# Shaping Goose Meat Quality: The Role of Genotype and Soy-Free Diets
## 3 Results
### Cooking Loss  
Cooking loss is a fundamental parameter in meat quality assessment, affecting its texture, juiciness, and technological suitability. As a result of the thermal denaturation of the proteins (accompanied by muscle fibre shrinkage), and the formation of new cross-linking bonds, the water content in heated meat decreases. This affects its sensory and technological properties, as well as its commercial value. Genetic and dietary factors play an important role in shaping the meat's water-holding capacity, as demonstrated by the results of the conducted study (Table 4).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **TE SBM** & **ET SBM** & **TE LPS** & **ET LPS** & **SEM** & **Genotype** & **Diet** & **G \(\times\) D** \\ \hline Thermal leakage in the breast muscles [\%] & 30.79 c & 29.65 bc & 25.38 a & 27.68 b & 1.2423 & 0.005 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.2958 \\ \hline Thermal leakage in the leg muscles [\%] & 31.52 ab & 28.54 a & 32.95 b & 29.61 ab & 2.1770 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.278 & 0.916 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b, c) differ significantly at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 4: Means of the thermal drip (%) in goose muscles depending on genotype and feeding system.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **TE SBM** & **ET SBM** & **TE LPS** & **ET LPS** & **SEM** & **Genotype** & **Diet** & **G \(\times\) D** \\ \hline L* & 50.69 b & 47.39 a & 47.32 a & 47.55 a & 0.1181 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline a* & 12.88 bc & 13.18 c & 12.65 b & 12.07 a & 0.0551 & 0.214 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline b* & 2.02 b & 2.08 b & 1.69 b & 1.22 a & 0.0591 & 0.089 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.020 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Values within a row with different superscript letters (a, b, c) differ significantly at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 3: Means of genetic and nutritional factors on breast muscle colour in geese.  
An analysis of the results showed significant differences between the groups in terms of the cooking loss in goose meat. The genotype had a significant effect on water loss in both the breast and thigh muscles. The SBM diet groups showed significantly higher cooking loss values compared to the LPS diet groups, suggesting that dietary modification may positively influence the water-holding capacity of muscles. For the breast muscles, the highest values were recorded in the TE SBM group (30.79%), followed by ET SBM (29.65%), ET LPS (27.68%), and the lowest in the TE LPS group (25.38%). These results confirm a beneficial effect of the lupin-based LPS diet on reducing cooking loss. In the case of the thigh muscles, although the differences between the groups were less pronounced, a significant effect of the genotype on water retention was still observed. The lowest cooking loss was noted in the ET SBM group (28.54%), followed by ET LPS (29.61%), TE SBM (31.52%), and the highest in the TE LPS group (32.95%). These findings suggest a more complex relationship between genotype and diet in thigh muscles. The differences between groups may result from variations in the cell membrane structure and muscle protein composition depending on the genotype, as well as from the influence of diet on cellular metabolism and water content in muscle tissue.