Comparison Of The Production Performance And Meat Quality Of Mule Ducks And Parental Generation Ducks

This paper is based on the materials of Muscovy duck, Cherry Valley duck,mule duck (Muscovy duck♂×Cherry Valley duck♀) during their fatting days, whichMuscovy duck and cherry valley duck were divided into three groups at random, muleduck were divided into two groups at random. The duck were fed by three differentdietary protein levels (groupl 17％, group2 15％, group3 13％).And we compared theeffects of three different dietary protein levels on body weight, slaughter performance,meat quality, the conclusions are as follows:1,On the condition of the 15％dietary protein level, the body weight of Muscovyducks, Cherry Valley ducks and mule ducks at 10 weeks old was 2446.37g, 3496.46gand 3440.00g respectively. The weight of Cherry Valley ducks and mule ducks weresignificantly higher than that of Muscovy duck (P＜0.05), it indicated the heterosis ofbetween Muscovy duck and native duck is obviously.2,The body weight of Muscovy ducks were increasing with the dietary proteinlevel were rising, the weight of group 1 were significantly higher than group 2 and group3 at 10 weeks old (P＜0.05). And no significant difference in the weight of Cherry Valleyducks or mule ducks with the different dietary protein level.3,On the condition of the 15％dietary protein level, the dressing percentage andsemi-eviscerated percentage of Cherry Valley ducks was highest, and then was muleducks and Muscovy ducks. The eviscerated percentage of Cherry Valley ducks and muleducks was significantly higher than that of Muscovy ducks (P＜0.05).The breast musclerate of Cherry Valley ducks and mule ducks was significantly higher than that ofMuscovy ducks (P＜0.05).No significant difference was found among the leg muscle ofdifferent breeds. The order of lean percentage was Cherry Valley ducks＞mule ducks＞Muscovy ducks, the weight of liver was mule ducks＞Cherry Valley ducks＞Muscovyducks. The subcutaneous fat percentage of Cherry Valley ducks and mule ducks wassignificantly higher than Muscovy ducks (P＜0.05).The abdominal fat percentage ofMuscovy duck was highest, and then was Cherry Valley ducks and mule ducks.4,The mule duck breast muscle weight and breast muscle rate of group 2 wassignificantly higher than group 3 (P＜0.05).The weight of subcutaneous fat, subcutaneousfat percentage, the weight of abdominal fat, abdominal fat percentage were higher thangroup 2,but the difference was not significantly (P＞0.05). The breast muscle weight,breast muscle rate, the leg muscle weight, the leg muscle rate of the Muscovy duck ingroup 1 were significantly higher than group 2 and group 3 (P＜0.01),and the weight of subcutaneous fat, subcutaneous fat percentage, abdominal fat, abdominal fat percentagehas the trend of increasing. The breast muscle weight, breast muscle rate of CherryValley ducks in group 1 were significantly higher than group 3 (P＜0.05), the leg muscleweight, the leg muscle rate in group 1 were higher than group 2 and 3, but the differencewas not significantly (P＞0.05), the weight of abdominal fat in group land 2 weresignificantly lower than group 3 (P＜0.01). It indicated that lean meat percentage wasincreasing and body fat deposit was decreasing with the level of dietary protein wasrising in different breed ducks.5,On the condition of the 15％dietary protein level, the order of protein contents ofbreast muscle was mule ducks＞Cherry Valley ducks＞Muscovy ducks, the fat contentsof breast muscle was Cherry Valley ducks＞Muscovy ducks＞mule ducks, the moisturecontents of breast muscle was Muscovy ducks＞Cherry Valley ducks＞mule ducks. Theshearing strength of breast muscle was Muscovy ducks＞Cherry Valley ducks＞muleducks. The pH value was not significant different among different breeds.6,The protein contents of breast muscle of Muscovy ducks was increasingsignificantly with the level of dietary protein rising, but no significant difference wasfound among Cherry Valley ducks or mule ducks. The fat contents of breast muscle wasdecreasing with the level of dietary protein rising. And the difference of the other traitsof meat performance was not significantly among different group of level of dietaryprotein.