Öz

Bu çalışmada yumurtanın sadece üç değişkeni olan uzunluk, genişlik ve yumurta ağırlığına bağlı olarak hacmini ve özgül ağırlığını kolay olan matematiksel eşitlikler yardımıyla hesaplayarak, depolama mazisi bilinmeyen yumurtaların ağırlığı, hacim ve özgül ağırlığı arasındaki ilişkiler ortaya konmaktadır. Aksaray yöresindeki altı yetiştiricinin Gri Çin, Linda ve Aksaray yöresi Yerli kazlar olmak üzere üç kaz genotipine ait yumurtalar çalışmada kullanılmıştır. Yumurtaların yetiştiricilere göre dağılımları birinciden 6. yetiştiriciye doğru sırasıyla 100, 6, 287, 52, 13 ve 23 tanedir. Yumurtaların genotiplere dağılımları ise Gri Çin, Linda ile Aksaray yöresi Yerli kazlarda sırasıyla 113, 32 ile 336 tane olmak üzere toplam 481 tanedir. Yumurta uzunlık ve genişliğinin ölçümleri 0.01 mm hassasiyetinde dijital kumpasla yapılmıştır. Yumurta ağırlık ortalamaları genotiplerde büyükten küçüğe doğru Linda, Yerli ve Çin kazlarında sırasıyla 165.9, 137.2 ile 131.1 g ve yumurta hacmi ortalamaları sırasıyla 152.0, 126.0 ile 120.3 cm3 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Özgül ağırlıkları Linda, Çin ve Yerli kazlarda sırasıyla 1.092, 1.091 ve 1.089 g/cm3 şeklinde gerçekleşmiştir. Çalışmada yumurta hacmi matematiksel eşitliklerle hesaplanmış ve gerçeğe yakın sonuçlar alınmış buna bağlı olarak da hesaplanan özgül ağırlık da gerçeğe yakın tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlar sadece yumurta ağırlığı, uzunluğu ve genişliği bilinmesi sayesinde kolay bir şekilde elde edilmiştir. Bu yöntem sayesinde özgül ağırlık ile yumurta hakkında pek çok bilgi edinmenin yolunu da açabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Relationship between weight, volume and specific gravity of goose eggs before incubation

Abstract

In this study, the relationships between the weight, volume and specific gravity of eggs are revealed by calculating egg's volume and specific gravity depending on the weight of the egg, breadth and length, which are only three variables, with mathematical equations. Eggs to three goose genotypes, Grey China, Linda and Native geese from Aksaray region taken from six breeders were used. Eggs (n=481) were weighed and Length, Breadth measurements made with a precision of 0.01 mm. Average weights in genotypes from large to small in Linda, Native and Chinese geese were detected as; 165.9, 137.2 and 131.1 g, respectively, and the average egg volume was found as; 152.0, 126.0 and 120.3 cm3, respectively. Specific gravity from large to small in Linda, China and Native has occurred as; 1.092, 1.091 and 1.089 g/cm3. Egg volume was calculated with mathematical equations and results were close to real, and accordingly the calculated Specific gravity was also detected to be realistic. These results were obtained easily by only three variables, egg weight, and Length and Breadth values. This method can pave the way to obtain a lot of information about the egg with Specific gravity.

Keywords

• Correlation
• goose
• egg
• regression
• specific gravity

References

1. Adegbenjo, A. O., Liu, L. & Ngadi, M. O. (2020). Non-destructive assessment of chicken egg fertility. Sensors; 20,5546.
2. Ahmad, I., Alam, M. D. J., Haque, M. D. S. & Mamdud, M. A. A. (2017). Proximate analysis and assessment the physical characteristics of different types of duck eggs in Bangladesh. Journal of Engineering and Science Research 1(2)38-42.
3. Alaşahan, S., Garip, M., Çağlayan T. & Ateş, C. (2019). Examination of some external quality traits of goose, duck and turkey eggs in public farms. Harran University Journal of The Faculty of Veterinary Medicin, 8(1),21-25.
4. Arroyo, C. L. (1990). Specific gravity, weight and the percentage of shell, white and yolk in goose eggs. Agronomía Costarricense, 14(1), 99-102.
5. Arslan, C. & Saatçi, M. (2003). Egg yield and hatchability characteristics of native geese in the Kars Region. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 27(6),136-365.
6. Carey, C. (1994). Structural and physiological differences between montane and lowland avian eggs and embryos. Journal of Biosciences, 19(4), 429-440.
7. Çetingül, İ. S. & İnal, F. (2009). The effects of hazelnut and sunflower oil used in the diets of layer hens and broilers on performance and fatty acid composition of animal products. Revue de Medecine Veterinaire, 160(4), 197-203.
8. Çopur-Akpınar, G., Alaşahan, S. & Canoğulları-Doğan, S. (2017). Determination of the egg quality characteristics with mathematical formulas in pekin ducks grown in public farms. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 5(12), 1470-1475.

9. ÇŞB (2021, April 27). Aksaray İli Temiz Hava Eylem Planı - THEP (2014-2019). https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/aksaray/webmenu/webmenu13783.pdf
10. Erensayın, C. (Eds). (2000). Bilimsel-teknik-pratik tavukçuluk 3. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
11. Eskin, B., Tuncer, M., Uslu-Divanoğlu, S. & Avan, A. (2017). Dynamics of Aksaray province. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(61), 237-248.
12. Golze, M. (1991). Four years of use and the right time of hatching result in more hatching eggs and goslings for laying geese. Tierzucht, 45, 524-526.
13. Hamadani, H., Khan, A.A., Sofi, A, H., Salahuddin, M. & Bihaqi, S. F. A. (2016). Quality traits and grades of geese eggs produced under local conditions of Kashmir. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 51(2), 192-195.
14. Hamilton, R. M. G. (1982). Methods and factors that affect the measurement of egg shell quality. Poultry Science, 61, 2022-2039.
15. Hoyt, D. F. (1979). Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. American Ornithological Society, 96, 73-77.
16. IBM (2013). SPSS Statistics. version 22.
17. Karabulut, O. (in press). Estimation of External Quality Characteristics of Goose Eggs of Known Breadth and Length. Veterinární Medicína.
18. Karabulut, O., Ün, H., Çamkerten, İ., Garip, M. & Bulut G. (2017). Aksaray yöresi kazlarda kuluçka randımanı üzerine araştırmalar. Journal of Bahri Dagdas Animal Research, 6(1), 13-22.
19. Kumbar, V., Nedomova, S., Trnka, J., Buchar, J. & Pytel, R. (2016). Effect of storage duration on the rheological properties of goose liquid egg products and eggshell membranes. Poultry Science, 95, 1693-1701.
20. Lawrence, K. C., Smith, D. P., Windham, W. R., Heitschmidt, G. W. & Park, B. (2006). Egg embryo development detection with hyperspectral imaging. International Journal of Poultry Science, 5(10), 964-969.
21. MEB (2019, April 27). Gıda teknolojisi yoğunluk ve kıvam ölçümü. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Ankara. http://megep.meb.gov.tr/mte_program_modul/moduller_pdf/Yo%C4%9Funluk%20Ve%20K%C4%B1vam%20%C3%96l%C3%A7%C3%BCm%C3%BC.pdf
22. Narushin, V. G. (2005). Production, modeling, and education-egg geometry calculation usingthe measurements of length and breadth. Poultry Science, 84(3):482-484.
23. Nedomová, Š. & Buchar, J. (2014). Goose eggshell geometry. Research in Agricultural Engineering, 60,100-106.
24. Nemati, Z., Ahmadian, H., Besharati, M., Lesson, S., Alirezalu, K., Domínguez, R. & Lorenzo, J. M. (2020). Assessment of dietary selenium and Vitamin E on laying performance and quality parameters of fresh and stored eggs in Japanese Quails. Foods, 9(9), 1324.
25. Önk, K. & Kırmızıbayrak, T. (2019). The egg production, hatchability, growing, slaughterand carcass characteristics of geese (Anser Anser) reared under breeders conditions in Kars province; I. Egg production and hatchability characteristics. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Scienceand Technology, 7(3), 543-549.
26. Özbey, M. (1998). Kars Kazcılık Üretme İstasyonunda yetiştirilen Fransız beyazı (INRA) ırkı kazların yumurta verimi ve kuluçka özellikleri (Publication No. 49927) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Kafkas University]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
27. Paganelli, C. V., Olszowka, A. & Ar, A. (1974). The avian egg: surface area, volume, and density. The Condor, 76(3), 319-325.
28. Preston, F. W. (2010). The volume of an egg. American Ornithological Society 1974; 91:132-138.
29. Rabsztyn, A., Andres, K. & Dudek M. (2010). Variability, heritability and correlations of egg shape in the Zatorska goose. Journal of Central European Agriculture 11(4), 433-436.
30. Rahn, H., Carey, C., Balmas, K., Bhatia, B. & Paganelli, C. V. (1977). Reduction of pore area of the avian eggshell as an adaptation to altitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 74, 3095-3098.
31. Ramos, M., Gonzales, O., Avila A., Perez, Z., Guash, S., Diz, M., Puente, D. & Toledo, E. (1989). Effect of wiping or washing on the hatching results of goose eggs. Rev. Avicult, 33, 163-172.
32. Razmaitė, V., Šveistienė, R. & Švirmickas, G. J. (2013). Effect of laying stage on egg characteristics and yolk fatty acid profile from different-aged geese. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 42(2), 127-132.
33. Saatci, M., Kırmızıbayrak, T., Aksoy, A. R. & Tilki, M. (2005). Egg weight, shape index and hatching weight and interrelationships among these Traits in Native Turkish Geese with different coloured feathers. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 29, 353-357.
34. Saatçi, M., Yardımcı, M., Kaya, İ. & Poyraz, Ö. Kars İli Kazlarında Bazı Yumurta Özellikleri. Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 42(2), 37-45. Sunardi, S., Yudhana, A. & Saifullah, S. (2017). Identity analysis of egg based on digital and thermal imaging: image processing and counting object concept. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 7(1), 200-208.
35. Tilki, M. & İnal, Ş. (2004a). Yield traits of geese of different origins reared in Turkey I. Hatching traits. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 28(1), 149-155.
36. Tilki, M. & İnal, Ş. (2004b). Quality traits of goose eggs. 1. Effects of goose age and storage time of eggs. European Poultry Science, 68, 182-186.
37. Toth, S. (1991). Development of goose for fat liver production part III. Efforts in establishing a synthetic population from landaise and hungarian breeds. Bulletin of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Godollo, 77-88.
38. Yayvan, M., Çelik, S. & Ersoy, S. (2008). Aksaray iklimi ve küresel ısınma. Su Enerji Sağlık Sempozyumu; Ekim 20-23; Aksaray. Türkiye.