Quality of duck vs goose down
While searching for a sleeping bag I was told that goose down is clearly superior to duck down in terms of quality. I guess that means e.g. the fill power (measured in cuin). What exactly are the differences, is goose down always preferable?
What I was also told is that duck down is more prone to smell bad when it was getting wet. Goose down isn't. Is this true?
This topic is related but gives just a kinda overview and it asks for all down species. Here I am solely interested in sleeping bags and in the comparison of duck vs. goose down.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/13024. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Down is a natural product, so fill quality, odour and durability can vary quite markedly within a species depending on the breed, age and condition of the bird.
Practical performance is also strongly dependent on the skill of the processor and the quality of any proofing applied.
These sources of variation are greater than any variation between duck and goose down, so in practical terms duck and goose down of equivalent fill-power should perform similarly, provided they both come from a reputable supplier.
Philip Werner at SectionHiker.com reviews a lot of gear. Here's his take:
The down fill power test doesn’t care if the down being measured is duck down or goose down and the manufacturers I talk to think that 800 duck down provides the same insulating power as 800 goose down. I agree based on my experience using the products. You can’t tell the difference. Even more so if they’ve been treated with a water-proofing technology. I think there’s a lot of emotional baggage that people carry when they insist there’s a difference.
However high quality duck down is quite rare. The best quality down is harvested from mature birds, and ducks are normally slaughtered at too young an age. I think that the prevalence of goose down in the higher quality outdoor products is more a factor of its wider availability rather than any inherent technical superiority.
If you have any doubts about the potential of duck down, just recall that the very best down of all is Eiderdown (though this is academic for most of us as the cost is eye-watering).
The best source I have found is from Nemo
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/13025. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Bit or preamble: Down is measured in "Fill Power".
Fill power is a measure of the loft or "fluffiness" of a down product that is loosely related to the insulating value of the down. The higher the fill power the more air an ounce of the down can trap, and thus the more insulating ability an ounce of the down will have.
Ultimately this is what you want to be looking for. The better it's fill power the better insulating it will be, regardless of species.
Now that said different species produce feather of consistently better loft. So back to the actual question... the main difference between a duck and a goose is it's size. This has an advantage in loft because the larger goose produces larger feathers with more clusters and downy fibres:
Goose clusters are generally larger than duck clusters and typically come from older, larger birds. As a result, their down tends to produce higher fill powers, be more resilient and durable than duck down.
This does not mean all Goose down is better than all Duck down it just means that the Goose down is gernally better lofting than duck.
According to IDFL, the world’s largest down and feather institute, goose generally tends to be a better product when compared to duck. However, in some situations, a high quality duck down can be better than a mediocre goose down.
TL;DR
The fill power is the most important aspect, not whether it is a duck or a goose. Though geece produce (generally) a consistently better loft.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/13031. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads