5.7 a	5.3 a	6.2 b	6.8 b	5.5 a	6.5 b	0.1708
Flavour intensity	5.3 a	5.9 a	6.6 b	6.7 b	5.6 a	6.6 b	0.1856
Tenderness	4.6	5	6.2	5.3	4.8	5.7	0.2199
Juiciness	5.2	5.7	6.4	6.1	5.4	6.2	0.1969
Overall acceptability	5.5	6.3	6.2	6.3	5.9	6.2	0.1933

Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b) differ significantly at p < 0.05.

).

For the breast muscles, the results showed moderate variation among the evaluated attributes (Table 6). The aroma intensity ranged from 4.3 to 5.5, flavour intensity from 3.9 to 5.3, tenderness from 3.5 to 4.9, juiciness from 4.1 to 5.4, and overall acceptability from 3.6 to 5.0. The ET crossbreed group fed the experimental diet received higher scores for juiciness (5.4) and tenderness (4.9), indicating a potentially beneficial effect of the applied dietary protein on these traits. However, no statistically significant differences were observed for any of the evaluated breast meat parameters, as confirmed by the p-values.

In the case of the thigh meat, more pronounced differences were observed (Table 7). The experimental diet significantly improved the intensity of the aroma and flavour, particularly in the TE and ET crossbreed groups (p = 0.05). The aroma intensity ranged from 5.3 to 6.8, with the highest score recorded in the ET group fed the experimental diet (6.8). Similarly, the flavour intensity ranged from 5.3 to 6.7, and the experimental diet had a positive effect on this parameter in both genetic groups. Tenderness ranged from 4.6 to 6.2, and juiciness from 5.2 to 6.4—again in favour of the groups fed the experimental diet. Overall acceptability was less varied (5.5–6.3), although the highest score was also recorded in the ET group receiving the experimental diet.

4. Discussion

The results of this study confirm the significant role of both genetic factors and the feeding system in shaping the quality of goose meat, particularly in terms of the pH value, colour parameters, water-holding capacity, texture, and sensory traits. The use of Tapphorn and Eskildsen crossbreeds enabled an analysis of the effect of targeted genetic selection on meat quality, while the inclusion of yellow lupin as an alternative protein source in the diet provided data on the potential of this component in farming practices [19]. The selection of Tapphorn and Eskildsen lines for this study was motivated by their high growth potential, as also observed in other heavy-type goose breeds, such as White Kołuda^® and Zatorska, which exhibit satisfactory fattening results under intensive feeding systems [21].

One of the most consistent effects in this study was related to pH. The geese fed the LPS diet had significantly higher ultimate pH values in breast muscles, which are associated with slower postmortem glycolysis. Elevated pH promotes water-holding capacity and tenderness, and enhances colour stability. This was reflected in lower cooking loss and darker meat (lower L* values) in LPS-fed birds. These effects are in line with previous findings on the relationship between pH and meat quality traits [7,15,16,17,22].

The results indicate that the genotype and feeding system significantly affect all meat colour parameters (L*, a*, b*), as supported by the literature. Meat colour is strongly associated with myoglobin content, muscle fibre type, and the degree of lipid oxidation [17]. The highest lightness (L*) values were recorded in the TE SBM group, which may suggest a lower pigment concentration or different muscle structure. In contrast, the TE LPS group showed the lowest L* values, possibly indicating a higher proportion of type I fibres and greater myoglobin content, as suggested by Haraf et al. [14]. These results are also consistent with the observations of Zhang et al. [20], who emphasisedthat goose meat quality—including its colour—is influenced by both genetic factors (breeding line) and nutrition, especially under different rearing systems.

The observed differences in the cooking losses clearly indicate a positive effect of the LPS diet on the water-holding capacity of the meat. The LPS diet showed lower water loss in breast muscles, which may be linked to better cell membrane integrity and higher content of water-binding proteins (mainly myofibrillar) [19]. Zhang et al. [7] showed that structural and enzymatic proteins identified through proteomic methods play an important role in water retention in goose muscles, which is also reflected in this study. Some studies have observed a genotype effect on the yield of goose meat after cooking. Differences in the cooking loss with respect to genotype might be attributed to different protein solubility (especially collagen) and to different fat content. Cooking temperature and ultimate pH could also play a role [15]. However, other authors indicate the absence of such a relationship [23,24].

A similar genotype-dependent variation in muscle microstructure and physicochemical properties was observed by Poltowicz et al. [25] in White Kołuda® geese, supporting the relevance of genetic background in determining meat quality traits. The relationship between pH, muscle structure, and textural characteristics has been confirmed in studies by Meullenet et al. [26], who demonstrated a strong correlation between pH, the degree of protein denaturation, and perceived tenderness and juiciness. In the present study, similar relationships were evident, especially in thigh meat, where higher pH and better water-holding capacity coincided with higher sensory scores for juiciness and flavour. The results of texture analysis indicate that both genotype and feeding system significantly affect meat shear force and shear energy. Reduced shear force and shear energy in the LPS diet indicate improved meat tenderness, which is important from both consumer and technological perspectives [8]. Haraf et al. [14] also noted that interbreed variability affects meat texture. and the current results suggest that the use of lupin may additionally modulate these traits by influencing muscle composition and intramuscular fat content. The complex interaction between genotype and diet, particularly evident in thigh muscles, indicates a varied tissue response to dietary changes, confirming previous observations by Zhang et al. [22].

Shear force values were generally higher in the breast than in the thigh muscles. Similar trends have been reported in other studies, although results may vary depending on muscle structure and growth dynamics [24,27].

The relatively low shear force values observed may be partly attributed to the measurement method used. However, meat texture is known to be affected by various factors, including species, age, diet, and post-slaughter handling [28,29,30]. Differences in tenderness reported across studies may also result from breed-specific traits, anatomical variation, and environmental or postmortem factors such as cooking method and muscle type [30].

The results of the sensory evaluation showed that the LPS diet had a positive effect on the organoleptic characteristics of leg meat, particularly in terms of the aroma and flavour intensity. The observed differences, although not always statistically significant, may indicate an improvement in the perceived quality of meat at the consumer level. Haraf et al. [14] and Kuźniacka et al. [19] confirm that the protein composition of the feed can affect not only technological but also sensory traits. Additionally, the use of local protein components such as yellow lupin aligns with current trends in sustainable development and the reduction of the dependence on GMO soy [9,10].

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that both genotype and the type of protein used in the diet have a significant impact on goose meat quality. Crossbreeds of the Tapphorn and Eskildsen lines responded differently to dietary modifications, and the use of yellow lupin as an alternative to soybean meal resulted in improved technological properties of meat, such as higher pH (by ~0.07 units), reduced cooking loss (by ~5 percentage points in the breast muscles), and lower shear force (by ~11% in the breast muscles), without negatively affecting sensory parameters. These results confirm that yellow lupin may be a valuable feed component in sustainable meat goose production, offering beneficial effects both in terms of product quality and reducing dependence on genetically modified soy. Additionally, the ET genotype was associated with more intense meat colour and better water retention compared to TE. Future research should explore the effects of lupin-based diets on lipid oxidation, shelf life, and economic viability in commercial conditions.