Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:55:24.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Egg quality traits of local Ghanaian chickens and influence of storage period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2014

R. Osei-Amponsah ,
B.B. Kayang ,
H. Manu  and
A. Naazie
R. Osei-Amponsah
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana
B.B. Kayang*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana
H. Manu
Affiliation:
Livestock and Poultry Research Centre (LIPREC) University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana
A. Naazie
Affiliation:
Livestock and Poultry Research Centre (LIPREC) University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana
*
Correspondence to: B.B. Kayang, Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana. email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access

Summary

Egg quality traits of local Ghanaian chickens from two agro-ecological zones were measured and compared with those of an imported breed, SASSO T44 chickens from the day of lay to a period of 21 days in storage. On the average SASSO T44 chickens had significantly (P < 0.05) higher egg weight, shell weight, albumen height (AH), albumen weight, yolk weight, albumen ratio and Haugh units (HU). Eggs of the local chicken ecotypes had significantly (P < 0.05) higher yolk ratios than the SASSO T44 birds with chickens from the forest zone being superior (P < 0.05) to those from the savannah in AH. Fluctuations in egg quality traits during the 3-week study period were similar in the three ecotypes studied. Conversion of AH to HU narrowed the gap in egg quality performance between local and SASSO T44 chickens. There was a negative effect of storage time on egg quality irrespective of the chicken ecotype. It was recommended that chicken eggs should be kept at temperatures cooler than ambient temperatures to minimize deterioration of their quality.

Résumé

Se midieron los parámetros de calidad de huevo en gallinas autóctonas ghanesas de dos zonas agroecológicas, para después compararlos con los de una raza importada, gallinas SASSO T44, desde el día de la puesta hasta los 21 días de almacenamiento. De media, las gallinas SASSO T44 presentaron (P < 0.05) mayor peso de huevo, mayor peso de la cáscara, mayor peso y altura del albumen, mayor peso de la yema, mayor proporción de albumen y más unidades Haugh. Los huevos de los ecotipos de gallina autóctona presentaron (P < 0.05) mayor proporción de yema que los de las aves SASSO T44, siendo la altura del albumen mayor (P < 0.05) en las gallinas de la zona de selva que en las de la sabana. Las variaciones en los parámetros de calidad de huevo a largo de las tres semanas del periodo de estudio fueron similares en los tres ecotipos considerados. La conversión de la altura del albumen a unidades Haugh redujo las diferencias en calidad de huevo entre las gallinas autóctonas y las SASSO T44. Se dio un efecto negativo del tiempo de almacenamiento sobre la calidad de los huevos, independientemente del ecotipo de ave considerado. Se recomendó que los huevos de gallina fueran guardados a temperaturas menores que la temperatura ambiental para minimizar el deterioro de su calidad.

Resumen

Les paramètres de qualité de l'œuf ont été mesurés chez des poules autochtones ghanéennes de deux zones agro-écologiques et ont été comparés à ceux d'une race importée (SASSO T44), du jour de la ponte aux 21 jours de stockage. En moyenne, les poules SASSO T44 ont présenté (P < 0.05) des œufs plus lourds, un poids de la coquille plus élevé, un poids et une hauteur d'albumen plus grands, un poids du jaune plus élevé, une proportion d'albumen plus grande et un plus grand nombre d'unités Haugh. La proportion de jaune a été plus grande (P < 0.05) dans les œufs des poules autochtones que dans ceux des poules SASSO T44, avec la hauteur d'albumen étant plus grande (P < 0.05) chez les poules de la forêt que chez celles de la savane. Les variations dans la qualité de l'œuf au cours des trois semaines de durée de l'étude ont été similaires chez les trois écotypes étudiés. La conversion de la hauteur de l'albumen en unités Haugh a réduit les différences en qualité d'œuf entre les poules autochtones et les SASSO T44. Un effet négatif du temps de stockage sur la qualité de l'œuf a été décelé, indépendamment de l'écotype de poule considéré. Il a été recommandé de garder les œufs à une température inférieure à la température ambiante afin de minimiser leur perte de qualité.

Keywords

albumen height·albumen ratio·Haugh unit·storage timeyolk ratiounité Haughproportion de jaunehauteur d'albumenproportion d'albumenunidad Haughproporción de yemaaltura de albumenproporción de albumen
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 55 , December 2014 , pp. 93 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmadi, F. & Rahimi, F. 2011. Factors affecting quality and quantity of egg production in laying hens: a review. World Appl. Sci. J., 12(3): 372–384.Google Scholar
Akbar, M.K., Gavora, J.S., Friars, G.W. & Growe, R.S. 1983. Composition of eggs by commercial size categories: Effects of genetic group, age, and diet. Poult. Sci., 62: 925–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsobayel, A.A. & Albadry, M.A. 2011. Effect of storage period and strain of layer on internal and external quality characteristics of eggs marketed in Riyagh area. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci., 10: 41–45.Google Scholar
Anderson, K.E., Tharrington, J.B., Curtis, P.A. & Jones, F.T. 2004. Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb white leghorn chickens and the relationship of egg shape to shell strength. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3(1): 17–19.Google Scholar
Benton, C.E. Jr & Brake, J. 2000. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on albumen height and pH of fresh broiler eggs. Poult. Sci., 29: 1562–1569.Google Scholar
Buss, E.G. 1982. Genetic differences in avian egg shell formation. Poult. Sci., 61: 2048–2055.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, R.N., Rai, R.B., Kundu, A., Sennai, S. & Sunder, J. 2007. Egg Quality traits of indigenous breeds of chicken of Andaman. Indian Veter. J., 84: 206–208.Google Scholar
Fayeye, T.R., Adeshiyan, A.B. & Olugbami, A.A. 2005. Egg traits, hatchability and early growth performance of the Fulani-ecotype chicken, Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 17, Article #94. Retrieved November 9, 2009 (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/8/faye17094.htm).Google Scholar
Fletcher, D.L., Britton, W.M., Pesti, G.M. & Savage, S.I. 1983. The relationship of later flock age and egg weight on egg component yields and solid content. Poult. Sci., 62: 1800–1805.Google Scholar
Froning, G.W. & Fank, E.M. 1958. Seasonal variation in quality of egg laid by caged layers and their sisters on the floor. Poult. Sci., 37: 215–223.Google Scholar
Hartmann, C., Strandberg, E., Rydhmer, L. & Johansson, K. 2002. Genetic relations between reproduction, chick weight and maternal egg composition in a White Leghorn Line. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A – Animal Sciences, 52(2): 91–101.Google Scholar
Haugh, R. 1937. The Haugh unit of measuring egg quality. US Egg Poult. Mag., 43: 552–555.Google Scholar
Islam, M.S. & Dutta, R.K. 2010. Egg quality traits of indigenous, exotic and crossbred chickens (Gallus domesticus L.) in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. J. Life Earth Sci., 5: 63–67.Google Scholar
Jacob, J.P., Miles, R.D. & Mather, F.B. 2000. Egg Quality, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida PS24.Google Scholar
Jin, Y.H., Lee, K.T., Lee, W.I. & Han, Y.K. 2011. Effects of storage temperature on quality of eggs from laying hens at peak production. Asian-Australian J. Anim. Sci., 24(2): 279–284.Google Scholar
Khan, M.J.A., Khan, S.H., Bukhsh, A., Abass, M.I. & Javed, M. 2013. Effect of different storage period on egg weight, internal egg quality and hatchability characteristics of Fayumi eggs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 12: e51.Google Scholar
Miles, R.D. & Henry, P.R. 2004. Effect of time and storage conditions on albumen quality of eggs from hens fed vanadium. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13: 619–627.Google Scholar
Mogesse, H.H. 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Northwest Ethiopia. University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. (PhD thesis).Google Scholar
Momoh, O.M., Ani, A.O. & Ugwuowo, L.C. 2010. Part-period egg production and egg quality characteristics of two ecotypes of Nigerian local chickens and their F1 crosses. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9(8): 744–748.Google Scholar
Monira, K.N., Salahuddin, M. & Miah, G. 2003. Effect of breed and holding period on egg quality characteristics of chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 2(4): 261–263.Google Scholar
Moula, N., Antoine-Moussiaux, N., Farnir, F. & Leroy, P. 2009. Evaluation of the production performances of an endangered local poultry breed, the famennoise. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 8(4): 389–396.Google Scholar
Moula, N., Diaw, M.T., Salhi, A., Farnir, F., Antoine-Moussiaux, N. & Leroy, P. 2013. Egg production performance of local Kabyle hen and its crossbreds with ISA-Brown strain in semi-intensive conditions. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 12(3): 148–152.Google Scholar
OHAUS 2006. Ohaus electronic beam balance. UK, OHAUS.Google Scholar
Osei-Amponsah, R., Kayang, B.B. & Naazie, A. 2012. Age, Genotype and Sex effects on growth performance of local chickens kept under improved management in Ghana. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 44: 29–34.Google Scholar
Raji, A.O., Aliyu, J., Igwebuike, J.U. & Chimora, S. 2009. Effect of storage methods on egg quality traits of laying hens in a hot dry climate. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 4(4): 1–7.Google Scholar
Scott, T.A. & Silversides, F.G. 2000. The effect of storage and strain of hen on egg quality. Poult. Sci., 79: 1725–1729.Google Scholar
Silversides, F.G. & Scott, T.A. 2001. Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poult. Sci., 80: 1240–1245.Google Scholar
Singh, R., Cheng, K.M. & Silversides, F.G. 2009. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult. Sci. 88: 256–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SPSS, 2007. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).Google Scholar
Tabidi, M.H. 2011. Impact of storage period on composition of table egg. Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(5): 856–861.Google Scholar
Tadesse, D., Singh, H., Mengistu, A., Esatu, W. & Dessie, T. 2013. Study on productive performances and egg quality traits of exotic chickens under village production system in East Shewa, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 8(13): 1123–1128.Google Scholar
Varguez-Montero, G., Sarmiento-Franco, L., Ronald Santos-Ricalde, R. & Segura-Correa, J. 2012. Egg production and quality under three housing systems in the tropics. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 44: 201–204.Google Scholar
Vij, P.K., Tantia, M.S. & Vijh, R.K. 2006. Characterisation of Punjab Brown chicken. In Animal genetic resources information, Vol 39, pp. 65–76. Rome, Italy, FAO. Editors: Galal S. & Boyazoglu J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, K.C. 1992. Some factors affecting albumen quality with particular reference to Haugh unit score. World's Poult. Sci. J., 48: 5–16.Google Scholar
Zaman, M.A., Sørensen, P. & Howlider, M.A.R. 2004. Egg production performances of a breed and three crossbreds under semi-scavenging systems of management. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., Art. # 8. http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd16/8/zama16060.htm. Accessed June. 2012.Google Scholar