TY - JOUR
AU - Zhou, D. W.
AB - ABSTRACT This study was conducted to investigate the influence of pasture intake on meat quality, lipid oxidation, and fatty acid composition of geese. One hundred twenty Dongbei White male geese (a local breed; BW = 878 ± 13 g; 28 d old) were randomly and equally divided into 2 treatments with 6 pens of 10 geese per treatment. The 2 treatments consisted of birds fed ad libitum a corn-based feed. One-half of the birds had no access to pasture (control) while the other half had access to an alfalfa (Medicago sativa)-based pasture (pasture). The study lasted 42 d. Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly. At the end of the study, geese were slaughtered to collect meat samples. Results showed that pasture intake reduced subcutaneous fat thickness (P < 0.05) and abdominal fat yield (P < 0.05) of geese compared with control. Geese with access to pasture had greater cooking loss (P < 0.05) and lightness (L*) value (P < 0.05) and lower pH at 24 h postmortem (pH24; P < 0.05) and thiobarbituric acid reacting substance values (P < 0.05) at 0 and 30 min of forced oxidation. Moreover, pasture intake increased linolenic acid (C18:3n-3; P < 0.05) and eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5n-3; P < 0.05) and reduced the n-6:n-3 ratio (P < 0.05) in the breast muscle of geese compare with the control. In conclusion, pasture intake did not enhance growth performance but improved carcass characteristics and meat quality and changed fatty acid composition of geese. INTRODUCTION Farm animal products are important sources of nutrients for human nutrition, and consumption demands have changed from quantity to quality (Webb and O'Neill, 2008). Increased SFA are considered major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, which are among the most important causes of human mortality in developed countries (Hu et al., 2001; Ganji et al., 2003). In addition, modern diets contain reduced n-3 fatty acids leading to increased n-6:n-3 fatty acid ratio (Simopoulos, 2002). The imbalance of dietary n-6 and n-3 PUFA is responsible for the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, inflammation, and autoimmune disease (Simopoulos, 2004). Therefore, there is an urgent need to return to a balanced fatty acid diet by improving the intake of PUFA and n-3 fatty acids (Simopoulos, 2002; Ponte et al., 2008). Goose meat is regarded as relatively safe for consumers, as it contains a greater proportion of PUFA with at least 2 unsaturated sites (Rosiński, 2000). Between 1990 and 2009, goose meat production in China increased from 474,000 to 2.3 million t (FAO, 2010). In 2009, China accounted for 94.1% of the global goose production (FAO, 2010). Numerous studies show that the fatty acid profile of animal fat can be manipulated through feeding strategies (Aurousseau et al., 2004; Scerra et al., 2007). A previous study reported that green pasture was a good source of α-linolenic acid (18:3n-3), and pasture intake led to greater contents of this fatty acid and decreased the n6:n3 fatty acid ratio in broilers (Ponte et al., 2008) and ruminants (Wood and Enser, 1997; O'Sullivan et al., 2004). Little is known about the ability of pasture consumption to alter the fatty acid composition in geese although it is an herbivorous bird and consumes variable amounts of forages. Moreover, pasture is a good source of bioactive compounds, such as saponins, tannins, and natural diterpenes with vitamin E activity, which is the primary lipid-soluble antioxidant in biological systems (Kerry et al., 2000). Diets enriched with natural antioxidants could increase meat oxidative stability (Maraschiello et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2009), but no information on the contribution of pasture intake to the oxidative stability of goose meat has been reported. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to investigate the influence of pasture intake on meat quality, lipid oxidation, and fatty acid composition of geese. MATERIALS AND METHODS All procedures were approved by the Administration Office of Laboratory Animals, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Jilin, China). Birds, Diets, and Management The research was conducted at the Ecological Research Station for Grassland Farming, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Jilin, China; 44°31′ N, 123°33′ E, and altitude 145 m) and lasted 42 d. The daily mean air temperature during the experiment was 25°C. One hundred twenty Dongbei White male geese (a local breed; BW = 878 ± 13 g; 28 d old) were randomly and equally divided into 2 treatments with 6 pens of 10 geese per treatment. The 2 treatments consisted of birds fed ad libitum a corn-based feed. One-half of the birds had no access to pasture (control) while the other half had access to an alfalfa based pasture (pasture). Before the start of the experiment, from d 0 to 28, geese were raised in battery brooders in a temperature-controlled room under standard brooding practices. At d 28, geese were moved to the pastured pens, and they were maintained for an additional 42 d until slaughtered at d 70. The portable pen (4 by 3 by 0.5 m, providing 1.2 m2 per bird) allowed birds to directly contact the alfalfa-based pasture, promoting pasture intake. Water and feed were available ad libitum throughout the experiment and were provided in 2 automatic drinking nipples and an individual hanging tube feeder, respectively. Approximately one-third of the top area of the pen was covered with transparent whitewashed plastic to protect against harsh climatic conditions. To promote pasture intake, the portable pens of the pasture treatment were moved daily so that geese could eat pasture every day. Pens of the control treatment were located in a fixed position without plant cover. Pasture intake was estimated based on the evaluation of the levels of biomass present in the pasture before and after grazing (Ponte et al., 2008). Chemical Analysis of Feeds The feed was formulated according to Wang et al. (2010; Table 1). At d 21 of the experiment (half way through the experiment), samples of pasture were collected from 1-m2 paddocks by cutting the grass at 3 cm above the ground for chemical analysis (Table 2). The DM was determined by oven drying at 105°C overnight (Method 930.15; AOAC Int., 1995). The CP was determined by a Kjeldahl N analysis (Method 954.01; AOAC Int., 1995). Crude fiber was determined according to Van Soest et al. (1991). Crude fat (CF) was extracted by diethyl ether using a Soxhlet apparatus (Method. 945.16; AOAC Int., 1995). Methionine and Lys were determined by acid hydrolysis (Method 982.30; AOAC Int., 1995). Calcium was determined (Method 968.08), and P was measured by converting phosphates into phosphorus molybdenum blue pigment and measured at 700 nm (Method 986.24; AOAC Int., 1995). Salt was determined by AOAC International method (973.09; AOAC Int., 1995). Saponin content was measured by HPLC (Nowacka and Wieslaw, 1994). Tannin content, expressed as tannic acid equivalents, was measured based on the Folin-Ciocalteu method (Makkar et al., 1993). The total polysaccharides were measured by the vitriol-anthracene ketone method, with glucose without H2O as the standard control (Liu et al., 1994). Table 1. Ingredient and chemical composition of the corn-based feed (DM basis) Item  Content  Ingredients, %      Corn  61.5      Soybean meal (47.4% CP)  13.6      Fish meal  3.0      Alfalfa meal  16.0      Soybean oil  2.0      Dicalcium phosphate  1.9      Limestone  0.8      Salt  0.2      Vitamin–mineral premix1  1.0  Chemical composition      DM, %  88.5      CP, %  18.4      Crude fat, %  3.7      Crude fiber, %  5.3      Ca, g/kg  10.7      Total P, g/kg  4.8      Lys, g/kg  7.6      Met, g/kg  4.4      Apparent ME, MJ/kg (calculated)  10.46  Item  Content  Ingredients, %      Corn  61.5      Soybean meal (47.4% CP)  13.6      Fish meal  3.0      Alfalfa meal  16.0      Soybean oil  2.0      Dicalcium phosphate  1.9      Limestone  0.8      Salt  0.2      Vitamin–mineral premix1  1.0  Chemical composition      DM, %  88.5      CP, %  18.4      Crude fat, %  3.7      Crude fiber, %  5.3      Ca, g/kg  10.7      Total P, g/kg  4.8      Lys, g/kg  7.6      Met, g/kg  4.4      Apparent ME, MJ/kg (calculated)  10.46  1Premix provided per kilogram of diet: Cu, 7 mg as copper sulfate; Fe, 88 mg as ferrous sulfate; Zn, 62 mg as zinc oxide; Mn, 66 mg as manganese oxide; I, 0.4 mg as ethylenediamine dihydroiodide; Se, 0.2 as sodium selenite; vitamin A, 2000 IU; vitamin D3, 250 IU; vitamin E, 10 IU; vitamin K3, 2 mg; vitamin B1, 1 mg; vitamin B2, 12 mg; vitamin B6, 2 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg; nicotinic acid, 60 mg; pantothenic acid, 10 mg; folic acid, 1 mg; folate, 1 mg; biotin, 0.1 mg; and choline, 0.7 g. View Large Table 1. Ingredient and chemical composition of the corn-based feed (DM basis) Item  Content  Ingredients, %      Corn  61.5      Soybean meal (47.4% CP)  13.6      Fish meal  3.0      Alfalfa meal  16.0      Soybean oil  2.0      Dicalcium phosphate  1.9      Limestone  0.8      Salt  0.2      Vitamin–mineral premix1  1.0  Chemical composition      DM, %  88.5      CP, %  18.4      Crude fat, %  3.7      Crude fiber, %  5.3      Ca, g/kg  10.7      Total P, g/kg  4.8      Lys, g/kg  7.6      Met, g/kg  4.4      Apparent ME, MJ/kg (calculated)  10.46  Item  Content  Ingredients, %      Corn  61.5      Soybean meal (47.4% CP)  13.6      Fish meal  3.0      Alfalfa meal  16.0      Soybean oil  2.0      Dicalcium phosphate  1.9      Limestone  0.8      Salt  0.2      Vitamin–mineral premix1  1.0  Chemical composition      DM, %  88.5      CP, %  18.4      Crude fat, %  3.7      Crude fiber, %  5.3      Ca, g/kg  10.7      Total P, g/kg  4.8      Lys, g/kg  7.6      Met, g/kg  4.4      Apparent ME, MJ/kg (calculated)  10.46  1Premix provided per kilogram of diet: Cu, 7 mg as copper sulfate; Fe, 88 mg as ferrous sulfate; Zn, 62 mg as zinc oxide; Mn, 66 mg as manganese oxide; I, 0.4 mg as ethylenediamine dihydroiodide; Se, 0.2 as sodium selenite; vitamin A, 2000 IU; vitamin D3, 250 IU; vitamin E, 10 IU; vitamin K3, 2 mg; vitamin B1, 1 mg; vitamin B2, 12 mg; vitamin B6, 2 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg; nicotinic acid, 60 mg; pantothenic acid, 10 mg; folic acid, 1 mg; folate, 1 mg; biotin, 0.1 mg; and choline, 0.7 g. View Large Table 2. Chemical composition of the alfalfa-based pasture (DM basis) Item  Content, %  DM  17.7  CP  20.1  Crude fat  2.1  Crude fiber  16.7  Saponins  2.27  Polysaccharides  1.46  Tannins  0.21  Item  Content, %  DM  17.7  CP  20.1  Crude fat  2.1  Crude fiber  16.7  Saponins  2.27  Polysaccharides  1.46  Tannins  0.21  View Large Table 2. Chemical composition of the alfalfa-based pasture (DM basis) Item  Content, %  DM  17.7  CP  20.1  Crude fat  2.1  Crude fiber  16.7  Saponins  2.27  Polysaccharides  1.46  Tannins  0.21  Item  Content, %  DM  17.7  CP  20.1  Crude fat  2.1  Crude fiber  16.7  Saponins  2.27  Polysaccharides  1.46  Tannins  0.21  View Large Growth Performance and Sample Collection The geese and corn-based feed were weighed weekly to determine BW and feed intake and to calculate the ADG, ADFI, and G:F. At the end of the experiment, 5 geese from each pen were randomly selected after a 12 h fast, weighed individually, killed by cutting the carotid arteries, and then immediately bled. The heads and feet were removed, and the thickness of the subcutaneous fat was measured at the front of the coccygeal vertebra with a vernier caliper (exact to 0.01 mm; 797B-6/150; Starrett Tools Co., Ltd, Suzhou, China; Adamski, 2004). Carcasses were eviscerated and weighed to determine the dressing percentage. The abdominal fat and breast and thigh muscles were removed and weighed. Eviscerated carcass percentage was calculated as the ratio between the eviscerated carcass and final BW after fasting. The percentages of breast muscle, thigh muscle, and abdominal fat were calculated as a percentage of eviscerated carcass weight. After 24 h of chilling at 4°C, the breast muscle taken from the left side was divided into 2 parts. The fore part was used to measure cooking loss, color, and pH, and the hind part was vacuum packed and frozen at –20°C until the determination of chemical composition, shear force, thiobarbituric acid reacting substances (TBARS), and fatty acid composition. Meat Quality Analysis Meat Chemical Composition. The muscle sample was analyzed for DM (Method 930.15), CP (Method 954.01), and CF (Method 945.16) according to the AOAC International (1995). The DM was determined as BW loss after the oven drying of 50-g sample overnight. The CP and CF were determined as described before. All the values are expressed on a wet weight basis. pH Measurement. Meat pH of the breast muscle was measured at 24 h postmortem (pH at 24 h postmortem [pH24]) at 20°C and recorded (Crison MicropH 2001; Crison Instruments, Barcelona, Spain) using a combined electrode (Double Pore Slim; Hamilton Company, Bonaduz, Switzerland) penetrating to 3 mm (Ouhayoun and Dalle Zotte, 1996). Color Measurements. After 1 h of blooming, meat color was measured on a freshly cut surface of the breast muscle at room temperature (20°C) using a chromameter (Minolta CR-300; Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) with D65 illuminant and an 8-mm aperture in the measuring head. Color measurements were reported in terms of lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) in the Commission Internationale de Léclairage L* a* b* (CIELAB) color space model (CIE, 1976). Cooking Loss. A meat sample from each goose was weighed, vacuum packed in a plastic bag, and then cooked for 1 h in a water bath maintained at 80°C (Ramírez et al., 2004). Meat samples were then removed from the water bath and cooled in running water. The meat was then taken from the bag, blotted dried, and weighed. Cooking loss was calculated as the difference in weight between the precooked and blotted dried postcooked weights and was expressed as a percentage of the precooked weight. Shear Force. The frozen meat samples were thawed overnight (approximately 16 h) in a cooler at 4°C. At least 3 slices (1 by 1 by 3 cm) from each sample were cut parallel to the longitudinal orientation of the muscle fiber. The slices were sheared perpendicular to the muscle fiber orientation (Instron 5543; Instron Corporation, Norwood, MA) with a Warner-Bratzler shear device (Zwick Roell Group, Ulm, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany) and crosshead speed set at 200 mm/min according to the research guidelines established by American Meat Science Association (AMSA, 1995). The maximum force measured to shear the slices was expressed as Newtons. Lipid Oxidation. Lipid oxidation was determined using the modified thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method according to the iron-induced TBARS procedure described by Huang and Miller (1993). The iron-induced TBARS assay was performed at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min of incubation with FeSO4·7H2O (final concentration, 1 mM Fe3+ as the oxidative agent) and the absorbance was read at 532 nm. Liquid malonaldehyde (MDA; Aldrich Chemical Co. Ltd., Dorset, UK) was used as the standard to determine the linear response and recovery. The TBARS values were expressed as mg of MDA/kg of wet muscle tissue. Fatty Acid Composition of Diets and Breast Muscle. Lipids were extracted from samples of muscle according to Folch et al. (1957) and fatty acid methyl esters were prepared by alcoholysis in an essential nonalcoholic solution (Christopherson and Glass, 1969). The fatty acid composition of corn-based feed or grass was determined as described by Sukhija and Palmquist (1988) and analyzed by gas chromatograph (SHIMADZU-GC 17A; Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) using a HP88 capillary column (100 m by 0.25 mm i.d.; 0.2 μm film thickness; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA). The column temperature was held at 60°C for 1 min and then raised 20°C/min to a final temperature of 190°C, where it remained for 40 min. Temperature of the injector and flame-ionization detector were maintained at 250 and 280°C, respectively; the injection volume was 0.1 μL and the N constant linear flow rate was set at 40 mL/min. The atherogenic index (AGI) was calculated according to the equation AGI = (C12:0 + 4 × C14:0 + C16:0)/(MUFA + PUFA), in which C12:0, C14:0, C16:0, MUFA, and PUFA are the contents (% of total fatty acids) of C12:0, C14:0, C16:0, MUFA, and PUFA, respectively. The thrombogenic index (TI) was calculated according to the equation TI = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0)/[(0.5 × MUFA) + (0.5 × n-6 PUFA) + (3 × n-3 PUFA) + (n-3 PUFA/n-6 PUFA)], in which C14:0, C16:0, C18:0, MUFA, n-6 PUFA, and n-3 PUFA are the contents (% of total fatty acids) of C14:0, C16:0, C18:0, MUFA, n-6 PUFA, and n-3 PUFA, respectively (Ulbricht and Southgate, 1991). Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed by ANOVA using the GLM procedure (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). For data relating to ADG, ADFI, G:F, meat traits, TBARS, and fatty acid composition, the pen was considered as the experimental unit for analysis. Means were compared by LSD test, and differences were declared at P < 0.05. For fatty acid composition of the corn-based feed and the alfalfa based pasture, sample was considered the unit of replication for analysis. Means were compared by an independent sample t test, and differences were declared at P < 0.05. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Growth Performance In the current study, the pasture intake (DM basis) was between 240 and 420 g/d. These values were highly variable because of the heterogeneous nature of the pastures and the variability of pasture intake during the experimental period. No differences were observed in ADG, ADFI, and G:F between the 2 treatments (Table 3). This is similar to studies by Janicki et al. (2000) who reported that pasture (maize green forage) intake had no effect on mixed feed consumption and the BW gain of geese. In contrast, Ponte et al. (2008) observed that pasture (Trifolium subterraneum or Trifolium repens) consumption promoted greater intake of a cereal-based diet available ad libitum and increased BW gain of free-range broilers. Variability in these results may be related to the composition and consumption of pasture. Table 3. Effects of pasture intake on growth performance of geese (n = 6)   Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  ADG, g/d  68.3  65.9  1.0  0.78  ADFI, kg/d  0.29  0.28  0.04  0.91  G:F, g/kg  236  235  26  0.67    Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  ADG, g/d  68.3  65.9  1.0  0.78  ADFI, kg/d  0.29  0.28  0.04  0.91  G:F, g/kg  236  235  26  0.67  1Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. View Large Table 3. Effects of pasture intake on growth performance of geese (n = 6)   Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  ADG, g/d  68.3  65.9  1.0  0.78  ADFI, kg/d  0.29  0.28  0.04  0.91  G:F, g/kg  236  235  26  0.67    Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  ADG, g/d  68.3  65.9  1.0  0.78  ADFI, kg/d  0.29  0.28  0.04  0.91  G:F, g/kg  236  235  26  0.67  1Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. View Large Carcass Characteristics and Meat Quality In the present study, pasture intake reduced subcutaneous fat thickness (P < 0.05) and abdominal fat yield of geese (P < 0.05; Table 4). Castellini et al. (2002) reported that broilers with access to a grass paddock had less abdominal fat yield than that housed in indoor pen. Likewise, Janicki et al. (2000) reported that pasture (maize green forage) intake reduced subcutaneous fat thickness and abdominal fat yield. These finding could be due to the greater activity of the grazing geese. Lewis et al. (1997) and Lei and Van Beek (1997) stated that motor activity reduced abdominal fat in broilers. Table 4. Effects of pasture intake on carcass and meat traits of geese (n = 6)   Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  Eviscerated carcass yield,2 %  72.31  71.28  0.59  0.90  Breast yield,3 %  7.42  8.12  0.10  0.12  Thigh yield,3 %  17.51  18.15  0.79  0.45  Subcutaneous fat thickness, mm  5.03  4.42  0.08  0.03  Abdominal fat yield,3 %  2.92  2.11  0.06  0.04  DM, %  25.44  25.67  0.40  0.94  CP, %  18.85  19.12  0.29  0.72  Crude fat, %  2.64  2.42  0.20  0.82  pH244  6.16  5.77  0.17  0.03  Cooking loss, %  30.52  33.89  0.49  0.04  Shear force, Newton  43.44  41.23  2.23  0.82  L*5  53.22  55.53  0.58  0.04  a*5  4.96  4.88  0.31  0.60  b*5  5.11  5.08  0.39  0.91    Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  Eviscerated carcass yield,2 %  72.31  71.28  0.59  0.90  Breast yield,3 %  7.42  8.12  0.10  0.12  Thigh yield,3 %  17.51  18.15  0.79  0.45  Subcutaneous fat thickness, mm  5.03  4.42  0.08  0.03  Abdominal fat yield,3 %  2.92  2.11  0.06  0.04  DM, %  25.44  25.67  0.40  0.94  CP, %  18.85  19.12  0.29  0.72  Crude fat, %  2.64  2.42  0.20  0.82  pH244  6.16  5.77  0.17  0.03  Cooking loss, %  30.52  33.89  0.49  0.04  Shear force, Newton  43.44  41.23  2.23  0.82  L*5  53.22  55.53  0.58  0.04  a*5  4.96  4.88  0.31  0.60  b*5  5.11  5.08  0.39  0.91  1Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. 2Calculated as a percentage of final BW. 3Calculated as a percentage of eviscerated carcass weight. 4pH24 = pH at 24 h postmortem. 5L* = lightness; a* = redness; b* = yellowness. View Large Table 4. Effects of pasture intake on carcass and meat traits of geese (n = 6)   Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  Eviscerated carcass yield,2 %  72.31  71.28  0.59  0.90  Breast yield,3 %  7.42  8.12  0.10  0.12  Thigh yield,3 %  17.51  18.15  0.79  0.45  Subcutaneous fat thickness, mm  5.03  4.42  0.08  0.03  Abdominal fat yield,3 %  2.92  2.11  0.06  0.04  DM, %  25.44  25.67  0.40  0.94  CP, %  18.85  19.12  0.29  0.72  Crude fat, %  2.64  2.42  0.20  0.82  pH244  6.16  5.77  0.17  0.03  Cooking loss, %  30.52  33.89  0.49  0.04  Shear force, Newton  43.44  41.23  2.23  0.82  L*5  53.22  55.53  0.58  0.04  a*5  4.96  4.88  0.31  0.60  b*5  5.11  5.08  0.39  0.91    Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  Eviscerated carcass yield,2 %  72.31  71.28  0.59  0.90  Breast yield,3 %  7.42  8.12  0.10  0.12  Thigh yield,3 %  17.51  18.15  0.79  0.45  Subcutaneous fat thickness, mm  5.03  4.42  0.08  0.03  Abdominal fat yield,3 %  2.92  2.11  0.06  0.04  DM, %  25.44  25.67  0.40  0.94  CP, %  18.85  19.12  0.29  0.72  Crude fat, %  2.64  2.42  0.20  0.82  pH244  6.16  5.77  0.17  0.03  Cooking loss, %  30.52  33.89  0.49  0.04  Shear force, Newton  43.44  41.23  2.23  0.82  L*5  53.22  55.53  0.58  0.04  a*5  4.96  4.88  0.31  0.60  b*5  5.11  5.08  0.39  0.91  1Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. 2Calculated as a percentage of final BW. 3Calculated as a percentage of eviscerated carcass weight. 4pH24 = pH at 24 h postmortem. 5L* = lightness; a* = redness; b* = yellowness. View Large The pH24 of breast muscle was greater (P < 0.05) in the control birds than the pasture birds. Similar results were also observed by Maribo (1995) and Enfält et al. (1997) in pigs and Castellini et al. (2002) in broilers. A possible reason for this finding could be that grazing increased exercise behavior, which made animals less susceptible to the preslaughter stress, and therefore reduced metabolism of glycogen (Andersson et al., 1990; Ponte et al., 2008). Moreover, Warriss and Brown (1987) reported that pH was the most important factor in determining cooking loss in porcine muscle. In this study, pasture intake increased (P < 0.05) cooking loss of breast muscle. The pH24 showed a negative correlation with cooking loss, which is consistent with the results observed by Lu et al. (2007). They reported that ultimate pH exhibited a negative correlation to cooking loss in Arbor Acres broilers. It has been shown that shrinkage of the contractile fibers caused by a lower pH24 reduces the water-binding ability and, therefore, increases light scattering (Warriss, 2000). In the present study, the L* value in the pasture birds was greater (P < 0.05) than the control birds. This could be attributed to a lower pH24 in the pasture group. MacDougall and Rhodes (1972) reported that L* value exhibited a negative correlation to ultimate pH. Likewise, Castellini et al. (2002) also observed that pasture intake increased L* value and reduced ultimate pH of broilers. Concerning shear force, Watanabe et al. (1996) indicated that tenderness of meat was strongly related to pH24. However, no effect of pasture intake on shear force of goose meat was observed in the present study. Lipid Oxidation Lipid peroxidation in goose meat was investigated using TBARS as an index (Fig. 1). At 0 or 30 min of forced oxidation, TBARS values in the control group were greater (P < 0.05) than the pasture group. In addition, no differences were observed in TBARS values at 60, 120, and 180 min of forced oxidation between 2 groups. Conversely, Castellini et al. (2002) reported that broilers with access to a grass paddock had a greater TBARS value than those housed in an indoor pen. They suggested that the decreased lipid stability could be due to the greater percentage of PUFA. Although a greater percentage of PUFA was also found in the pasture group in the present study, geese can consume more grass than broilers and the bioactive compounds in grass, such as saponins, polysaccharides, and tannins (22.7, 14.6, and 2.1 g/kg DM, respectively; Table 2), could prevent lipid peroxidation. Previous research has observed the inhibitory effects of saponins on lipid peroxidation in rat heart (Kim and Lee, 2010) as well as tannins or polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation in rabbit meat (Liu et al., 2012), which could be due to scavenging radicals depending on their chemical structures and activating endogenous antioxidant defense against scavenging radicals (Liu et al., 2010, 2011; Yeh and Yen, 2005). However, the effects of tannins on broiler chicken TBARS value are controversial. Du et al. (2002) found that tannins could prevent lipid peroxidation in breast meat from broilers while Schiavone et al. (2008) observed that the oxidative stability of broiler meat could not be affected by tannin intake. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Effects of pasture intake on oxidative stability (mg malonaldehyde/kg muscle tissue) of breast muscle of geese (n = 6). a,bMeans with same or no letter within time do not differ. Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Effects of pasture intake on oxidative stability (mg malonaldehyde/kg muscle tissue) of breast muscle of geese (n = 6). a,bMeans with same or no letter within time do not differ. Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. Fatty Acid Composition The fatty acid composition of the corn-based feed and the alfalfa-based pasture is shown in Table 5. Linoleic acid (C18:2n-6) and linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) were the major fatty acids in the corn-based feed and the alfalfa-based pasture, respectively. The predominant fatty acids in corn-based feed or alfalfa-based pasture were palmitic acid (C16:0) as SFA and oleic acid (C18:1n-9) as MUFA. The corn-based feed contained greater percentages of oleic acid (P < 0.01) and linoleic acid (P < 0.01) and lower percentages of myristic acid (C14:0; P < 0.01) and linolenic acid (P < 0.01) than the alfalfa-based pasture. Compared with the corn-based feed, the alfalfa-based pasture contained greater percentages of total PUFA (P < 0.01) and n-3 PUFA (P < 0.01) and lower percentages of total MUFA (P < 0.01) and n-6 PUFA (P < 0.01). Table 5. Fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of the corn-based feed (control) and the alfalfa based pasture (pasture; n = 10) Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.11  1.04  0.10  0.01  C16:0  19.2  20.3  1.0  0.52  C16:1n-7  0.23  0.40  0.12  0.07  C17:0  0.18  0.32  0.10  0.08  C18:0  3.73  3.09  0.23  0.29  C18:1n-9  18.4  3.12  2.73  0.01  C18:2n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  C18:3n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  C20:0  0.43  0.73  0.11  0.06  Total SFA  23.7  25.5  1.0  0.25  Total MUFA  18.63  3.52  2.87  0.01  Total PUFA  57.72  71.0  2.2  0.01  Total n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  Total n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.11  1.04  0.10  0.01  C16:0  19.2  20.3  1.0  0.52  C16:1n-7  0.23  0.40  0.12  0.07  C17:0  0.18  0.32  0.10  0.08  C18:0  3.73  3.09  0.23  0.29  C18:1n-9  18.4  3.12  2.73  0.01  C18:2n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  C18:3n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  C20:0  0.43  0.73  0.11  0.06  Total SFA  23.7  25.5  1.0  0.25  Total MUFA  18.63  3.52  2.87  0.01  Total PUFA  57.72  71.0  2.2  0.01  Total n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  Total n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  View Large Table 5. Fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of the corn-based feed (control) and the alfalfa based pasture (pasture; n = 10) Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.11  1.04  0.10  0.01  C16:0  19.2  20.3  1.0  0.52  C16:1n-7  0.23  0.40  0.12  0.07  C17:0  0.18  0.32  0.10  0.08  C18:0  3.73  3.09  0.23  0.29  C18:1n-9  18.4  3.12  2.73  0.01  C18:2n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  C18:3n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  C20:0  0.43  0.73  0.11  0.06  Total SFA  23.7  25.5  1.0  0.25  Total MUFA  18.63  3.52  2.87  0.01  Total PUFA  57.72  71.0  2.2  0.01  Total n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  Total n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.11  1.04  0.10  0.01  C16:0  19.2  20.3  1.0  0.52  C16:1n-7  0.23  0.40  0.12  0.07  C17:0  0.18  0.32  0.10  0.08  C18:0  3.73  3.09  0.23  0.29  C18:1n-9  18.4  3.12  2.73  0.01  C18:2n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  C18:3n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  C20:0  0.43  0.73  0.11  0.06  Total SFA  23.7  25.5  1.0  0.25  Total MUFA  18.63  3.52  2.87  0.01  Total PUFA  57.72  71.0  2.2  0.01  Total n-3  4.12  57.6  6.8  0.01  Total n-6  53.6  13.4  5.5  0.01  View Large The fatty acid composition of goose meat is presented in Table 6. Pasture intake increased linolenic acid (P < 0.05) content in goose meat. A possible reason is the greater content of linolenic acid in the alfalfa-based pasture because its content in the meat depends on the amount in the exogenous fatty acids (Iritani et al., 1998; Gondret, 1999). Moreover, linolenic acid present in pasture is in the esterified form in structural lipids, including galactolipids from chloroplasts (Gurr, 1984). Therefore, our findings indicate that the goose digestive system might be able to digest structural lipids or free linolenic acid from galactolipids. Table 6. Effects of pasture intake on fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of breast muscle of geese (n = 6)   Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.33  0.32  0.02  0.87  C14:1  0.05  0.05  0.02  0.97  C15:0  0.11  0.10  0.03  0.89  C15:1  0.07  0.06  0.01  0.61  C16:0  24.8  24.2  0.5  0.51  C16:1n-7  2.44  2.40  0.17  0.75  C17:0  0.13  0.12  0.02  0.86  C18:0  11.8  11.5  0.3  0.83  C18:1 isomers  2.79  2.72  0.11  0.87  C18:1n-9  27.3  26.9  0.7  0.73  C18:2n-6  16.5  16.9  0.5  0.19  C18:3n-3  0.35  0.67  0.03  0.04  C18:3n-6  0.11  0.11  0.02  0.96  C20:0  0.07  0.05  0.03  0.89  C20:1n-9  0.24  0.23  0.04  0.71  C20:2n-6  0.61  0.63  0.09  0.69  C20:3n-3  0.02  0.03  0.01  0.70  C20:3n-6  0.90  0.88  0.08  0.32  C20:4n-6  7.33  7.34  0.41  0.66  C20:5n-3  0.14  0.45  0.05  0.03  C22:2n-6  0.08  0.07  0.02  0.39  C22:4n-6  2.10  2.20  0.18  0.29  C22:5n-3  0.77  0.92  0.08  0.22  C22:6n-3  0.96  1.15  0.13  0.24  Total SFA  37.2  36.3  0.6  0.41  Total MUFA  32.9  32.4  0.7  0.78  Total PUFA  29.9  31.4  0.9  0.11  Total n-3  2.24  3.22  0.19  0.09  Total n-6  27.6  28.1  0.7  0.23  n-6:n-3  12.3  8.7  0.5  0.04  PUFA:SFA  0.80  0.86  0.09  0.18  Atherogenic index  0.42  0.40  0.06  0.51  Thrombogenic index  0.99  0.93  0.06  0.30    Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.33  0.32  0.02  0.87  C14:1  0.05  0.05  0.02  0.97  C15:0  0.11  0.10  0.03  0.89  C15:1  0.07  0.06  0.01  0.61  C16:0  24.8  24.2  0.5  0.51  C16:1n-7  2.44  2.40  0.17  0.75  C17:0  0.13  0.12  0.02  0.86  C18:0  11.8  11.5  0.3  0.83  C18:1 isomers  2.79  2.72  0.11  0.87  C18:1n-9  27.3  26.9  0.7  0.73  C18:2n-6  16.5  16.9  0.5  0.19  C18:3n-3  0.35  0.67  0.03  0.04  C18:3n-6  0.11  0.11  0.02  0.96  C20:0  0.07  0.05  0.03  0.89  C20:1n-9  0.24  0.23  0.04  0.71  C20:2n-6  0.61  0.63  0.09  0.69  C20:3n-3  0.02  0.03  0.01  0.70  C20:3n-6  0.90  0.88  0.08  0.32  C20:4n-6  7.33  7.34  0.41  0.66  C20:5n-3  0.14  0.45  0.05  0.03  C22:2n-6  0.08  0.07  0.02  0.39  C22:4n-6  2.10  2.20  0.18  0.29  C22:5n-3  0.77  0.92  0.08  0.22  C22:6n-3  0.96  1.15  0.13  0.24  Total SFA  37.2  36.3  0.6  0.41  Total MUFA  32.9  32.4  0.7  0.78  Total PUFA  29.9  31.4  0.9  0.11  Total n-3  2.24  3.22  0.19  0.09  Total n-6  27.6  28.1  0.7  0.23  n-6:n-3  12.3  8.7  0.5  0.04  PUFA:SFA  0.80  0.86  0.09  0.18  Atherogenic index  0.42  0.40  0.06  0.51  Thrombogenic index  0.99  0.93  0.06  0.30  1Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. View Large Table 6. Effects of pasture intake on fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of breast muscle of geese (n = 6)   Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.33  0.32  0.02  0.87  C14:1  0.05  0.05  0.02  0.97  C15:0  0.11  0.10  0.03  0.89  C15:1  0.07  0.06  0.01  0.61  C16:0  24.8  24.2  0.5  0.51  C16:1n-7  2.44  2.40  0.17  0.75  C17:0  0.13  0.12  0.02  0.86  C18:0  11.8  11.5  0.3  0.83  C18:1 isomers  2.79  2.72  0.11  0.87  C18:1n-9  27.3  26.9  0.7  0.73  C18:2n-6  16.5  16.9  0.5  0.19  C18:3n-3  0.35  0.67  0.03  0.04  C18:3n-6  0.11  0.11  0.02  0.96  C20:0  0.07  0.05  0.03  0.89  C20:1n-9  0.24  0.23  0.04  0.71  C20:2n-6  0.61  0.63  0.09  0.69  C20:3n-3  0.02  0.03  0.01  0.70  C20:3n-6  0.90  0.88  0.08  0.32  C20:4n-6  7.33  7.34  0.41  0.66  C20:5n-3  0.14  0.45  0.05  0.03  C22:2n-6  0.08  0.07  0.02  0.39  C22:4n-6  2.10  2.20  0.18  0.29  C22:5n-3  0.77  0.92  0.08  0.22  C22:6n-3  0.96  1.15  0.13  0.24  Total SFA  37.2  36.3  0.6  0.41  Total MUFA  32.9  32.4  0.7  0.78  Total PUFA  29.9  31.4  0.9  0.11  Total n-3  2.24  3.22  0.19  0.09  Total n-6  27.6  28.1  0.7  0.23  n-6:n-3  12.3  8.7  0.5  0.04  PUFA:SFA  0.80  0.86  0.09  0.18  Atherogenic index  0.42  0.40  0.06  0.51  Thrombogenic index  0.99  0.93  0.06  0.30    Treatment1      Item  Control  Pasture  SEM  P-value  C14:0  0.33  0.32  0.02  0.87  C14:1  0.05  0.05  0.02  0.97  C15:0  0.11  0.10  0.03  0.89  C15:1  0.07  0.06  0.01  0.61  C16:0  24.8  24.2  0.5  0.51  C16:1n-7  2.44  2.40  0.17  0.75  C17:0  0.13  0.12  0.02  0.86  C18:0  11.8  11.5  0.3  0.83  C18:1 isomers  2.79  2.72  0.11  0.87  C18:1n-9  27.3  26.9  0.7  0.73  C18:2n-6  16.5  16.9  0.5  0.19  C18:3n-3  0.35  0.67  0.03  0.04  C18:3n-6  0.11  0.11  0.02  0.96  C20:0  0.07  0.05  0.03  0.89  C20:1n-9  0.24  0.23  0.04  0.71  C20:2n-6  0.61  0.63  0.09  0.69  C20:3n-3  0.02  0.03  0.01  0.70  C20:3n-6  0.90  0.88  0.08  0.32  C20:4n-6  7.33  7.34  0.41  0.66  C20:5n-3  0.14  0.45  0.05  0.03  C22:2n-6  0.08  0.07  0.02  0.39  C22:4n-6  2.10  2.20  0.18  0.29  C22:5n-3  0.77  0.92  0.08  0.22  C22:6n-3  0.96  1.15  0.13  0.24  Total SFA  37.2  36.3  0.6  0.41  Total MUFA  32.9  32.4  0.7  0.78  Total PUFA  29.9  31.4  0.9  0.11  Total n-3  2.24  3.22  0.19  0.09  Total n-6  27.6  28.1  0.7  0.23  n-6:n-3  12.3  8.7  0.5  0.04  PUFA:SFA  0.80  0.86  0.09  0.18  Atherogenic index  0.42  0.40  0.06  0.51  Thrombogenic index  0.99  0.93  0.06  0.30  1Control = corn-based diet without access to pasture; Pasture = corn-based diet with access to pasture. View Large Eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5n-3; EPA) is a vital component of the retina and the membrane phospholipids of the brain. Consumption of EPA could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (Rymer and Givens, 2005) and the incidence of metabolic syndromes such as obesity, insulin resistance, or type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia (Nugent, 2004). In the present study, pasture intake increased EPA (P < 0.05) content in goose meat. Similar results were obtained by Ponte et al. (2008) who found that the breast meat from broilers with free access to pasture had greater EPA values. Pasture is a poor source of EPA (Ponte et al., 2008); therefore, our data indicate that pasture intake could enhance the endogenous synthesis of EPA. Previous studies reported that linolenic acid was more effectively desaturated and elongated, resulting in greater EPA and the broilers were able to use linolenic acid as a precursor for the synthesis of the EPA (Leece and Allman, 1996; López-Ferrer et al., 2001; Mourǎo et al., 2008; Ponte et al., 2008). Moreover, in the present study, geese in the pasture treatment showed decreased n-6:n-3 ratio (P < 0.05) than geese in the control treatment, which is favorable regarding current human dietary guidelines. The Department of Health and Social Security (1994) reported that a high n-6:n-3 ratio has been found to promote the pathogenesis of many chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular disease. In an attempt to take into account the different effects of the various fatty acids, Ulbricht and Southgate (1991) proposed 2 indices (AGI and TI), which might better characterize the atherogenic and thrombogenic potential of the diet than simple approaches such as total SFA or PUFA:SFA. In the present study, no differences were observed in AGI (P = 0.51) and TI (P = 0.30) between the 2 treatments. Conclusions Pasture intake did not enhance growth performance but improved carcass characteristics and meat quality traits of geese. Moreover, pasture intake showed inhibitory effects on lipid peroxidation in goose meat and increased linolenic acid and EPA contents and reduced n-6:n-3 ratio. Further research needs to be conducted to identify the effects of pasture intake on gene expression of key enzymes related to fat metabolism in geese. LITERATURE CITED Adamski M. 2004. Meat traits and correlations between body measurements and carcass tissue composition of duck strain A44. Acta Sci. Pol. Zoot.  3: 3– 16. American Meat Science Association (AMSA) 1995. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. AMSA and Natl. Livest. Meat Board, Chicago, IL. Andersson K. Andersson I. Essen-Gustavsson B. 1990. Indoor or outdoor management of pigs? Fakta Husdjur nr 12.  Swedish Univ. Agric. Sci., Stockholm, Sweden. AOAC Int 1995. Official methods of analysis.  15th ed. AOAC Int., Washington, DC. Aurousseau B. Bauchart D. Calichon E. Micol D. Priolo A. 2004. Effect of grass or concentrate feeding systems and rate of growth on triglyceride and phospholipids and their fatty acids in the M. longissimus thoracis of lambs. Meat Sci.  66: 531– 541. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Castellini C. Mugnai C. Dal Bosco A. 2002. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci.  60: 219– 225. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Christopherson S. Glass R. L. 1969. Preparation of milk fat methyl esters by alcoholysis in an essential non-alcoholic solution. J. Dairy Sci.  52: 1289– 1290. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Commission Internationale de Léclairage (CIE) 1976. Colorimetry. Publ. 15. Bureau Central de la CIE, Vienna, Austria. Department of Health and Social Security 1994. Nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease (Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 46). H.M. Stationery Office, London, UK. Du M. Cherian G. Stitt P. A. Ahn D. U. 2002. Effect of dietary sorghum cultivars on the storage stability of broiler breast and thigh meat. Poult. Sci.  81: 1385– 1391. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Enfält A. C. Lundstrom K. Hansson I. Lundeheim N. Nystrom P. E. 1997. Effect of outdoor rearing and sire breed (Duroc or Yorkshire) on carcass composition and sensory and technological meat quality. Meat Sci.  45: 1– 15. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Folch J. Lees M. Stanley S. G. H. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem.  226: 497– 509. Google Scholar PubMed  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2010. Livestock primary. http://faostat.fao.org/site/569/default.aspx#ancor. (Accessed 2 July 2012). Ganji S. H. Kamanna A. M. Kashyap M. L. 2003. Niacin and cholesterol: Role in cardiovascular disease (review). J. Nutr. Biochem.  14: 298– 305. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gondret F 1999. La lipogenèse chez le lapin, Importance pour le contrôle de la teneur en lipides de la viande. (In French.) INRA Prod. Anim.  12: 301– 309. Gurr M. I 1984. The chemistry and biochemistry of plant fats and their nutritional importance. In: Wiseman J. editor, Fats in animal nutrition.  Butterworths, London, UK. p. 3– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Hu F. B. Manson J. E. Willett W. C. 2001. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: A critical review. J. Am. Coll. Nutr.  20: 5– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huang Y. X. Miller E. L. 1993. Iron-induced TBARS as an indicator of oxidative stability of fresh chicken meat. In: Colin P. Culioli F. Ricard H. editors, Proc. 11th Eur. Symp.  Quality Poult. Meat. Tours, France. p. 430– 434. Iritani N. Komiya M. Fukuda H. Sugimoto T. 1998. Lipogenic enzyme gene expression is quickly suppressed in rats by a small amount of exogenous polyunsaturated fatty acids. J. Nutr.  128: 967– 972. Google Scholar PubMed  Janicki B. Rosinski A. Elminowska-Wenda G. Bielinska H. Gronek P. 2000. Effect of feeding system (intensive versus semi-intensive) on yield and fatty acid composition of abdominal fat in white Italian geese. J. Appl. Anim. Res.  17: 279– 284. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kerry J. P. Buckley D. J. Morrissey P. A. 2000. Improvement of oxidative stability of beef and lamb with vitamin E. In: Decker E. A. Faustman C. Lopez-Bote C. editors, Antioxidants in muscle foods.  Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. p. 229– 261. Kim T. H. Lee S. M. 2010. The effects of ginseng total saponin, panaxadiol and panaxatriol on ischemia/reperfusion injury in isolated rat heart. Food. Chem. Toxicol.  48: 1516– 1520. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leece E. A. Allman M. A. 1996. The relationships between dietary alpha-linolenic:linoleic acid and rat platelet eicosapentaenoic and arachidonic acids. Br. J. Nutr.  76: 447– 452. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lei S. Van Beek G. 1997. Influence of activity and dietary energy on broiler performance, carcass yield and sensory quality. Br. Poult. Sci.  38: 183– 189. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lewis P. D. Perry G. C. Farmer L. J. Patterson R. L. S. 1997. Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diet and stocking densities typical of UK and “Label Rouge” production systems: I. Performance, behavior and carcass composition. Meat Sci.  45: 501– 516. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu H. W. Dong X. F. Tong J. M. Zhang Q. 2010. Alfalfa polysaccharides improve the growth performance and antioxidant status of heat-stressed rabbits. Livest. Sci.  131: 88– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Liu H. W. Dong X. F. Tong J. M. Zhang Q. 2011. A comparative study of growth performance and antioxidant status of rabbits when fed with or without chestnut tannins under high ambient temperature. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.  164: 89– 95. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Liu H. W. Gai F. Gasco L. Brugiapaglia A. Lussiana C. Guo K. J. Tong J. M. Zoccarato I. 2009. Effects of chestnut tannins on carcass characteristics, meat quality, lipid oxidation and fatty acid composition of rabbits. Meat Sci.  83: 678– 683. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu H. W. Zhou D. W. Tong J. M. Venkata V. 2012. Influence of chestnut tannins on welfare, carcass characteristics, meat quality, and lipid oxidation in rabbits under high ambient temperature. Meat Sci.  90: 164– 169. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu X. P. Ma Z. Wang X. Y. Wang Y. 1994. Studies on Huangqi polysaccharide oral liquid. J. Chin. Med. Mater.  6: 40– 43. López-Ferrer S. Baucells M. D. Barroeta A. C. Grashorn M. A. 2001. n-3 enrichment of chicken meat. 1. Use of very long-chain fatty acids in chicken diets and their influence on meat quality: Fish oil. Poult. Sci.  80: 741– 752. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lu Q. Wen J. Zhang H. 2007. Effect of chronic heat exposure on fat deposition and meat quality in two genetic types of chicken. Poult. Sci.  86: 1059– 1064. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  MacDougall D. B. Rhodes D. N. 1972. Characteristics of the appearance of meat III. Studies on the color of meat from young bulls. J. Sci. Food Agric.  23: 637– 647. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Makkar H. P. S. Bluemmel M. Borowy N. K. Becker K. 1993. Gravimetric determination of tannins and their correlations with chemical and protein precipitation methods. J. Sci. Food Agric.  61: 161– 165. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Maraschiello C. Sarraga C. Garcia Regueiro J. A. 1999. Glutathione peroxidase activity, TBARs, and α-tocopherol in meat from chicken fed different diets. J. Agric. Food Chem.  47: 867– 872. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Maribo H. 1995. Radighedsarealets indflydelse pa ravarekvaliteten. Report No. 01.718/03. (In Danish.) Danish Meat Res. Inst., Roskilde, Denmark. Mourǎo J. L. Pinheiro V. M. Prates J. A. M. Bessa R. J. B. Ferreira L. M. A. Fontes C. M. G. A. Ponte P. I. P. 2008. Effect of dietary dehydrated pasture and citrus pulp on the performance and meat quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci.  87: 733– 743. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nowacka J. Wieslaw O. 1994. Determination of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) saponins by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem.  42: 727– 730. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nugent A. P. 2004. The metabolic syndrome. Nutr. Bull.  29: 36– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   O'Sullivan A. O'Sullivan K. Gavin K. Moloney A. P. Troy D. J. Rerry J. P. 2004. Influence of concentrate composition and forage type on retail packaged beef quality. J. Anim. Sci.  82: 2384– 2391. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ouhayoun J. Dalle Zotte A. 1996. Harmonization in rabbit meat research muscle and meat criteria.  In: Proc. 6th World Rabbit Cong., Toulouse, France. p. 217– 224. Ponte P. I. Alves S. P. Bessa R. J. B. Ferreira L. M. A. Gama L. T. Brás J. L. A. Fontes C. M. G. A. Prates J. A. M. 2008. Influence of pasture intake on the fatty acid composition, and cholesterol, tocopherols, and tocotrienols content in meat from free-range broilers. Poult. Sci.  87: 80– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ramírez J. A. Oliver M. A. Pla M. Guerrero L. Ariňo B. Blasco A. Pascual M. Gil M. 2004. Effect of selection for growth rate on biochemical, quality and texture characteristics of meat from rabbits. Meat Sci.  67: 617– 624. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rosiński A. 2000. Analiza bezpośrednich i skorelowanych efektów selekcji w dwóch rodach gęsi (The analysis of direct and correlated selection effects in two goose strains). (In Polish.) Ph.D. Diss. Agric. Univ. of Poznań, Poznań, Poland. Rymer C. Givens D. I. 2005. n-3 Fatty acids enrichment of edible tissue of poultry: A review. Lipids  40: 121– 130. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Scerra M. Caparra P. Foti F. Galofaro V. Sinatra M. C. Scerra V. 2007. Influence of ewe feeding systems on fatty acid composition of suckling lambs. Meat Sci.  76: 390– 394. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Schiavone A. Guo K. Tassone S. Gasco L. Hernandez E. Denti R. Zoccarato I. 2008. Effects of a natural extract of chestnut wood on digestibility, performance traits, and nitrogen balance of boiler chicks. Poult. Sci.  87: 521– 527. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Simopoulos A. P 2002. The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids. Biomed. Pharmacother.  56: 365– 379. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Simopoulos A. P. 2004. Omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acid ratio and chronic diseases. Food Rev. Int.  20: 77– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sukhija P. S. Palmquist D. L. 1988. Rapid method for determination of total fatty acid content and composition of feedstuffs and faeces. J. Agric. Food Chem.  36: 1202– 1206. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ulbricht T. L. Southgate D. A. 1991. Coronary heart disease: Seven dietary factors. Lancet  338: 985– 992. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Van Soest P. J. Robertson J. B. Lewis B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.  74: 3583– 3597. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang Z. Y. Shi S. R. Zhou Q. Y. Yang H. M. Zou J. M. Zhang K. N. Han H. M. 2010. Response of growing goslings to dietary methionine from 28 to 70 days of age. Br. Poult. Sci.  51: 118– 121. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Warriss P. D. 2000. Meat science: An introductory text. CABI Pub. Inc., New York, NY. Warriss P. D. Brown S. N. 1987. The relationship between initial pH, reflectance and exudation in pig muscle. Meat Sci.  20: 65– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Watanabe A. Daly C. C. Devine C. E. 1996. The effect of ultimate pH of meat on tenderness change during ageing. Meat Sci.  42: 67– 78. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Webb E. C. O'Neill H. A. 2008. The animal fat paradox and meat quality. Meat Sci.  80: 28– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wood J. D. Enser M. 1997. Factors influencing fatty acids in meat and the role of antioxidants in improving meat quality. Br. J. Nutr.  78: S49– S60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Yeh C. T. Yen G. C. 2005. Induction of hepatic antioxidant enzymes by phenolic acids in rats is accompanied by increased levels of multidrug resistance associated protein 3 mRNA expression. J. Nutr.  136: 11– 15. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   American Society of Animal Science
TI - Influence of pasture intake on meat quality, lipid oxidation, and fatty acid composition of geese
JO - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.2527/jas.2012-5854
DA - 2013-02-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/influence-of-pasture-intake-on-meat-quality-lipid-oxidation-and-fatty-qA92PhASS2
SP - 764
EP - 771
VL - 91
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -