Yumurta Kalite Parametreleri Üzerine Farklı Yetiştirme Sistemleri ve Mevsimin Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırma, farklı yetiştirme sistemlerinde (kafes sistemi, aile tipi ve serbest gezen sistem) üretilen tavuk yumurtalarının dış ve iç kalite parametreleri üzerindeki mevsimsel (ilkbahar, yaz, sonbahar ve kış) etkisini incelemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışmada farklı yetiştirme sistemlerinden her bir mevsimde 50’şer adet olmak üzere toplam 600 adet yumurta toplanmıştır. Yumurta örneklerinin dış kalite parametreleri üzerine mevsimin etkisi incelendiğinde; kış mevsiminde kırılma mukavemeti, kabuk kalınlığı, sarı yüksekliği ve sarı indeksi önemli bulunmuştur (p<0,05). İlkbahar mevsiminde sarı çapı üzerinde mevsimin etkisi önemli olmuştur (p<0,05). Yaz mevsiminde ise şekil indeksi, sarı renk, Haugh birimi, kırılma mukavemeti, kabuk kalınlığı, kabuk ağırlığı ve sarı çapı önemli sonuçlar vermiştir (p<0,05). Sonbahar mevsiminde şekil indeksi, yumurta ağırlığı, sarı renk, kabuk kalınlığı, kabuk ağırlığı, sarı yüksekliği ve sarı çapında mevsimin etkisi önemli (p<0,05) bulunurken, incelenen diğer dış kalite parametreleri üzerinde istatiksel açıdan anlamlı bir etki gözlenmemiştir (p>0,05). Yumurta dış kalite parametrelerine göre, serbest gezen sistemin şekil indeksi (%) ve yumurta ağırlığında, kafes sisteminin ise sarı renkte en iyi sonuçları sağladığı belirlenmiştir (p<0,05).Mevsimin yumurta iç kalitesi üzerine etkisi, yumurta sarısında kışın protein, ilkbahar ve yazın ise β-karoten değerleri üzerinde istatiksel açıdan anlamlı bulunurken (p<0,05) benzer şekilde yumurta akında, sonbahar mevsiminde pH değerleri, kış ve yaz dönemlerinde ise protein değerleri istatiksel açıdan önemli bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Yumurtanın tümü incelendiğinde ise kış döneminde kuru madde ve kül değerleri önemli sonuçlar vermiş olup, diğer incelenen iç kalite parametreleri üzerinde mevsimin istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir etkisi gözlenmemiştir (p>0,05). Yumurta iç kalite parametreleri açısından, yumurta sarısında protein ve β-karoten ile tüm yumurtada kuru madde ve kül oranı için serbest gezen sistem; yumurta akında ise pH ve protein değerleri açısından aile ve kafes işletmelerinde en iyi sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, yumurta dış kalite özelliklerinde serbest gezen ve kafes sistemlerinin, iç kalite özelliklerinde ise serbest gezen yetiştirme sisteminin en iyi performansı sergilediği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Farklı yetiştirme sistemleri
• Aile tipi
• Kafes sistemi
• Free range sistemi
• Yumurta dış ve iç kalitesi

Effect of Different Breeding Systems and Season on Egg Quality Parameters

Öz

This study was conducted to examine the seasonal (spring, summer, autumn, and winter) effect on the external and internal quality parameters of chicken eggs produced in different rearing systems (cage system, family-type system, and free-range system). A total of 600 egg samples were collected, with 50 eggs from each rearing system in each season. When the effect of the season on the external quality parameters of egg samples was examined, it was found that the breaking strength, shell thickness, yellow height and yellow index were important during the winter season (p<0.05). The effect of the season on the yellow diameter in the spring season was significant (p<0.05). In summer, shape index, yellow color, Haugh unit, breaking strength, shell thickness, shell weight and yellow diameter gave important results (p<0.05). While the effect of the season on the shape index, egg weight, yellow color, shell thickness, shell weight, yellow height and yellow diameter in the autumn season was significant (p<0.05), no statistically significant effect was observed on other external quality parameters studied (p>0.05). According to the external egg quality parameters, it was determined that the free-roaming system provided the best results in terms of shape index (%) and egg weight, while the cage system provided the best results in yellow color (p<0.05).The effect of the season on the internal quality of eggs was statistically significant on protein in winter in egg yolk, and β-carotene values in spring and summer (p<0.05), while pH values in autumn season and protein values in winter and summer periods were found to be statistically significant in egg white (p<0.05).When all the eggs were examined, dry matter and ash values gave important results during the winter period, and there was no statistically significant effect of the season on the other internal quality parameters studied (p>0.05). In terms of egg internal quality parameters, a free-floating system for protein and β-carotene in the yolk and the dry matter and ash ratio in the whole egg; and the best results were obtained in family and cage enterprises in terms of pH and protein values in the egg white.Consequently, it has been determined that free-range and cage systems exhibited the best performance in external egg quality characteristics, while the free-range rearing system showed the best performance in internal quality characteristics

Anahtar Kelimeler

• rearing systems
• seasonal effect
• egg internal and external quality

Kaynakça

1. Abo Ghanima MM., Elsadek MF., Taha AE., Abd El-Hack ME., Alagawany M., Ahmed BM., Elshafie MM., El-Sabrout K. Effect of housing system and rosemary and cinnamon essential oils on layers performance, egg quality, haematological traits, blood chemistry, immunity, and antioxidant. Animals, 2020; 10(2): 245.
2. Altan Ö. Yumurta oluşumu, kalitesi ve biyoaktif komponentleri. 2015: Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, İzmir. Anonymous (Internatinal Egg). Annual Review 2016. https://www.internationalegg.com/resources/ publications.2016.
3. Anonymous (USDA), Agricultural Research Service US. https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/ beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-center/ methods-and-application-of-food-composition-laboratory/. 2024.
4. Bain MM., Nys Y., Dunn IC. Increasing persistency in lay and stabilising egg quality in longer laying cycles. What are the challenges? British Poultry Science 2016; 57(3): 330-338.
5. Bouvarel I., Nys Y., Lescoat P. Improving the safety and quality of eggs and egg products, egg chemistry, production and consumption. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition 2011; 261-299.
6. Bayraktar B., Yiğit AA., Ekici H. Serum β-carotene levels of the local black cattle in lactation period, dry period and different ages, seasons-2019. J Vet Sci Med Diagn 2019; 8: 272.
7. Campbell D., De Haas E., Lee C. A review of environmental enrichment for laying hens during rearing in relation to their behavioral and physiological development. Poultry Science, 2019: 98(1): 9-28.
8. Campbell D., Makagon M., Swanson J., Siegford J. Laying hen movement in a commercial aviary: Enclosure to floor and back again. Poultry Science 2016; 95(1): 176-187.

9. Cerolini S., Zaniboni L., La Cognata R. Lipid characteristics in eggs produced in different housing systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2005; 4.
10. Damaziak K., Musielak M., Musielak C., Riedel J., Gozdowski D., Grzybek W. Effect of different rearing system on eggs production, hatchability, and offspring quality in layer breeders. Poultry Science 2021; 100(6): 1-10.
11. Dong X., Yin Z., Ma Y., Cao H., Dong D. Effects of rearing systems on laying performance, egg quality, and serum biochemistry of Xianju chickens in summer. Poultry Science 2017; 96(11): 3896-3900.
12. Haugh H. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. The U.S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 1937; 43, 552-555.
13. Hidalgo A., Rossi M., Clerici F., Ratti S. A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chemistry 2008; 106(3): 1031-1038.
14. Huang Q., Qiu N., Ma M., Jin Y., Yang H.,Geng F.,Sun S. Estimation of egg freshness using S-ovalbumin as an indicator. Poultry Science 2012; 91(3): 739-743.
15. Jones DR., Anderson KE., Guard JY. Prevalence of coliforms, Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter associated with eggs and the environment of conventional cage and free-range egg production. Poultry Science 2012; 91(5): 1195-1202.
16. Khaleel R. Prediction of Haugh unit by egg weight and albumen height. Mesopotamia Journal of Agriculture 2019; 47(3): 37-43.
17. Kowalska E., Kucharska-Gaca J., Kuźniacka J., Lewko L., Gornowicz E., Biesek J., Adamski M. Egg quality depending on the diet with different sources of protein and age of the hens. Scientific Reports 2021; 11(1): 1-11.
18. Küçükyılmaz K., Bozkurt M., Herken EN., Çınar M., Çatlı AU., Bintaş E., Çöven F. Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two ;layer hen genotype. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2012; 25(4): 559.
19. Liu X., Wang J., Huang Q., Cheng L., Gan R., Liu L.,Wu D., Li H., Geng F. Underlying mechanism for the differences in heat-induced gel properties between thick egg whites and thin egg whites: Gel properties, structure and quantitative proteome analysis. Food Hydrocolloids 2020; 106: 105873.
20. Lordelo M., Fernandes E., Bessa R., Alves S. Quality of eggs from different laying hen production systems, from indigenous breeds and specialty eggs. Poultry Science 2017; 96(5): 1485-1491.
21. Mathieu-Huart A., Lentdecker CD., Riviere G., Sissoko F., Rousselle C. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) health reference values (RV).l and Occupational Health & Safety 2014; 75(3): 292-301.
22. Minelli G., Sirri F., Folegatti E., Meluzzi A., Franchini A. Egg quality traits of laying hens reared in organic and conventional systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2007; 6(1): 728-730.
23. Moura DJD., Nääs L., Pereira D., Silva R., Camargo G. Animal welfare concepts and strategy for poultry production: a review. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2006; 8: 137-147.
24. Mugnai C., Dal Bosco A., Castellini C. Effect of rearing system and season on the performance and egg characteristics of Ancona laying hens. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2009; 8(2): 175-188.
25. Mugnai C., Sossidou EN., Dal Bosco A., Ruggeri S., Mattioli S., Castellini C. The effects of husbandry system on the grass intake and egg nutritive characteristics of laying hens. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2014; 94(3): 459-467.
26. Özbey O., Esen F. The effects of different breeding systems on egg productivity and egg quality characteristics of rock partridges. Poultry Science 2007; 86(4): 782-785.
27. Pavlovski Z., Škrbić Z., Lukić M., Krnjaja V., Bijelić Z., Trenkovski S.Tehnologija proizvodnje jaja sa slobodnog ispusta posebnog i garantovanog kvaliteta (tehničko rešenje). Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2010; 26: 55-67.
28. Radu-Rusu R., Usturoi M., Radu-Rusu C., Vacaru-Opris L., Leahu A., Amariei S. Chemical features, cholesterol and energy content of table hen eggs from conventional and alternative farming systems. South African Journal of Animal Science 2014; 44(1): 33-42.
29. Rakonjac S., Bogosavljević-Bošković S., Pavlovski Z., Škrbić Z., Dosković V., Petrović MD., Petričević V. Laying hen rearing systems: A review of major production results and egg quality traits. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2014; 70(1): 93-104.
30. Rakonjac S., Bogosavljević BS., Škrbić Z., Lukić M., Dosković V., Petričević V., Petrović MD. Quality and chemical composition of eggs affected by rearing system and hen’s age. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2018; 34(3): 335-344.
31. Réhault-Godbert S., Guyot N., Nys Y. The golden egg: nutritional value, bioactivities, and emerging benefits for human health. Nutrients 2019; 11(3): 684.
32. Rizzi L., Simioli G., Martelli G., Paganelli R., Sardi L. Effects of organic farming on egg quality and welfare of laying hens. Paper presented at the XII European Poultry Conference, Verona. 2016; 10-14
33. Roberts JR. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. The Journal of Poultry Science 2004; 41(3): 161-177.
34. Shan Y., Tang D., Wang R., Tu A., Yi Y., Wang X., Liu B., Zhou Y., Huang Q., Lü X. Rheological and structural properties of ovomucin from chicken eggs with different interior quality. Food Hydrocolloids 2020; 100, 105393.
35. Sparks N. The hen’s egg–is its role in human nutrition changing? World’s Poultry Science Journal 2006; 62(2): 308-315.
36. Steenfeldt S., Hammershøj M. Organic egg production. I: Effects of different dietary protein contents and forage material on organic egg production, nitrogen and mineral retention and total tract digestibility of nutrients of two hen genotypes. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015; 209: 186-201.
37. Tavares BDO., Pereira DF., Salgado DDA., Mac-Lean PAB. Mortality, production and quality of eggs of different rearing systems. Engenharia Agrícola 2018; 38: 478-485.
38. Türker İ., Alkan S. Comparisons of physical and chemical characteristics of eggs obtained using hens reared in deep litter and free-range systems. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2019; 25(2): 181-188.
39. Wang J., Um P., Dickerman BA., Liu J. Zinc, magnesium, selenium and depression: a review of the evidence, potential mechanisms and implications. Nutrients 2018; 10(5): 584.
40. Wei S., Guo Y., Yan P. Comparison of two housing systems on behaviour and performance of fattening pigs. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2019; 47(1): 41-45.
41. Yenice G., Kaynar O., Ileriturk M., Hira F., Hayirli A. Quality of eggs in different production systems. Czech Journal of Food Sciences 2016; 34(4): 370-376.