Jibran HUSSAIN, Erum BUGHIO, Ahmed Sultan JATOI, Anjum KHALIQUE, Sohail AHMAD, Athar MAHMUD, Muhammad USMAN, Shahid MEHMOOD

Quality, nutritional, and sensory attributes of Naked Neck chicken eggs as influenced by production systems and dietary regimens

This study evaluated the quality, nutritional, and sensory attributes of Naked Neck chicken eggs when birds were subjected to different housing and nutritional regimens. Birds were maintained in two rearing systems (intensive & free-range) with five dietary treatments based on commercial feed (CF) and kitchen waste (KW), i.e. 100% CF, 75% CF + 25% KW, 50% CF + 50% KW, 25% CF + 75% KW, and 100% KW. A total of 500 eggs, comprised of ten per replicate (50 per treatment) were used. Higher (p ≤ 0.05) shell weight and thickness, shape index, egg volume, yolk index and weight, egg specific gravity, and Haugh unit score were observed in birds reared under the intensive system. Egg and shell weight, shape index, volume, yolk index and weight, specific gravity, haugh unit were higher (p ≤ 0.05) in birds fed with 100 % KW. Egg moisture percentage was higher (p ≤ 0.05) in birds fed with 75% KW; crude protein and ash percentage were higher in birds fed with 25 and 50 % KW, respectively. Egg taste and flavour were better (p ≤ 0.05) in birds fed with 100% KW. It is concluded that egg quality, nutritional, and sensory attributes were improved when Naked Neck chickens were reared under the intensive system and fed kitchen waste up to 75 %.

PDF

___

1. Krawczyk J, Gornowicz E. Quality of eggs from hens kept in two different free-range systems in comparison with a barn system. European Poultry Science. 2010; 74 (3): 151-157.
2. Henchion M, Hayes M, Mullen AM, Fenelon M, Tiwari B. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods. 2017; 6: 53 (6): 1-21. doi: 10.3390/foods6070053
3. Miranda JM, Anton X, Redondo VC, Roca-Saavedra P, Rodriguez JA et al. Egg and egg-derived foods: effects on human health and use as functional foods. Nutrients. 2015; 7 (1): 706-729. doi: 10.3390/nu7010706
4. Roberts JR. Factors affecting egg shell and internal egg quality. Journal of Poultry Science. 2010; 41 (3): 161-177. doi: 10.2141/ jpsa.41.161
5. Carrillo S, Rios VH, Calvo C, Carranco ME, Casas M et al. N-3 fatty acid content in eggs laid by hens fed with marine algae and sardine oil and stored at different times and temperatures. Journal of Applied Phycology. 2012; 24 (3): 593-599. doi. 10.1007/S10811-011-9777
6. Islam MS, Dutta RK. Egg quality traits of indigenous, exotic and crossbred chickens’ in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. Journal of Life Earth Science. 2010; 5 (1): 63-67. doi: 10.3329/jles. v5i0.7352
7. Jones DR, Musgrove MT, Anderson KE, Thesmar HS. Physical quality and composition of retail shell eggs. Poultry Science. 2010; 89 (3): 582-587. doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00315
8. Isidahomen CE, Njidda AA, Olatunji EA. Egg quality traits of indigenous and exotic chickens as influenced by specific genes. Journal of Biology Agriculture Healthcare. 2013; 3 (1): 53-57
9. Cepero R, Hernándiz A. Effects of housing systems for laying hens on egg quality and safety. XVI European Symposium on the Quality of eggs and Egg Products, Nantes, France, Book of Abstracts, World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2015; 71 (1): 23.
10. Popova T, Petkov E, Ayasan T, Ignatova M. Quality of eggs from layers reared under alternative and conventional system. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 2020; 22 (1): 1-8. doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2019-1172
11. Tufarelli V, Baghban-Kanani P, Azimi-Youvalari S, Hosseintabar-Ghasemabad B, Slozhenkina M et al. Effects of horsetail (Equisetum arvense) and spirulina (Spirulina platensis) dietary supplementation on laying hens productivity and oxidative status. Animals. 2021; 11 (2): 335. doi: 10.3390/ ani11020335
12. Simeneh G. Review on the effect of feed and feeding on chicken performance. Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Veterinary Science. 2019; 3 (4): 1-4. doi: 10.15761/AHDVS.1000171
13. Sekeroglu A, Sarica M, Demir E, Ulutas Z, Tilki M, Saatci M, Omid H. Effect of different housing systems on different traits and egg quality of laying hens. Journal of Animal Advances. 2010; 9 (12): 1739-1744. doi.10.3923/java.2010.1739.1744
14. Lay DCJR, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karacher DM, Kjear JB et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science. 2011; 90 (1): 278-294. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-00962
15. Yousif IA, Eltayeb NM. Performance of Sudanese native Dwarf and Bare Neck chicken raised under improved traditional production system. Agriculture Biological Journal of North America. 2011; 2 (5): 860-866.
16. Olaniyi OA, Oyenaiya OA, Sogunle OM, Akinola OS, Adeyemi OA et al. Free range and deep litter housing systems: effect on performance and blood profile of two strains of cockerel chickens. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems. 2012; 15 (3): 511-523. doi: 10.1007/s11250-012-0213-2
17. Ojedapo LO. Effect of two housing systems (cages vs deep litter) on external and internal egg characteristics of commercial laying birds reared in derived savanna zone of Nigeria. Transnational Journal of Science and Technology. 2013; 3 (7): 25-34.
18. Canogullari S, Baylan M, Bulancak A, Ayaşan T. Differences in performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality between fast- and slow-growing broiler genotypes. Progress in Nutrition. 2019; 21 (3): 558-565, doi: 10.23751/pn.v21i3.7747
19. Johnston NP, Jefferies LK, Rodriguez B, Johnston DE. Acceptance of brown-shelled eggs in a white-shelled egg market. Poultry Science. 2011; 90 (5): 1074–1079. doi. org/10.3382/ps.2010
20. Sadef S, Khan MS, Rehman MS. Indigenous chicken production in Punjab: a detailed survey through participatory rural appraisals. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2015; 25 (5): 1273-1282.
21. Chen X, Jiang W, Tan HZ, Xu GF, Zhang XB et al. Effects of outdoor access on growth performance, carcass composition, and meat characteristics of broiler chickens. Poultry Science. 2013; 92 (2): 435-443. doi: 10.3382/ps.2012-02360
22. Bell DD, Weaver WD. Commercial chicken meat and egg production. Springer Science & Business Media, LLC. New York, USA. ebook, 2002; 46-48.
23. Haugh RR. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. US Egg Poultry Magazine. 1937; 43 (1): 552- 555.
24. Association of official analytical chemist. Official method analytical chemist Washington DC. 1990.
25. Tuba K, Asad KT, Majid M, Sara A. Analysis of essential elements in commercially important Lobster species collected from coastal areas of Karachi city, Pakistan. Journal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Science. 2015; 5 (2): 103-113. doi: 10.6000/1927- 5951.2015.05.02.2
26. Adeyeye EI. Comparative study on the characteristics of egg shells of some bird species. Bulletin of Chemical Society of Ethiopia. 2009; 23 (2): 159-166. doi: 10.4314/bcse.v23i2.44957
27. Al-Yasiry ARM, Kiczorowska B, Samolińska W. Nutritional value and content of mineral elements in the meat of broiler chickens fed Boswel-lia serrata supplemented diets. Journal of Elementology. 2017; 22 (3): 1027-1037. doi: 10.5601/ jelem.2017.22.1.1294
28. Hayat Z, Nasir M, Rasul H. Egg quality and organoleptic evaluation of nutrient enriched designer eggs. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Science. 2014; 51 (4): 1085-1089.
29. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955; 11 (1): 1-42.
30. Cimrin T, Tunca Rİ, Avsaroglu MD, Ayasan T, Kücükersan. Effects of an antibiotic and two phytogenic substances (cinnamaldehyde and 1,8-cineole) on yolk fatty acid profile and storage period-associated egg lipid peroxidation level. Revista Brasileira de Zootechnia. 2020; 49: e20190270. doi: 10.37496/ rbz4920190270
31. Englmaierová M, Tůmová E, Charvátová V, Skřivan M. Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination. Czech Journal of Animal Science. 2014; 59 (8): 345–352.
32. Tumova E, Englmaierova M, Ledvinka Z, Charvatova V. Interaction between housing system and genotype in relation to internal and external egg quality parameters. Czech Journal of Animal Science. 2011; 56 (11): 490-498. doi: 10.17221/8596- CJAS
33. Usman M, Mahmud A, Hussain J, Javid A. Performance of Rhode Island Red, Black Australorp, and Naked Neck crossbreds under alternative production systems. South African Journal of Animal Science. 2020; 50 (4): 564-577.
34. Ledvinka Z, Tůmová E, Englmaierová M, Podsedníček M. Egg quality of three laying hen genotypes kept in conventional cages and on litter. European Poultry Science. 2012; 76 (1): 38-43.
35. Roll VFB, Ricardo CBG, Adolfo ML. Floor versus cage rearing: effects on production, egg quality and physical condition of laying hens housed in furnished cages. Ciência Rural Santa Maria. 2009; 39 (5): 1527-1532. doi: 10.1590/S0103- 8478200900500034
36. Yang HMZ, Yang W, Wang ZY, Wang HN, Sun XJ et al. Effects of different housing systems on visceral organs, serum biochemical proportions, immune performance and egg quality of laying hens. European Poultry Science. 2014; 78 (1): 1-9. doi: 10.1399/eps.2014.48
37. Lewko L, Gornowicz E. Effect of housing system on egg quality in laying eggs. Journal of Animal Science. 2011; 11 (4): 607-616. doi: 10.2478/v10220-011-0012-0
38. Pistekova V, Hovorka M, Vecerek V, Strakova E, Suchy P. The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech Journal of Animal Science. 2006; 51 (7): 318-325.
39. Mohammed KAF, Franco LS, Ricalde RS, Sanchez JFS. Egg production, egg quality and crop content of Rhode Island Red hens grazing on natural tropical vegetation. Tropical Animal and Health Production. 2013; 45 (2): 367-372. doi.10.1007/ s11250-012-0225-y
40. Mahboub HDH, Muller J, Von-borell E. Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science. 2004; 45 (6): 738-744. doi: 10.1080/00071660400014267.
41. Abou-Elezz FMK, Franco LS, Ricalde RS, Sanchez FS. Nutritional effects of dietary inclusion of Leucaena leucocephala and Moringa oleifera leaf meal on Rhode Island Red hens’ performance. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science. 2011; 45 (2): 163-169.
42. Mutayoba SK, Katule AK, Minga U, Mtambo MM, Olsen JE. The effect of supplementation on the performance of free range local chickens in Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2012; 24 (5).
43. Karcher DM, Jones DR, Abdo Z, Zhao Y, Shepherd TA et al. Impact of commercial housing systems and nutrient and energy intake on laying hen performance and egg quality parameters. Poultry Science.2015; 94 (3): 485–501. doi: 10.3382/ps/peu078
44. Stanley VG, Nelson D, Daley MB. Evaluation of two laying systems (floor vs. cage) on egg production, quality, and safety. Agrotechnology. 2013; 2 (1):109. doi: 10.4172/2168- 9881.1000109
45. Jones DR, Karcher DM, Abdo Z. Effect of a commercial housing system on egg quality during extended storage. Poultry Science. 2014; 93 (5): 1282-1288. doi: 10.3382/ps.2013-03631
46. Laywel Project. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. Deliverable 2006; 6.2: Report on production and egg quality.
47. Catli AU, Bozkurt M, Kuckyilmaz K, Cinar M, Bintas E et al. Performance and egg quality of aged laying hens fed diets supplemented with meat and bone meal or oyster shell meal. South African Journal of Animal Science. 2012; 42 (1): 74-82. doi: 10.10520/EJC118968
48. Ukachukwu SN, Akpan VO. Influence of level and duration of quantitative feed restriction on post-restriction egg-laying characteristics and egg quality of pullets. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2007; 6 (8): 567-572.
49. Richards MP, Poch SM, Coon CN, Rosebrough RW, Ashwell CM et al. Feed restriction significantly alters lipogenic gene expression in broiler breeder chickens. Journal of Nutrition. 2003; 133 (3): 707-715. doi: 10.1093/jn/133.3.707
50. Oyedeji JO, Orheruata AM, Omatsuli M. Effects of feed rationing on the laying performance of 40 weeks in lay hens. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 2007; 5 (2): 301-303.
51. Robinson FE, Zuidhof MJ, Renema RA. The reproductive efficiency and metabolism of female broiler breeders as affected by genotype feed allocation, and age at photo stimulation. 1. Pullet growth and development. Poultry Science. 2007; 86(10): 2256-2266. doi: 10.1093/ps/86.10.2256
52. Simeneh G. Review on the effect of feed and feeding on chicken performance. Animal Husbandry and Dairy Veterinary Science. 2019; (3): 1-4. doi: 10.15761/AHDVS.1000171
53. Ruuskanen S, Darras VM, de Vries B, Visser ME, Groothuis TGG. Experimental manipulation of food availability leads to short-term intra clutch adjustment in egg mass but not in yolk androgen or thyroid hormones. Journal of Avian Biology. 2016; 47 (1): 36-46. doi: 10.5061/dryad.hb349
54. Hayat Z, Cherian G, Pasha TN, Khattak FM, Jabbar MA. Sensory evaluation and consumer acceptance of eggs from hens fed flax seed and 2 different antioxidants. Poultry Science. 2010; 89 (10): 2293–2298. doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00575
55. Rossi M. Influence of the laying hen housing on table egg characteristics. Proc. XII European. Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg Products, Prague. 2007; 49-51. doi: 10.3390/ su12197884
56. Drazbo A, Mikulski D, Zdunczyk Z, Szmatowicz B, Rutkowski A et al. Fatty acid composition, physicochemical and sensory properties of eggs from laying hens fed diets containing blue lupine seeds. European Poultry Science. 2014; 78 (1): 1-14. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev092
57. Sophie RG, Nicolas G, Yves N. The golden egg: nutritional value, bioactivities, and emerging benefits for human health. Nutrients. 2019; 11 (3): 684. doi: 10.3390/nu11030684