Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = edible giblet

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 251 KB  
Article
Proximate Composition, Physicochemical Properties and Concentration of Selected Minerals in Edible Giblets of Geese
by Dariusz Kokoszyński, Arkadiusz Nędzarek, Joanna Żochowska-Kujawska, Marek Kotowicz, Marcin Wegner, Karol Włodarczyk, Dorota Cygan-Szczegielniak, Barbara Biesiada-Drzazga and Marcin Witkowski
Foods 2025, 14(15), 2742; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14152742 - 6 Aug 2025
Viewed by 883
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of breed and sex (3 × 2) on the basic chemical composition, concentration of some minerals, and physicochemical properties of edible giblets of farm geese. The study material consisted of edible giblets (livers, [...] Read more.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of breed and sex (3 × 2) on the basic chemical composition, concentration of some minerals, and physicochemical properties of edible giblets of farm geese. The study material consisted of edible giblets (livers, gizzards, hearts) obtained from 42 geese from three Polish native breeds (Rypin, Suwałki, Kartuzy) at 220 weeks of age. Edible giblets were obtained during goose evisceration from seven males and seven females of each breed. Each bird was an experimental unit. Goose breed and sex had a significant effect on the chemical composition and physicochemical properties of the edible giblets. Rypin geese had higher (p < 0.05) intramuscular fat content in the gizzard and heart, as well as higher protein content in the heart and lower water content in the gizzard, compared to Kartuzy and Suwałki geese. Kartuzy geese, in turn, had higher content of water in the heart, and higher concentrations of phosphorus, calcium, iron, manganese, sodium, and chromium in the liver, compared to Rypin and Suwałki geese. In turn, Suwałki geese had higher concentrations of phosphorus in the gizzard, and potassium, phosphorus, copper, and iron in the heart compared to the hearts of Rypin and Suwałki geese, while Kartuzy and Suwałki geese higher concentrations of sodium, magnesium, zinc, and manganese in hearts than the hearts of Rypin geese. In these studies, the highest lightness (L*) was observed in the liver and heart of Rypin geese, the lowest yellowness (b*) was observed in the gizzard of Suwałki geese, and the highest pH24 and EC24 were observed in the heart of Kartuzy geese. Regardless of breed, males had higher protein, collagen, and intramuscular fat contents in the heart, a higher water content in the gizzard, higher concentrations of potassium, and sodium in the liver and gizzard, copper in the heart and liver, and phosphorus in the gizzard, and less water in the heart and zinc in the liver, as well as higher (p < 0.05) concentrations of iron in the liver and heart compared with females. The breed by sex interaction was significant for intramuscular fat and water content in the gizzard and heart, and protein content in the heart. Significant differences were also noted for EC24 in the liver and heart, yellowness of the gizzard, and concentrations of most labeled minerals in edible giblets. The obtained results indicate that the nutritional value and suitability of edible goose giblets for the poultry industry vary depending on breed and sex. Due to the limited research on the chemical composition and physicochemical properties of goose giblets, further research in this area is necessary in the future. Full article
12 pages, 1209 KB  
Article
Estimation of Carcass Trait Characteristics, Proportions, and Their Correlation with Preslaughter Body Weight in Indigenous Chickens in Southeastern Ethiopia
by Kefala Taye Mekonnen, Dong-Hui Lee, Young-Gyu Cho, Ah-Yeong Son and Kang-Seok Seo
Agriculture 2024, 14(1), 50; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010050 - 27 Dec 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3352
Abstract
This study aimed to estimate carcass trait characteristics, proportions, and their correlation with the preslaughter body weight of indigenous chickens in Southeastern Ethiopia. Data from 42 healthy male chickens were collected and analyzed using SAS 2012 ver. 9.4, R software ver.4.3.1, and MetaboAnalyst [...] Read more.
This study aimed to estimate carcass trait characteristics, proportions, and their correlation with the preslaughter body weight of indigenous chickens in Southeastern Ethiopia. Data from 42 healthy male chickens were collected and analyzed using SAS 2012 ver. 9.4, R software ver.4.3.1, and MetaboAnalyst 5.0. The results indicated significant fixed effect of districts on dressed carcass weight, drumsticks, thighs, wings, and gizzard between Goba and Agarfa chickens (p < 0.05). The fixed effect of age and the district–age interaction effect were not significant. Principal component analysis revealed that PC1, accounting for 96.8% of the total variation between Goba and Agarfa chickens, was contributed by preslaughter and dressed carcass weight. Among the carcass components, the key contributors to differentiation between the Goba and Agarfa indigenous chicken carcass yields were the drumstick, thigh, breast (with/without keel bone), and back with thoracic weight (VIP > 1); there was a higher yield in Goba chickens. Preslaughter weight exhibited stronger correlations with most other traits, while dressing percentages displayed a negative correlation with various carcass components and edible giblet yields across the study districts. This study provides useful insights into carcass component characteristics and yields of indigenous Ethiopian chickens, which can increase our understanding of carcass components and their relationships with other qualities for improvement and further studies on poultry production. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Updates in Livestock Nutrition, Processing and Breeding)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop