## 3 Results and Discussion
### Answering, Moisture Content and Cooking Loss  
The applied methods and heat treatment conditions resulted in different cooking losses and obtained meat samples with different water and anserine contents (Table 3). The highest cooking loss was found in OV90 samples. In the remaining samples, the average values obtained did not significantly differentiate the cooking loss values. As a result of the heat treatment methods used, the cooking loss values ranged from 17 to 27%. The initial water content of raw goose breasts was reduced as a result of the processing methods used, ranging from 7 to 11%. The highest moisture content was found in samples SV10 and OV90 and the lowest in SV4. The moisture content in OV80 was higher than that of SV4 and lower than that of SV10. [PERSON] [38] showed a significant impact of the applied heat treatment of skinless goose breast muscles (sous vide, microwave and stewing) on the cooking loss value, which ranged from 22% (SV) to 43% (stewing). The higher cooking loss that results from SV treatment may result from the use of a higher final temperature compared to our experiment (70 \({}^{\circ}\)C vs. 65 \({}^{\circ}\)C). [PERSON] et al. [30] showed the cooking loss of goose meat resulting from various heat treatments (water bath cooking, grilling, oven convection roasting, pan frying) ranging from 35% to nearly 41%. The authors showed the lowest cooking loss in fried samples (35.71%) and the highest in grilled meat (40.80%) and oven convection roasting (40.50%). [PERSON] and [PERSON] [48] showed differences in the value of cooking loss of breast muscles of Zatorska goose and White Koluda goose at the level of 35.08% and 34.13%, respectively. At the same time, [PERSON] et al. [4] showed that the goose genotype does not significantly differentiate the values of thermal leakage of the breast muscles, but they showed significant differences in the values determining roasting losses. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Raw Meat**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Heat Treatment**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **SV4** & **SV10** & **OV80** & **OV90** \\ \hline Moisture (\%) & 73.36 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 1.93 & 62.92 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\)\(\pm\) 1.26 & 65.02 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 64.38 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 & 64.90 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.46 \\ \hline Cooking loss (\%) & - & 19.44 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 1.24 & 17.73 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.31 & 18.26 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 & 27.35 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 \\ \hline Anserine (mg/100 g) & 237.97 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 7.75 & 248.55 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.58 & 229.28 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.91 & 251.95 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.93 & 249.03 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 8.77 \\ \hline Anserine (mg/100 g dry matter) & 881.66 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 16.86 & 670.37 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\)\(\pm\) 9.65 & 655.47 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\)\(\pm\) 4.75 & 707.34 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 5.42 & 709.55 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)\(\pm\) 24.99 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}   
Culinary losses resulting from the heat treatment of meat largely determine the sensory quality of products, mainly in the area of texture and the feeling of juiciness. The amount of heat loss is determined by the processing temperature used and the final heating temperature. As the temperature increases, collagen and actin denaturise more, resulting in fibre contraction and causing water to be present between the fibres. [PERSON] et al. [49] indicate that the thermal contraction of muscle fibres is associated with two phases. The authors indicate that at a heating temperature from 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the fibre shrinks mainly transversely, while at a temperature from 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C, longitudinal shrinkage occurs. Both types of fibre shrinkage reduce the water-holding capacity (WHIC) of the meat and reduce its juiciness.