Influence of duck species and cross-breeding on sensory and quality characteristics of Alabio and Cihateup duck meat

Figures & data

Table 1. Total fat content (mean ± SD) and fatty acid composition (% on total FA) of thigh duck meat.

Tabla 1. Contenido total de grasa (promedio ± SD) y composición de ácidos grasos (% en el total de FA) en muslos de carne de pato.

	Duck type^1
	AA	CC	AC	CA
Item	%
Total fat (%)	7.08^b ± 0.031	7.35^a ± 0.012	6.98^c ± 0.042	6.46^d ± 0.033
Fatty acids
Saturated fatty acids (SFA)
C10:0 (capric acid)	0.05	0.07	0.04	0.03
C12:0 (lauric acid)	0.64	0.82	0.54	0.53
C14:0 (myristic acid)	0.69	0.85	0.65	0.63
C16:0 (palmitic acid)	18.30	19.89	18.39	18.22
C18:0 (stearic acid)	4.44	4.98	4.09	3.89
C20:0 (arachidic acid)	0.10	0.12	0.11	0.09
C22:0 (behenic acid)	–	–	0.02	0.02
Total SFA	24.22^b	26.71^c	23.83^a	23.42^a
Unsaturated fatty acids (UFA)
C14:1 (myristoleic acid)	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.04
C16:1 (palmitoleic acid)	1.86	1.83	1.94	2.20
C18:1 (oleic acid)	34.32^b	35.02^c	32.40^a	37.97^d
C18:2 (linoleic acid)	14.07^b	14.91^b	13.71^a	15.21^c
C18:3 (linolenic acid)	0.56^c	0.50^b	0.47^a	0.53^b
C20:1 (gondoic acid)	0.21	0.22	0.21	0.23
C20:4 (arachidonic acid)	0.22	0.33	0.42	0.42
Total UFA	51.28^b	52.85^b	49.20^a	56.61^c
SFA/UFA	2.12	1.98	2.06	2.42

Notes: ¹ AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC [Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀], and the crossbreeding of AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

^a–d Means within the row with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

FA, fatty acids; SFA/UFA, saturated fatty acid to unsaturated fatty acid ratio.

SD, standard deviation.

¹ AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC [Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀] y el cruce AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

^a–d Los promedios en una misma fila con la misma letra no son significativamente distintos (P < 0,05).

FA, ácidos grasos; SFA/UFA, ácidos grasos saturados entre la proporción de ácidos grasos no saturados.

SD, desviación estándar.

Table 2. Hedonic scale for duck thigh meat evaluated by the consumer sensory panel (mean ± SD).

Tabla 2. Escala hedónica para muslo de carne de pato evaluado por el panel sensorial del consumidor (promedio ± SD).

	Sensory attribute^2
Duck type^1	Aroma	Taste
AA	4.5^a ± 0.02	4.9 ± 0.10
CC	4.7^b ± 0.35	5.0 ± 0.15
AC	5.0^c ± 0.04	5.0 ± 0.08
CA	4.7^d ± 0.07	4.9 ± 1.14

Notes: ¹ AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC[Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀], and the crossbreeding of AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

² Hedonic scale: 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = very like.

^a–d Means within the column with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

SD, standard deviation.

¹ AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC[Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀] y el cruce AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

² Escala hedónica: 1 = no gustó nada y 9 = gustó mucho.

^a–d Los promedios en la misma columna con la misma letra no son significativamente distintos (P < 0,05).

SD, desviación estándar.

Figure 1. Sensory profiles of duck thigh meat based on quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA).Notes: AA [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], and the crossbreeding of AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

Figura 1. Perfiles sensoriales del muslo de carne de pato basados en el análisis cuantitativo descriptivo (QDA).AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC[Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀] y el cruce AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

Figure 2. The connection of the off-odor quality attributes of meat based on the principal component analysis (PCA) biplot.Notes: AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC[Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀], and the crossbreeding of AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].

Figura 2. La conexión de los atributos cualitativos de ranciedad de la carne basada en el análisis de los componentes principales (PCA) de diagrama de dispersión biespacial.AA [Alabio ♂ × Alabio ♀], CC[Cihateup ♂ × Cihateup ♀] y el cruce de AC [Alabio ♂ × Cihateup ♀], CA [Cihateup ♂ × Alabio ♀].