# Selecting the quality of mule duck fatty liver based on near-infrared spectroscopy

Christel Marie-Etancelin, Zulma G. Vitezica, Laurent Bonnal, Xavier Fernandez, Denis Bastianelli

► To cite this version:

Christel Marie-Etancelin, Zulma G. Vitezica, Laurent Bonnal, Xavier Fernandez, Denis Bastianelli. Selecting the quality of mule duck fatty liver based on near-infrared spectroscopy. Genetics Selection Evolution, 2014, 46 (1), pp.38. 10.1186/1297-9686-46-38. hal-01341263

HAL Id: hal-01341263

https://hal.science/hal-01341263

Submitted on 4 Jul 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Selecting the quality of mule duck fatty liver based on near-infrared spectroscopy

Christel Marie-Etancelin<sup>1,2,3*</sup>, Zulma G Vitezica<sup>1,2,3</sup>, Laurent Bonnal<sup>4</sup>, Xavier Fernandez<sup>1,2,3</sup> and Denis Bastianelli<sup>4</sup>

## Abstract

**Background:** "Foie gras" is produced predominantly in France and about 90% of the commercialized product is obtained from male mule ducks. The melting rate (percentage of fat released during cooking) is the main criterion used to determine the quality of "foie gras". However, up to now the melting rate could not be predicted without causing liver damage, which means that selection programs could not use this criterion.

**Methods:** Fatty liver phenotypes were obtained for a population of over 1400 overfed male mule ducks. The phenotypes were based on two types of near-infrared spectra (on the liver surface and on ground liver) in order to predict the melting rate and liver composition (ash, dry matter, lipid and protein contents). Genetic parameters were computed in multiple traits with a "sire-dam" model and using a Gibbs sampling approach.

**Results:** The estimates for the genetic parameters show that the measured melting rate and the predicted melting rate obtained with two near-infrared spectrometer devices are genetically the same trait: genetic correlations are very high (ranging from +0.89 to +0.97 depending on the mule duck parental line and the spectrometer) and heritabilities are comparable. The predictions based on the spectra of ground liver samples using a laboratory spectrometer correlate with those based on the surface spectra using a portable spectrometer (from +0.83 to +0.95 for dry matter, lipid and protein content) and are particularly high for the melting rate (higher than +0.95). Although less accurate than the predictions obtained using the spectra of ground liver samples, the phenotypic prediction of the melting rate based on surface spectra is sufficiently accurate to be used by "foie gras" processors.

**Conclusions:** Near-infrared spectrometry is an efficient tool to select liver quality in breeding programs because animals can be ranked according to their liver melting rate without damaging their livers. Thus, these original results will help breeders to select ducks based on the liver melting rate, a crucial criterion that defines the quality of the liver and for which there was previously no accurate predictor.

## Background

France is the main producer of ‘Foie Gras’ and commercializes about 73% of all fatty liver sold in the world. The most valuable product in these production systems is the fatty liver of male mule ducks, which represents 92% of the French fatty liver production. The mule duck is an intergeneric hybrid between a male Muscovy duck (*Cairina moschata*) and a female common duck (*Anas platyrhyncos*). Technically, the quality of fatty liver is measured by the percentage of fat loss during cooking,

which is called "melting rate" and is expected to be as low as possible. The processing yield represents the amount of product remaining after cooking, i.e. 100% minus the melting rate. There is a strong variability in the processing yield of fatty liver from mule ducks even when overfeeding and processing conditions are controlled. This variability is a problem for the industry, mainly because a maximum fat loss during cooking of 30% of the raw liver weight is laid down by French law (Journal Officiel de la République Française, 1993).

The melting rate (MR) and biochemical composition of fatty liver are not easily measured in commercial conditions. Both require either the partial or total destruction of the liver. Traditionally, fatty liver weight has been used as a predictor of MR for the industrial sorting of fatty livers due to its negative relationship with MR.

<footnote>* Correspondence: Christel.Marie-Etancelin@toulouse.inra.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹UMR1388 Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, INRA, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²UMR1388 Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Université de Toulouse INPT ENSAT, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France</footnote>

<footnote>Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
However selection programs cannot be based on this
parameter because it would lead to reduced liver
weights. In addition, liver weight explains only 14% of
the phenotypic variation of MR so its use for selection
would be quite inefficient [1]. Recently, in addition to
the use of the weight of fatty livers, biochemical traits,
such as dry matter and protein content, were measured
and used to predict the processing yield [1]. Such bio-
chemical measures were found to be more accurate pre-
dictors of the processing yield than the liver weight
alone. However, the predictive ability of the model
remained low (R² = 0.43) even when both the biochem-
ical composition and the weight of fatty liver were taken
into account, and the biochemical measures required
partial destruction of the liver.

To date, selection on the melting rate has never been
implemented, although 90% of the price of fatty liver is
based on this trait. Neither fatty liver weight nor
biochemical composition is an adequate phenotype to
rank selection candidates. Under experimental condi-
tions, the heritability estimates obtained for MR (mea-
sured in mule ducks) had intermediate values (0.19 ±
0.04) on the maternal common line and low values
(0.09 ± 0.03) on the paternal Muscovy line [2]. Thus,
selection for MR would be interesting for both parental
mule duck lines.

Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is an analytical
technique based on the absorption of infrared light by
organic matter. Since absorption is linked to the chem-
ical composition of samples, it can be predicted after a
calibration phase. NIRS is widely used to predict the
composition of animal products [3] and for phenotypic
prediction [4-13] in pigs, cows, chicken and waterfowl.
Researchers have investigated dynamic (at-line or on-
line) NIRS applications to qualify a sample *in situ* dur-
ing technological processing (either for meat quality
for pork [14], beef [15] or milk coagulation ability [16])
or offline NIRS applications for genetic variability esti-
mates (either for meat composition or quality in pigs
[17,18], rabbits [19] and cows [20,21] or for milk
coagulation properties [22-24]). For all these experiments,
NIRS appeared as a suitable alternative to classical analyt-
ical procedures. Generally, the NIRS equipment used in
these studies were laboratory spectrometers measuring
ground samples. Portable spectrometers with a separate
probe for spectrum acquisition directly on the product
surface are an alternative but their use is still limited
[8]. The aim of this study was to compare genetic
parameter estimates (in both parental lines) for the
melting rate of duck fatty liver as measured by either
the reference method or predicted using various NIRS
technologies (offline on ground samples in the labora-
tory or at-line on intact livers) in order to select paren-
tal lines.

Methods

The present study was carried out in agreement with
the French National Guidelines for the care and use of ani-
mals for research purposes (Certificate no. 7740, Ministry
of Agriculture and Fish Products, Paris, France).

Animals

A total of 1552 male mule ducks were hatched over a
two-year period. For both years, about 800 mule ducks
were produced in two pedigree batches of 400 ducklings
at the INRA Experimental Farm for Waterfowl Breeding
(INRA-UEPFG, France). The mule ducks were hybrids
between two experimental populations: 382 female back-
cross (BC) common ducks (*Anas Platyrhynchos*) and 56
Muscovy drakes (*Cairina moschata*).

For each year and hatch, mule ducklings were bred in
eight batches of about 50 animals. From hatching to
10 weeks of age, mule ducks were fed *ad libitum* with a
commercial diet. From 10 to 12 weeks of age, duck were
feed-restricted by 30 g/d per duck and then put back on
a *ad libitum* diet at the beginning of the 12th week. At
12 weeks of age, ducks were bred for 12 days in collect-
ive cages of four or five individuals and were overfed
twice a day with a mix (35% corn-flour, 25% corn-grain
and 40% water), in two successive series of 200 animals
with two different force-feeders. At the end of the over-
feeding period (92 or 94 days of age according to series),
animals were slaughtered by severing the neck blood
vessels after electrical stunning. Mule ducks were bled,
plucked, and cooled to 4°C. Twenty four hours after
slaughter, the fatty livers were extracted from the car-
casses. Due to mortality (3.5%) and bleeding liver
problems (0.4%), fatty livers were collected for 1492 mule
ducks. Subsequent analysis was performed on livers
weighing between 300 g and 830 g (1422 fatty livers) in
order to be consistent with the range of weights of com-
mercialized livers.

Analytical measurements

On the day of liver extraction, the fatty liver melting rate
was measured on all livers by a cooking test as the per-
centage of fat released after sterilization (65 min at
105°C) of 60 g of liver. A round slice (40 mm diameter)
was removed from each raw liver and two other samples
(about 20 g per sample) were ground. All samples were
stored at –20°C prior to spectrometric and biochemical
analyses. In addition, a subset of 198 liver samples, se-
lected for the development of NIRS calibration equations,
were analyzed using the reference biochemical laboratory
methods: lipid content using cold chloroform/methanol
extraction [25], dry matter after desiccation of the liver for
24 h in a drying oven at 103°C [26], ash content in a muf-
fle furnace at 550°C [27] and protein content by wet
mineralization (Kjeldhal method) [28].
## Spectral measurements

Two types of reflectance spectrometry measurements were performed. A first measurement was performed directly on the fatty liver surface immediately after liver extraction (at 24 h post mortem) using a portable ASD Labspec Pro spectrometer (wavelength range: 350–2500 nm) with a “contact probe” module. Six spectra were collected for each fatty liver and the average value was used for the calibration. A second set of measurements was performed in the laboratory on ground liver samples presented in quartz cells using a FOSS NIRSystems 6500 (wavelength range: 400–2500 nm). Each sample was measured three times (three different aliquots of the same sample) and the average spectrum was used for the subsequent calibration. Spectral data were processed using WINISI software (Infrasoft Int., Port Matilda, Pennsylvania, USA). The visible wavelengths of the spectrum were discarded to avoid hypersensitive models in which differences in color unrelated to liver composition and melting rate were taken into account. The wavelengths used were 800 to 2500 nm. Several statistical pre-processing steps [29] were tested such as combining the order of derivation (0, 1 or 2), varying the number of data points for smoothing and derivation (0, 5, 10, 15 or 20 data points) and mathematical treatment (normalization, detrending and multiplicative scatter correction). The best results (lowest cross-validation errors during calibration) were obtained with the first derivative (calculated on 10 data points) combined with smoothing (5 data points) on normalized spectra (SNV = standard normal variate).

The NIRS calibration database consisted of 198 liver samples that were selected in order to represent the spectral variability of the total set of ground samples measured using the FOSS spectrometer and characterized by analytical measurements previously described. For each spectrometer, the calibration equations were developed for melting rate (MR) and for dry matter (DM), ash content (AC), lipid content (Lip) and protein content (Prot) as reported by Bastianelli et al. [30]. In the WINISI software, the procedure of representative sample selection is based on PCA (Principal Component Analysis). The calibration equations were obtained by Partial Least Square (PLS) regression. A cross-validation was performed on five groups during the calibration process: calibration was performed on four groups and then applied to the remaining group; this process was repeated five times and the average error was calculated (SECV, Standard Error of Cross-Validation). Then the calibration equations were validated against the 1224 samples (i.e. 1422 minus 198) that were not used for calibration and formed an external dataset. Hence the predictive ability of the equation can be estimated on new samples. The resulting prediction error (SEP, Standard Error of Prediction) was calculated.

## Statistical analysis

The traits analyzed were the measured melting rate (mMR) of the liver, and liver attributes, respectively, predicted using FOSS and ASD spectrometers, such as the melting rate (pMR-FOSS and pMR-ASD, respectively), dry matter (pDM-FOSS and pDM-ASD, respectively), the ash content (pAC-FOSS and pAC-ASD, respectively), lipid content (pLip-FOSS and pLip-ASD, respectively) and protein content (pProt-FOSS and pProt-ASD, respectively). According to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test at 5%, these 11 traits were normally distributed.

Genetic parameters were estimated by combining pedigree information from both parental populations (common and Muscovy) and from mule duck performances, using the model of Lo et al. [31]:

$$[\mathbf{y}_C] = [\mathbf{X}_C] \times [\mathbf{b}_C] + [\mathbf{Z}_{AC}\mathbf{Z}_{BC}] \times [\mathbf{u}_{AC}] + [\mathbf{e}_C]$$

where $\mathbf{y}_C$ is the vector of observations for crossbreds (1422 mule ducks); $\mathbf{b}_C$ the vector of systematic effects for the combination of year, batch and force-feeder effects (12 levels); $\mathbf{u}_{AC}$ ($\mathbf{u}_{BC}$) the additive genetic effects of the common dams (Muscovy sires) of mule ducks, as expressed in the phenotypes of the mule ducks (population C); $\mathbf{e}_C$ the vector of residual effects; and $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$ the incidence matrices relating the observations to the corresponding effects. We stress that $\mathbf{e}_C$ contains the Mendelian sampling of crossbred animals, as well as the “true” residual environmental effects. In short, the model substitutes the genetic effect of the crossbred with half the breeding value of their parents, plus a Mendelian sampling. Pedigrees were traced back up to five generations of ancestors for both parental lines and consisted of 596 animals in the common line and 201 animals in the Muscovy line. Multiple trait genetic parameters were estimated by Gibbs sampling using the program “gibbs1f90” [32]. Flat priors were used for variances and covariance. The variance and covariance components of given averages were respectively equal to 1 and 0.01. A total chain length of 100 000 iterations was run and 20 000 samples were discarded as burn-in.

The heritability estimates are the ratio between the paternal variance (versus the maternal variance) and the total variance for the Muscovy parental line (versus the common parental line). These estimates cannot be considered as “real” heritabilities of mule ducks but rather as “partial” heritabilities.

## Results

### Measured and predicted melting rates

The characteristics of calibration equations for the melting rate are reported in Table 1. For the FOSS spectrometer, the coefficient of determination ($R^2$) of the calibration
<table><caption>**Table 1 Characteristics of calibration equations for measured melting rate (mMR) obtained with FOSS and ASD spectrometers**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">Calibration N = 198</th><th colspan="3">Validation N = 1224</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SEC</th><th>R<sup>2</sup></th><th>SECV</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SEP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FOSS</td><td>35.6</td><td>14.7</td><td>5.34</td><td>0.87</td><td>6.07</td><td>39.2</td><td>11.9</td><td>6.56</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>35.6</td><td>14.7</td><td>5.69</td><td>0.85</td><td>6.52</td><td>39.2</td><td>11.9</td><td>7.12</td></tr></tbody></table>

equation was high for the melting rate (0.87). The prediction error, estimated by SECV, was also quite high (6.07%) but sufficient to rank samples given the high variability of the melting rate in the population (SD = 14.7%). With the ASD spectrometer, the R² value was only 0.02 points lower than with the FOSS spectrometer; the SECV value was therefore slightly higher (7%). The external validation process on 1224 samples confirmed the predictive ability of NIRS with SEP values that were close to SECV values for both spectrometers. An interesting point is that the measurements performed with the ASD spectrometer on intact livers taken immediately after liver extraction resulted in a good prediction of the melting rate. This result is consistent with the results obtained for the biochemical composition of livers in the same conditions [30].

The FOSS and ASD spectrometers provided similar estimated heritabilities within the parental lines (Table 2) since the differences between spectrometers (from 0.01 to 0.02) were lower than credibility intervals (from 0.03 to 0.04). The melting rate heritabilities estimated using NIRS ranged from 0.18 to 0.20 in the common line and from 0.11 to 0.12 in the Muscovy line. These results are fully comparable with the heritability estimates based on measured melting rates which were equal to 0.20 ± 0.03 in the common line and 0.10 ± 0.03 in the Muscovy line. It is worth noting that heritability values tended to be lower in the Muscovy line than in the common line.

The genetic correlations between the different melting rates (measured and predicted with FOSS and ASD spectrometers) are in Table 3. For the common line, correlations ranged from +0.89 to +0.95 and for the Muscovy line, all estimates were equal to +0.97. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the melting rate traits measured or predicted (either with ground samples and a FOSS spectrometer or on intact samples at slaughter

<table><caption>**Table 2 Heritabilities (and standard deviation) for measured and predicted melting rates using two NIRS spectrometers (ASD, FOSS) in both parental lines**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Common line</th><th>Muscovy line</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>mMR</td><td>0.20 (0.03)</td><td>0.10 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td>pMR- FOSS</td><td>0.20 (0.03)</td><td>0.12 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>pMR-ASD</td><td>0.18 (0.03)</td><td>0.11 (0.04)</td></tr></tbody></table>

mMR = measured melting rate; pMR-FOSS = melting rate predicted by FOSS; pMR-ASD = melting rate predicted by ASD.

<table><caption>**Table 3 Genetic correlations (and standard deviation) for different melting rates in both parental lines**</caption><thead><tr><th>Line</th><th></th><th>pMR-FOSS</th><th>pMR-ASD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Common</td><td>mMR</td><td>+0.89 (0.03)</td><td>+0.93 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td>pMR-FOSS</td><td></td><td>+0.95 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Muscovy</td><td>mMR</td><td>+0.97 (0.02)</td><td>+0.97 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>pMR-FOSS</td><td></td><td>+0.97 (0.03)</td></tr></tbody></table>

mMR = measured melting rate; pMR-FOSS = melting rate predicted by FOSS; pMR-ASD = melting rate predicted by ASD.

with the ASD spectrometer) are genetically the same trait. In addition, the ranking of the selection candidates was the same (Spearsman's rank correlations greater than 0.90), regardless of the melting rate trait used to estimate breeding values.

## Biochemical parameters

The heritabilities estimated for biochemical parameters (Table 4) using FOSS and ASD spectrometers were lower than those for the melting rate in both parental lines, but differences were particularly pronounced in the common line. The heritability estimates for the liver ash content were null (values of 0.01 ± 0.01 regardless of the line and spectrometer). As observed for the melting rate, heritability values tended to be lower in the Muscovy line than in the common line, whatever the trait.

The genetic correlations between a biochemical trait predicted with the FOSS spectrometer and the same trait predicted with the ASD spectrometer are in Table 4. For the common line, correlations ranged from +0.87 to +0.95 and for the Muscovy line estimates were a little smaller (from +0.81 to +0.96). Except for dry matter, the correlations between both predictions for biochemical traits were lower than correlations for liver melting rate (0.95 and 0.97 for the common and Muscovy lines, respectively).

The genetic correlations between the measured melting rate and the biochemical traits predicted using either the FOSS or the ASD spectrometer (Table 4) were high and similar for both parental lines, ranging in absolute value from 0.81 to 0.95 for the common line and from 0.82 to 0.96 for the Muscovy line.

## Discussion

The R² value obtained here for the melting rate predicted with the FOSS spectrometer is high (0.87), ranging between the R² value for lipid (0.93) and protein contents (0.78) [30]. It is higher than the R² value for milk processing traits predicted using Mid-InfraRed (MIR) spectroscopy [22], which range from 0.61 to 0.69 for the rennet coagulation time and from 0.46 to 0.52 for curd firmness. Different factors contribute to the lower performance of the ASD spectrometer for fatty liver predictions (R² = 0.85) compared to the FOSS
<table><caption>Table 4 Heritabilities and genetic correlations (and their standard deviation) for liver composition traits predicted using two NIRS spectrometers (ASD, FOSS) and melting rates in both parental lines</caption><thead><tr><th>Line</th><th>pDM-FOSS</th><th>pDM-ASD</th><th>pAC-FOSS</th><th>pAC-ASD</th><th>pLip-FOSS</th><th>pLip-ASD</th><th>pProt-FOSS</th><th>pProt-ASD</th><th>mMR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="8">Common</td><td>pDM-FOSS</td><td>0.12 (0.03)</td><td>+0.95 (0.03)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>+0.90 (0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>pDM-ASD</td><td></td><td>0.15 (0.03)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>+0.89 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>pAC-FOSS</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.01 (0.01)</td><td>+0.94 (0.03)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.95 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>pAC-ASD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.01 (0.01)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.87 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>pLip-FOSS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.14 (0.03)</td><td>+0.87 (0.05)</td><td></td><td>+0.84 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>pLip-ASD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.12 (0.03)</td><td></td><td>+0.81 (0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>pProt-FOSS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.13 (0.03)</td><td>+0.93 (0.03)</td><td>-0.89 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>pProt-ASD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11 (0.03)</td><td>-0.91 (0.07)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Muscovy</td><td>pDM-FOSS</td><td>0.08 (0.03)</td><td>+0.96 (0.03)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>+0.90 (0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>pDM-ASD</td><td></td><td>0.09 (0.03)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>+0.83 (0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>pAC-FOSS</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.01 (0.01)</td><td>+0.81 (0.10)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.88 (0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>pAC-ASD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.01 (0.01)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.82 (0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>pLip-FOSS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.07 (0.03)</td><td>+0.83 (0.10)</td><td></td><td>+0.95 (0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>pLip-ASD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.07 (0.03)</td><td></td><td>+0.90 (0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>pProt-FOSS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.07 (0.03)</td><td>+0.87 (0.07)</td><td>-0.96 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>pProt-ASD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.07 (0.03)</td><td>-0.88 (0.09)</td></tr></tbody></table>

pDM-FOSS: dry matter predicted by FOSS; pDM-ASD: dry matter predicted by ASD; pAC-FOSS: ash content predicted by FOSS; pAC-ASD: ash content predicted by ASD; pLip-FOSS: lipid content predicted by FOSS; pLip-ASD: lipid content predicted by ASD; pProt-FOSS: protein content predicted by FOSS; pProt-ASD: protein content predicted by AS; mMR: measured melting rate.

spectrum: the conditions of spectrum collection (in particular a more constant ambient temperature in the laboratory than in the slaughterhouse), artefacts due to the presence of condensed water on the liver surface, and finally the optic fiber probe used with the ASD spectrometer that might decrease its accuracy [18]. Nevertheless, the differences in the accuracy of the two spectrometer techniques is lower than that reported by Marie-Etancelin et al. [33] for the composition of duck breast meat. Some experiments conducted on the use of NIRS on the surface of beef meat to predict quality traits [8] led to the conclusion that it was possible to predict meat color but that NIRS correlations for physical or sensory traits were too low and resulted in irrelevant predictions. In our study, and in contrast with Prieto et al. [8] or to a lesser extent with Cecchinato et al. [22], the processing yield obtained with the ASD spectrometer on the surface of fatty liver is sufficient to predict phenotypic values for the melting rate. The melting rate seems to be an exception among processing traits because it is predicted correctly using a NIRS surface measurement. This could be due to the correlation of MR with the biochemical composition of fatty liver (R² of 0.58 between MR and fat content).

Genetic parameters of mule fatty liver traits were estimated for each parental population and we observed that, whatever the trait, the standard deviations of genetic correlations were higher in the Muscovy line than in the common line. A similar trend was observed for all

traits studied in the same dataset [2]. The smaller number of animals in the Muscovy pedigree (compared to the common line) could explain the lower accuracy of the correlations. In addition, heritability values were clearly higher in the common population compared to the Muscovy line (with differences ranging from 0.02 to 0.10 points depending on the trait) but the genetic correlations were similar. These differences in heritability of traits depending on the parental line have already been reported by [34] for carcass and muscle weight and by [2] for the vast majority (but not all) of the 37 mule ducks traits studied.

Considering that the mule ducks were full-sibs on the dam's side and a mix between full- and half-sibs on the sire's side, the partial heritability estimates should be multiplied by 2 in the common population and by a value between 2 and 4 in the Muscovy population. Thus, the differences in heritability between the parental populations were greatly reduced. Nevertheless, as discussed in [2], two hypotheses can be proposed: either there is a real difference between the genetic determinism of the two parental lines, or the maternal or family effect is absorbed in the additive genetic effect of the female duck resulting in artificially overestimated heritabilities in the maternal common line.

To compare our heritability estimates with previously published values, we must consider that, due to the "sire-dam" model used, the total genetic variability of mule traits was divided into the paternal and the
maternal lines, the sire and the dam accounting for a ratio between a quarter to a half of the additive variance of the trait. Since additive genetic correlations between predicted and measured melting rates were higher than 0.89, we concluded that NIRS is a useful criteria to select MR in breeding programs. Studies on the genetic determination of quality traits predicted by NIRS are scarce, and are mostly related to the composition of meat and very rarely to the processing capacity of products. Only Cecchinato et al. [21] published results for predicting cooking losses of beef meat with NIRS, and concluded that NIRS could not be used to predict traits because R² was low and the heritability and genetic correlations with physical analysis were close to zero. However, Cecchinato et al. [22] demonstrated that the rennet coagulation time of cow milk could be selected using MIR spectra. Our genetic study on the melting rate of fatty liver - the main processing trait for the fatty liver industry - is therefore original and moreover leads to relevant results particularly for the selection of ducks.

The genetic correlation between the predictions of the
melting rate with the two spectrometers is very high
(>0.95); the correlations with the measured melting rate
are also very strong. Thus, we conclude that predictions
using the ASD spectrometer, which preserve the fatty
liver integrity and is the only operational spectrometry
technique that can be used under industrial conditions,
will enable effective selection based on the fatty liver
melting rate. Moreover, the genetic correlations between
the measured melting rate and each of the predicted bio-
chemical parameters are equal or lower than the genetic
correlations between the measured melting rate and its
NIRS predictions. If all 'biochemical' phenotypes associ-
ated (correlated) with measured melting rate were com-
bined in a single predictor of melting rate, the accuracy
of this predictor could be obtained using the Selection
Index theory [35]. This accuracy reached +0.92 for the
common line and +0.91 for the Muscovy line using the
biochemical measurements [33]. In the present study,
accuracies using ASD spectrometer measures were a lit-
tle higher: +0.93 for the common line and +0.97 for the
Muscovy line. Moreover, developing NIRS prediction
equations to predict the biochemical analyses and esti-
mating the accuracy of MR prediction are more complex
and expensive than developing NIRS prediction equa-
tions directly from melting rate measurements.

Conclusions

This study shows that the melting rate predicted on un-
damaged products using an at-line ASD spectrometer is
similar to that obtained on ground samples using an off-
line FOSS spectrometer. The NIRS predictions and the
measured melting rate are the same trait. From a genetic
point of view, selection on the fatty liver melting rate is

now possible using NIRS technology. In breeding pro-
grams, the ASD spectrometer seems to be a more appro-
priate support because spectra are collected directly in
the slaughterhouse and the fatty liver, a valuable product,
is not damaged. From a commercial point of view,
NIRS-based predictions can be used to evaluate melting
rates and adapt the process to the quality of fatty livers
while maintaining liver integrity.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors were involved in the conception of the study. CME designed the experiment with the participation of XF. CME obtained the funds required to perform the study. CME and ZGV performed the genetic analyses and drafted the manuscript. DB and LB collected the spectra and computed the NIRS predictions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR, Paris), the Scientific Group for avian genome analysis (AGENAVI) and the Aquitaine and Midi-Pyrénées regional councils for funding the GeneCan project. Authors thank MD Bernadet (INRA, France) for her help in the implementation of the animal design, and H Manse (ENSAT, France) for the assays of the liver composition.

Author details

¹UMR1388 Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, INRA, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France. ²UMR1388 Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Université de Toulouse INPT ENSAT, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France. ³UMR1388 Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Université de Toulouse INPT ENVT, F-31076 Toulouse, France. ⁴UMR112 Systèmes d'Elevage Méditerranéens Et Tropicaux, CIRAD, Montpellier F34 398, France.

Received: 23 October 2013 Accepted: 28 April 2014

Published: 10 June 2014

**References**

1. Theron L, Cullere M, Bouillier-Oudot M, Manse H, Dalle Zotte A, Molette C, Fernandez X, Vitezica ZG: Modeling the relationships between quality and biochemical composition of fatty liver in mule ducks. *J Anim Sci* 2012, 90:3312–3317.

2. Marie-Etancelin C, Basso B, Davail S, Gontier K, Fernandez X, Vitezica ZG, Bastianelli D, Baeza E, Bernadet MD, Guy G, Brun JM, Legarra A: Genetic parameters of product quality and hepatic metabolism in fattened mule ducks. *J Anim Sci* 2010, 89:669–679.

3. Bock JE, Connelly RK: Innovative uses of near-infrared spectroscopy in food processing. *J Food Sci* 2008, 73:91–98.

4. Molette C, Berzaghi P, Zotte AD, Remignon H, Babile R: The use of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy in the prediction of the chemical composition of goose fatty liver. *Poult Sci* 2001, 80:1625–1629.

5. Berzaghi P, Dalle Zotte A, Jansson LM, Andrighetto I: Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy as a method to predict chemical composition of breast meat and discriminate between different n-3 feeding sources. *Poult Sci* 2005, 84:128–136.

6. Locsmandi L, Kover G, Bazar G, Szabo A, Romvari R: Development of a model using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for the determination of the chemical composition of fatty goose liver. *Acta Alimentatia* 2006, 35:455–463.

7. Tejerina D, Lopez-Parra MM, Garcia-Torres S: Potential used of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to predict meat physico-chemical composition of guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) reared under different production systems. *Food Chem* 2009, 113:1290–1296.

8. Prieto N, Ross DW, Navajas EA, Nute GR, Richardson RI, Hyslop JJ, Simm G, Roehe R: On-line application of visible and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to predict chemical-physical and sensory characteristics of beef quality. *Meat Sci* 2009, 83:96–103.

9. Bastianelli D, Bonnal L, Chartrin P, Bernadet MD, Marie-Etancelin C, Baeza E: Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for predicting lipid content in
duck breast meat. In *Proceedings of the 19th European Symposium on the Quality of Poultry Meat*. Turku, Finland: Finnish Branch of World's Poultry Science Association; 2009.

10. Gjerlaug-Enger E, Kongsro J, Aass L, Odegard J, Vangen O: Prediction of fat quality in pig carcasses by near-infrared spectroscopy. *Animal* 2011, **5**:1829-1841.

11. Riovanto R, De Marchi M, Cassandro M, Penasa M: Use of near infrared transmittance spectroscopy to predict fatty acid composition of chicken meat. *Food Chem* 2012, **134**:2459-2464.

12. Zhou LJ, Wu H, Li JT, Wang ZY, Zhang LY: Determination of fatty acids in broiler breast meat by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. *Meat Sci* 2012, **90**:658-664.

13. Kapper C, Klont RE, Verdonk JM, Urlings HA: Prediction of pork quality with near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS): 1. Feasibility and robustness of NIRS measurements at laboratory scale. *Meat Sci* 2012, **91**:294-299.

14. Kapper C, Klont RE, Verdonk JM, Williams PC, Urlings HA: Prediction of pork quality with near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) 2. Feasibility and robustness of NIRS measurements under production plant conditions. *Meat Sci* 2012, **91**:300-305.

15. De Marchi M, Penasa M, Cecchinato A, Bittante G: The relevance of different near infrared technologies and sample treatments for predicting meat quality traits in commercial beef cuts. *Meat Sci* 2013, **93**:329-335.

16. De Marchi M, Fagan CC, O'donnell CP, Cecchinato A, Dal Zotto R, Cassandro M, Penasa M, Bittante G: Prediction of coagulation properties, titrable acidity, and pH of bovine milk using mid-infrared spectroscopy. *J Dairy Sci* 2009, **92**:423-432.

17. Fernandez A, De Pedro E, Nunez N, Silio L, Garcia-Casco J, Rodriguez C: Genetic parameters for meat and fat quality and carcass composition traits in Iberian pigs. *Meat Sci* 2003, **64**:405-410.

18. Gjerlaug-Enger E, Aass L, Odegard J, Kongsro J, Vangen O: Genetic parameters of fat quality in pigs measured by near-infrared spectroscopy. *Animal* 2011, **5**:1495-1505.

19. Zomeno C, Hernandez P, Blasco A: Use of near infrared spectroscopy for intramuscular fat selection in rabbits. *World Rabbit Sci* 2011, **19**:203-208.

20. Cecchinato A, De Marchi M, Penasa M, Casellas J, Schiavon S, Bittante G: Genetic analysis of beef fatty acid composition predicted by near-infrared spectroscopy. *J Anim Sci* 2012, **90**:429-438.

21. Cecchinato A, De Marchi M, Penasa M, Albera A, Bittante G: Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy predictions as indicator traits in breeding programs for enhanced beef quality. *J Anim Sci* 2011, **89**:2687-2695.

22. Cecchinato A, De Marchi M, Gallo L, Bittante G, Carnier P: Mid-infrared spectroscopy predictions as indicator traits in breeding programs for enhanced coagulation properties of milk. *J Dairy Sci* 2009, **92**:5304-5313.

23. Soyeurt H, Misztal I, Gengler N: Genetic variability of milk components based on mid-infrared spectral data. *J Dairy Sci* 2010, **93**:1722-1728.

24. Soyeurt H, Colinet FG, Arnould VMR, Dardenne P, Bertozzi C, Renaville R, Portetelle D, Gengler N: Genetic variability of lactoferrin content estimated by mid-infrared spectrometry in bovine milk. *J Dairy Sci* 2007, **90**:4443-4450.

25. Folch J, Lees M, Sloane Stanley GH: A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. *J Biol Chem* 1957, **226**:497-509.

26. Journal Officiel des Communautés Européennes: Dosage de l'humidité. Luxembourg: Eur-Op News; 1971:L279/8.

27. Officiel des Communautés Européennes: Dosage des cendres brutes. Luxembourg: Eur-Op News; 1971:L155/20.

28. Verdow H, Van Echteld CJA, Dekkers EMJ: Ammonia determination based on indophenol formation with sodium salicylate. *Water Res* 1977, **12**:399-402.

29. Naes T, Isaksson T, Fearn T, Davies T: Scatter correction of spectroscopic data. In *A user friendly guide to multivariate calibration and classification*. Chichester: NIR Publications; 2002:105-125.

30. Bastianelli D, Fernandez X, Bernadet MD, Manse H, Bonnal L, Marie-Etancelin C: Comparison of two spectra acquisition conditions for the evaluation of genetic parameters of duck fatty liver quality. In *Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Near Infrared Spectroscopy: 13-20 may 2011, Cape Town*. Edited by Manley M, McGoverin CM, Thomas DB, Downey G. 2011:328-330.

31. Lo LL, Fernando RL, Grossman M: Genetic evaluation by BLUP in two-breed terminal crossbreeding systems under dominance. *J Anim Sci* 1997, **75**:2877-2884.

32. Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Strabel T, Auvray B, Druet T, Lee DH: BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). In *Proceedings of the 7th World Congress Genetics Applied Livestock Production: 19-23 August 2002; Montpellier*. 2002. http://nce.ads.uga.edu/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=28-07.pdf.

33. Marie-Etancelin C, Fernandez X, Baeza E, Bonnal L, Bernadet MD, Manse H, Chartrin P, Bastianelli D: Genetic parameters of fatty liver and breast muscle composition predicted by near-infrared spectroscopy. In *Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production: 1-6 August 2010; Leipzig*. 2010. http://www.kongressband.de/wcgalp2010/assets/pdf/0779.pdf.

34. Chapuis H, Larzul C: How to estimate simultaneously genetic parameters in parental Pekin and Muscovy duck lines using overfed mule ducks performances. In *Proceedings of the 8th World Congress Genetics Applied Livestock Production*. 2006. 13-18 August 2006; Belo Horizonte. com 07-08.

35. Van Vleck LD: *Selection Index and Introduction to Mixed Model Methods*. Madison: CRC Press; 1993.

doi:10.1186/1297-9686-46-38

Cite this article as: Marie-Etancelin et al.: Selecting the quality of mule duck fatty liver based on near-infrared spectroscopy. *Genetics Selection Evolution* 2014 **46**:38.

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of:

• Convenient online submission

• Thorough peer review

• No space constraints or color figure charges

• Immediate publication on acceptance

• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar

• Research which is freely available for redistribution

Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit

BioMed Central