# Selenium Content of Goose Breast Meat Depending on the Type of Heat Processing
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Cooking Loss  
Cooking loss results from the extraction of liquid and soluble components from the meat during the cooking process. The total amount of cooking loss is influenced by the temperature and rate of heating applied [12]. In our study (Table 1), both the type of muscle (with or without skin) and the type of heat processing used significantly (\(p\leq 0.01\)) affected cooking loss in goose breast muscles. Significantly higher CLs characterised muscles with skin than without skin (45.4 vs. 36.3%) in all heat processing methods. This is because goose meat, which belongs to waterful, contains significant amounts of subcutaneous and intramuscular fat that are lost during heat treatment. Similarly, other authors [9; 20] found significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) greater CL in the pectoral muscles of White Koluda goose with skin than without skin. In our study, we also observed a significant (\(p\leq 0.01\)) effect of heat treatment on increasing cooking loss in muscle (G, OCR, PF > WBC), even though in our experiment, the final temperature inside the sample was the same (75 \({}^{\circ}\)C). Evaporation, dripping, and structural changes cause water loss during cooking, oven convection roasting, grilling, and pan-frying of meat. Contraction during culinary preparation results in the most significant aqueous reduction at 60-70 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and it is postulated that liquid is extracted due to the force exerted by the diminishing connective tissue on the watery solution in the extracellular cavity [14]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Heat Processing**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Level of Significance**} \\ \cline{3-10}
**Item** & **Meat** & **Raw** & **Water Bath** & **Grilled** & **Covension** & **Pan-Fried** & **Total** & **SEM** & **Mean** & **Heat** & **Off** & **Processing** & **M \(\times\) HP** \\  & & & **(WBC)** & **(G)** & **(OCR)** & & **(OCR)** & & **(OCR)** & & **(O)** & **(O)** & **(O)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cooking loss (\%)} & without skin & - & 27.2 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 42.5 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 42.5 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 40.8 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 34.9 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 36.3 \({}^{\rm Y}\) & 1.84 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.004} \\  & with skin & - & 40.4 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 51.7 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 43.6 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 45.7 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 45.4 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.52 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.002} \\  & Total & - & 33.8 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 47.1 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 42.1 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 40.3 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 40.8 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.50 & & \\  & SEM & & 3.43 & 21.5 & 0.82 & 2.50 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Moisture (\%)} & without skin & 73.3 & 65.3 & 54 & 56.9 & 58 & 61.5 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.88 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.004} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.004} \\  & with skin & 64.5 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 62.5 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 56.2 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 55.1 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 54.5 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 58.6 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.41 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.018} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.004} \\  & Total & 68.9 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 63.9 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 55.1 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 56.0 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 56.2 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 60.0 & 1.19 & & \\  & SEM & 26.6 & 1.30 & 0.68 & 0.78 & 1.21 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ash (\%)} & without skin & 1.41 & 1.34 & 1.63 & 2.45 & 1.56 & 1.48 & 0.19 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.102} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.727} \\  & with skin & 1.35 & 1.06 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.63 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.96 & 1.2 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.25 & 0.16 & & \\  & Total & 1.39 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.20 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.63 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 22.1 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.39 \({}^{\rm h}\) &Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [20] showed significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) the least cooking loss in the pectoral muscles of White Koluda geese under water bath cooking, compared to the other methods: OCR, G and PF. In a study of other thermal treatments, [PERSON] [13] showed the lowest value of cooking loss for sous-vide (27.16%) samples compared with microwave (40.16%) cooking and stewing (47.63%).