Research Article
PDF Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Quality traits of retail eggs produced by alternative and cage rearing systems

Year 2019, Volume 90, Issue 2, 143 - 151, 15.06.2019
https://doi.org/10.33188/vetheder.540604

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine outer and inner quality traits of retail brown and white grade A table eggs, produced by alternative (organic, free-range and barn) and cage systems, where a total of 350 eggs comprised of 200 brown (50 from each system), and 150 white (each 50, except free-range) eggs were analyzed. Effect of rearing system was statistically significant in brown eggs for shape index, shell weight, shell strength and Haugh Unit (HU), and in white eggs for all outer and inner quality traits except shape index, shell thickness and air cell height (p<0.05). All samples complied with the egg weight requirements, while air cell height of free-range brown eggs was found higher (6.75 mm), thus non-compliant than the indicated upper limit indicated in Turkish Food Codex Egg Directive 2014/55. Cage system white eggs’ HU values were in compliance with the Turkish Standard for Chicken Egg - in Shell (TS1068), while this value was lower than the required limits in free-range and cage brown eggs. Cage brown eggs had higher shape index (%79-spherical), while white eggs had lower shell weight (7.26 g); free-range and cage brown eggs had thicker shells (0.32 mm), and organic white and cage brown eggs had the strongest shell; the darkest and the faintest yellow were in cage white and organic eggs, respectively. In conclusion, there is no ‘one ideal’ rearing system to produce eggs compliant to all quality traits, and thus the systems can have advantages/disadvantages effecting outer and inner quality of eggs.

References

  • 1. Ahammed M, Chae BJ, Lohakare J, Keohavong B, Lee MH, Lee SJ, Kim DM, Lee JY, Ohh SJ (2014): Comparison of aviary, barn and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 27, 1196-1203.
  • 2. Anar Ş (2016): Yumurta ve Yumurta Ürünleri. 1. Baskı, Dora Basım-Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti., Bursa.
  • 3. Artan S, Durmuş İ (2015): Köy, serbest ve kafes sistemlerinde üretilen yumurtaların kalite özellikleri bakımından karşılaştırılması. Academic J Agric, 4, 89-97.
  • 4. Balnave D, Muheereza SK (1997): Improving eggshell quality at high temperatures with dietary sodium bicarbonate. Poult Sci, 76, 588-593.
  • 5. Çetin E, Temelli S, Eyı̇gör A (2016): Effect of rearing systems and shell color on some egg quality parameters. Uludag Univ J Fac Vet Med, 35, 11-16.
  • 6. Dukic-Stojcic M, Peric L, Bjedov S, Milosevic N (2009): The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotechnol Anim Husb, 25, 1103-1108.
  • 7. FAO (2017): Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Livestock Primary, Egg in Shell Production. Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2019, Erişim Linki: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL
  • 8. Ferrante V, Lolli S, Vezzoli G, Cavalchini LG (2009): Effects of two different rearing systems (organic and barn) on production performance, animal welfare traits and egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Ital J Anim Sci, 8, 165-174.
  • 9. Golden JB, Arbona DV, Anderson, KE (2012): A comparative examination of rearing parameters and layer production performance for brown egg-type pullets grown for either free-range or cage production. J Appl Poult Res, 21, 95-102.
  • 10. Hidalgo A, Rossi M, Clerici F, Ratti S (2008): A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chem, 106, 1031-1038.
  • 11. Jones DR, Karcher DM, Abdo Z (2014): Effect of a commercial housing system on egg quality during extended storage. Poult Sci, 93, 1282-1288.
  • 12. Khalafalla MK, Bessei W (1995): Reliability of quasi-static compression as an indicator of eggshell quality. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on the Quality of Egg and Egg Products (67-75), WPSA, Zaragoza.
  • 13. Küçükyılmaz K, Bozkurt M, Herken EN, Çınar M, Çatlı AU, Bintaş E, Çöven F (2012): Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 25, 559-568.
  • 14. Petek M, Alpay F, Gezen ŞŞ, Çıbık R (2009): Effects of housing system and age on early stage egg production and quality in commercial laying hens. Kafkas Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 15, 57-62.
  • 15. Pistekova V, Hovorka M, Vecerek V, Strakova E, Suchy P (2006): The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech J Anim Sci, 51, 318-325.
  • 16. Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Hussain J, Khan MT (2017): Comparative evaluation of egg morphometry and quality in Aseel hens under different rearing systems. J Appl Poult Res, 26, 401-409.
  • 17. Resmi Gazete (22 Kasım 2014 tarihli ve 29183 sayılı) (2014a): Yumurtacı Tavukların Korunması İle İlgili Asgari Standartlara İlişkin Yönetmelik.
  • 18. Resmi Gazete (20 Aralık 2014 tarihli ve 29211 sayılı) (2014b): Türk Gıda Kodeksi Yumurta Tebliği No: 2014/55.
  • 19. Singh R, Cheng KM, Silversides FG (2009): Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult Sci, 88, 256-264.
  • 20. Sokolowicz Z, Krawczyk J, Dykiel M. (2018a): Effect of alternative housing system and hen genotype on egg quality characteristics. Emir J Food Agric, 30, 695-703.
  • 21. Sokolowicz Z, Krawczyk J, Dykiel M (2018b): The effect of the type of alternative housing system, genotype and age of laying hens on egg quality. Ann Anim Sci, 18, 541-555.
  • 22. SPSS® (2013): 22.00 Computer Software: SPSS Inc, Headquarters, 233 s., Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, USA.
  • 23. Stadelman WJ (1995): Quality Identification of Shell Eggs. 39-66. In: WJ Stadelman, OJ Cotterill (Eds), Egg Science and Technology, New York: Food Products Press, The Haworth Press Inc.
  • 24. Şekeroğlu A, Sarıca M (2005): Serbest yetiştirme (free-range) sisteminin beyaz ve kahverengi yumurtacı genotiplerin yumurta verim ve kalitesine etkisi. J Poult Res, 6, 10-16.
  • 25. TSE. (2015): Türk Standardı Tavuk Yumurtası-Kabuklu, No: TS 1068.
  • 26. Türkoğlu M, Sarıca M (2009): Tavukçuluk Bilimi (Yetiştirme, Besleme, Hastalıklar). 3. Basım, Bey Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara.
  • 27. USDA (2000). United States Department of Agriculture. Egg Grading Manual, Agriculturel Marketing Service, Agricultural Handbook, Number 75. Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2019, Erişim Linki: https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/egg-grading-manual
  • 28. Van Den Brand H, Parmentier HK, Kemp B (2004): Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Br Poult Sci, 45, 745-752.
  • 29. Varguez-Montero G, Sarmiento-Franco L, 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.
  • 30. YUM-BİR (2018). Yumurta Üreticileri Merkez Birliği, Yumurta Tavukçuluğu Verileri. Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2019, Erişim Linki: https://www.yum-bir.org/UserFiles/File/yumurta-veriler2019web.pdf

Alternatif ve kafes yetiştirme sistemleri ile üretilen perakende yumurtaların kalite özellikleri

Year 2019, Volume 90, Issue 2, 143 - 151, 15.06.2019
https://doi.org/10.33188/vetheder.540604

Abstract

Alternatif (organik, serbest dolaşımlı ve kümes) ve kafes yetiştirme sistemleri ile üretilmiş A sınıfı kahverengi ve beyaz perakende yumurtaların dış ve iç kalite özelliklerinin belirlenmesi amacı ile yapılan bu çalışmada her bir yetiştirme sistemine ait 50’şer adet olmak üzere 200 kahverengi, 150 (serbest dolaşımlı hariç 3 sistemden) beyaz, toplam 350 adet yumurta incelendi. Yetiştirme sisteminin, kahverengi yumurtalarda, şekil indeksi, kabuk ağırlığı, kabuk kırılma direnci ve Haugh Birimi (HB), beyaz yumurtalarda ise şekil indeksi, kabuk kalınlığı ve hava boşluğu yüksekliği dışında incelenen tüm özellikler üzerine etkisinin istatistiksel olarak önemli (p<0.05) olduğu belirlendi. Tüm örneklerin yumurta ağırlığı, Türk Gıda Kodeksi Yumurta Tebliği 2014/55’ne uygun bulunurken, serbest dolaşıma ait kahverengi yumurtalarda hava boşluğu yüksekliğinin sınır değerin üzerinde (6.75 mm) olup uygun olmadığı saptandı. Kafes sistemindeki beyaz yumurtaların HB değerleri, Türk Standardı Tavuk Yumurtası - Kabuklu (TS1068) ile uyumlu iken bu değerin serbest dolaşım ve kafes sistemlerine ait kahverengi yumurtalarda gerekliliklerin altında olduğu saptandı. Kafes sistemindeki kahverengi yumurtaların diğerlerine göre daha yüksek şekil indeksi değerine (% 79-küresel), beyazların daha düşük kabuk ağırlığına (7.26 g) sahip olduğu; serbest dolaşım ve kafes sistemlerindeki kahverengi yumurtaların kabuklarının daha kalın (0.32 mm), organik sistemdeki beyaz ile kafes sistemindeki kahverengi yumurtaların kabuk kırılma direnci yönünden en dayanıklı olduğu; en koyu sarı rengin kafes sisteminde üretilen beyaz yumurtalarda, en açık sarı rengin ise organik yumurtalarda bulunduğu belirlendi. Sonuçta, tüm kalite kriterlerine uygun yumurta üretebilecek ‘tek bir ideal’ yetiştirme sistemi olmadığı, sistemlerin kendi içlerinde dış ve iç kalite özelliklerini etkileyecek avantaj/dezavantajlarının bulunabildiği belirlendi.

References

  • 1. Ahammed M, Chae BJ, Lohakare J, Keohavong B, Lee MH, Lee SJ, Kim DM, Lee JY, Ohh SJ (2014): Comparison of aviary, barn and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 27, 1196-1203.
  • 2. Anar Ş (2016): Yumurta ve Yumurta Ürünleri. 1. Baskı, Dora Basım-Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti., Bursa.
  • 3. Artan S, Durmuş İ (2015): Köy, serbest ve kafes sistemlerinde üretilen yumurtaların kalite özellikleri bakımından karşılaştırılması. Academic J Agric, 4, 89-97.
  • 4. Balnave D, Muheereza SK (1997): Improving eggshell quality at high temperatures with dietary sodium bicarbonate. Poult Sci, 76, 588-593.
  • 5. Çetin E, Temelli S, Eyı̇gör A (2016): Effect of rearing systems and shell color on some egg quality parameters. Uludag Univ J Fac Vet Med, 35, 11-16.
  • 6. Dukic-Stojcic M, Peric L, Bjedov S, Milosevic N (2009): The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotechnol Anim Husb, 25, 1103-1108.
  • 7. FAO (2017): Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Livestock Primary, Egg in Shell Production. Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2019, Erişim Linki: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL
  • 8. Ferrante V, Lolli S, Vezzoli G, Cavalchini LG (2009): Effects of two different rearing systems (organic and barn) on production performance, animal welfare traits and egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Ital J Anim Sci, 8, 165-174.
  • 9. Golden JB, Arbona DV, Anderson, KE (2012): A comparative examination of rearing parameters and layer production performance for brown egg-type pullets grown for either free-range or cage production. J Appl Poult Res, 21, 95-102.
  • 10. Hidalgo A, Rossi M, Clerici F, Ratti S (2008): A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chem, 106, 1031-1038.
  • 11. Jones DR, Karcher DM, Abdo Z (2014): Effect of a commercial housing system on egg quality during extended storage. Poult Sci, 93, 1282-1288.
  • 12. Khalafalla MK, Bessei W (1995): Reliability of quasi-static compression as an indicator of eggshell quality. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on the Quality of Egg and Egg Products (67-75), WPSA, Zaragoza.
  • 13. Küçükyılmaz K, Bozkurt M, Herken EN, Çınar M, Çatlı AU, Bintaş E, Çöven F (2012): Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 25, 559-568.
  • 14. Petek M, Alpay F, Gezen ŞŞ, Çıbık R (2009): Effects of housing system and age on early stage egg production and quality in commercial laying hens. Kafkas Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 15, 57-62.
  • 15. Pistekova V, Hovorka M, Vecerek V, Strakova E, Suchy P (2006): The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech J Anim Sci, 51, 318-325.
  • 16. Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Hussain J, Khan MT (2017): Comparative evaluation of egg morphometry and quality in Aseel hens under different rearing systems. J Appl Poult Res, 26, 401-409.
  • 17. Resmi Gazete (22 Kasım 2014 tarihli ve 29183 sayılı) (2014a): Yumurtacı Tavukların Korunması İle İlgili Asgari Standartlara İlişkin Yönetmelik.
  • 18. Resmi Gazete (20 Aralık 2014 tarihli ve 29211 sayılı) (2014b): Türk Gıda Kodeksi Yumurta Tebliği No: 2014/55.
  • 19. Singh R, Cheng KM, Silversides FG (2009): Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult Sci, 88, 256-264.
  • 20. Sokolowicz Z, Krawczyk J, Dykiel M. (2018a): Effect of alternative housing system and hen genotype on egg quality characteristics. Emir J Food Agric, 30, 695-703.
  • 21. Sokolowicz Z, Krawczyk J, Dykiel M (2018b): The effect of the type of alternative housing system, genotype and age of laying hens on egg quality. Ann Anim Sci, 18, 541-555.
  • 22. SPSS® (2013): 22.00 Computer Software: SPSS Inc, Headquarters, 233 s., Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, USA.
  • 23. Stadelman WJ (1995): Quality Identification of Shell Eggs. 39-66. In: WJ Stadelman, OJ Cotterill (Eds), Egg Science and Technology, New York: Food Products Press, The Haworth Press Inc.
  • 24. Şekeroğlu A, Sarıca M (2005): Serbest yetiştirme (free-range) sisteminin beyaz ve kahverengi yumurtacı genotiplerin yumurta verim ve kalitesine etkisi. J Poult Res, 6, 10-16.
  • 25. TSE. (2015): Türk Standardı Tavuk Yumurtası-Kabuklu, No: TS 1068.
  • 26. Türkoğlu M, Sarıca M (2009): Tavukçuluk Bilimi (Yetiştirme, Besleme, Hastalıklar). 3. Basım, Bey Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara.
  • 27. USDA (2000). United States Department of Agriculture. Egg Grading Manual, Agriculturel Marketing Service, Agricultural Handbook, Number 75. Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2019, Erişim Linki: https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/egg-grading-manual
  • 28. Van Den Brand H, Parmentier HK, Kemp B (2004): Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Br Poult Sci, 45, 745-752.
  • 29. Varguez-Montero G, Sarmiento-Franco L, 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.
  • 30. YUM-BİR (2018). Yumurta Üreticileri Merkez Birliği, Yumurta Tavukçuluğu Verileri. Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2019, Erişim Linki: https://www.yum-bir.org/UserFiles/File/yumurta-veriler2019web.pdf

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Veterinary
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors

Eda İLHAN TEKİN This is me
BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ
0000-0001-7369-2130
Türkiye


Ece ÇETİN
TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ, GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0002-8783-5507
Türkiye


Seran TEMELLİ
BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ, BESİN-GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ, VETERİNERLİK BESİN HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0002-8869-4929
Türkiye


Ayşegül EYİGÖR (Primary Author)
BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ, BESİN-GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ, VETERİNERLİK BESİN HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0002-2707-3117
Türkiye

Publication Date June 15, 2019
Application Date March 15, 2019
Acceptance Date May 11, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019, Volume 90, Issue 2

Cite

Vancouver İlhan Tekin E. , Çetin E. , Temelli S. , Eyigör A. Alternatif ve kafes yetiştirme sistemleri ile üretilen perakende yumurtaların kalite özellikleri. Veteriner Hekimler Derneği Dergisi. 2019; 90(2): 143-151.

Journal of the Turkish Veterinary Medical Society publishes fully open access articles, which means that all articles are available on the internet to all users immediately upon publication.