Table 2. Effect of fish meal on pH, Color, Cooking Loss, WBSF, Moisture and TBARS of duck meat (n=5)

Specification	Commercial duck feed 2				Produced duck feed				p-value
	RBC	CBC	RLC	CLC	RBT	CBT	RLT	CLT
pH	5.62	6.07	6.13	6.40	5.62	6.03	6.13	6.38	0.94
CIE L*	53.63	62.14	54.08	66.16	54.34	61.32	56.25	64.96	0.48
CIE a*	17.54	8.69	13.89	5.31	16.65	8.95	11.46	5.94	0.42
CIE b*	14.63	20.91	11.52	22.90	12.18	21.06	11.52	22.90	0.27
Cooking loss (%)	30.48		20.14		31.46		18.60		0.31
WBSF (%)	2.80	2.62	3.06	2.81	2.83	2.37	3.22	3.39	0.08
Moisture (%)	74.48	68.48	76.10	65.95	72.29	68.43	76.16	66.07	0.10
TBARS (mg/kg)	0.45	0.68	0.28	0.80	0.80	0.91	0.24	1.30	0.00

When the p-value of the interaction term among feed type, muscle type and processing method is less than 0.05, it indicates that there is a significant interaction effect among the three factors.
RBC, raw brisket muscles of the control group; RBT, raw brisket muscles of the test group; RLC, raw leg muscles of the control group; RLT, raw leg muscles of the test group; CBC, cooked brisket muscles of the control group; CBT, cooked brisket muscles of the test group; CLC, cooked leg muscles of the control group; CLT, cooked leg muscles of the test group; pH, power of hydrogen; WBSF, Warner-Bratzler shear force; TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances.