Research Article Open Access

Grading and Size Classification of Chicken Eggs Produced by Native, Egg-Type, Meat-Type, Dual-Purpose and Fancy-Type Breeds Under Philippine Conditions

Authors

O.L. Bondoc
Institute of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Food Science, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
|
R.C. Santiago
National Swine and Poultry Research and Development Center (NSPRDC), Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), Department of Agriculture (DA), Tiaong, Quezon 4325, Philippines
|
A.R. Bustos
Institute of Human Nutrition and Food (IHNF), College of Human Ecology (CHE), University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB), College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
|
A.O. Ebron
Institute of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Food Science, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
|
A.R. Ramos
Institute of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Food Science, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
Published on: January 15, 2021
DOI 10.3923/ijps.2021.87.97
PDF

Abstract

Background and Objective: The egg grading and size classification system used for commercial chicken breeds and hybrids is proposed for Philippine native chickens. In this regard, this study aimed to compare the egg characteristics of native breeds to egg-type, meat-type, dual-purpose and fancy-type breeds. Materials and Methods: A total of 315 eggs from 14 chicken breeds was used in this study. The size, shape, internal and external egg quality characteristics were analyzed. Egg parameters were analyzed by least square procedures to account for the effects of breed, size, grade classification and hen age. Results: Egg weight was highly correlated (p<0.01) with yolk weight (r = 0.72), albumen weight (r = 0.90) and shell weight (r = 0.71) but not related (p>0.05) to Haugh Unit. According to the size classification system the eggs were 4.1% jumbo, 7.3% extra-large, 20.3% large, 21.9% medium, 39.7% small and 6.7% peewee. Egg distribution by grade classification based on Haugh Unit was 13.3% Grade AA, 40.6% Grade A, 43.2% Grade B and 2.9% Grade C. Conclusion: Philippine native chickens (Banabang Kalabaw, Joloano, Paraoakan and Palawan Lasak), Black Silkies and White Silkies eggs were classified as small, while White Rock eggs were classified as medium. Black Australorp, Barred Plymouth Rock, New Hampshire, Rhode Island Red and Taiwan Yellow eggs were classified as large. Nagoya and White Leghorn eggs were classified as extra-large. The Philippine native chickens, Barred Plymouth Rock, New Hampshire, Taiwan Yellow and White Leghorn eggs were classified as Grade A. Eggs from White Rock, Black Silkies, White Silkies, Black Australorp, Nagoya and Rhode Island Red were classified as Grade B.

Keywords:

Albumen, commercial chicken breeds, egg grading, egg production, egg yolk, size classification

Article Metrics

1,025 Abstract Views
1,678 File Views
0 Downloads

License

Copyright (c) 2021 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Article Citation Metrics

Find Grading and Size Classification of Chicken Eggs Produced by Native, Egg-Type, Meat-Type, Dual-Purpose and Fancy-Type Breeds Under Philippine Conditions on PlumX

How to Cite

Bondoc , O., Santiago, R., Bustos, A., Ebron, A., & Ramos, A. (2021). Grading and Size Classification of Chicken Eggs Produced by Native, Egg-Type, Meat-Type, Dual-Purpose and Fancy-Type Breeds Under Philippine Conditions. International Journal of Poultry Science, 20(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2021.87.97
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

1.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2019. Food Consumption and Nutrition. Report No. 2019-6. https://bit.ly/2NUZ5n6.
2.
Department of Science and Technology - Food and Nutrition Research Institute, 2016. Philippine Nutrition Facts and Figures 2015: Dietary Survey. FNRI Bldg., DOST Compound, Gen. Santos Avenue, Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. https://bit.ly/3jn9yUg
3.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2019. Chicken Situation Report: January to December 2018. https://bit.ly/2MnTjKB
4.
AEB., 2012. Eggcyclopedia - The incredible edible egg. American Egg Board (AEB). https://bit.ly/3avzusD.
5.
FAO., 2007. Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration. Proceeding of the International Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Interlaken, September 3-7, 2007 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1-37.
6.
Rizzi, C., 2020. Yield performance, laying behaviour traits and egg quality of purebred and hybrid hens reared under outdoor conditions. Animals, Vol. 10, No. 4.
7.
Haugh, R.R., 1937. The haugh unit for measuring egg quality. US Egg Poultry Magazine, 43: 552-555.
8.
USDA, 2000. Egg-grading Manual. Agriculture Handbook Number, USDA.
9.
Bureau of Product Standards, 2005. Philippine National Standard (PNS) for Table Egg. https://bit.ly/3rl8rqF
10.
SAS., 2008. SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
11.
Johnston, S.A. and R.M. Gous, 2007. Modelling the changes in the proportions of the egg components during a laying cycle. Br. Poult. Sci., 48: 347-353.
12.
Hidalgo, A., M. Rossi, F. Clerici and S. Ratti, 2008. A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chem., 106: 1031-1038.
13.
Burley, R.W. and D.V. Vahedra, 1989. The Albumen: Chemistry. In: The avian egg : Chemistry and biology, Burley, R.W. and D.V. Vahedra, (Eds.). Wiley, Michigan, pp: 65-128,.
14.
Roberts, J.R., 2004. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. J. Poult. Sci., 41: 161-177.
15.
Silversides, F.G. and T.A. Scott, 2001. Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poult. Sci., 80: 1240-1245.
16.
Zita, L., E. Tumova and L. Stolc, 2009. Effects of genotype, age and their ınteraction on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Vet. Brno, 78: 85-91.
17.
Sahan, U., A. Ipek and A. Sozcu, 2014. Yolk sac fatty acid composition, yolk absorption, embryo development and chick quality during incubation in eggs from young and old broiler breeders. Poult. Sci., 93: 2069-2077.
18.
Lordelo, M., J. Cid, C.M.D.S. Cordovil, S.P. Alves, R.J.B. Bessa and I. Carolino, 2020. A comparison between the quality of eggs from indigenous chicken breeds and that from commercial layers. Poult. Sci., 99: 1768-1776.
19.
Rizzi, C. and A. Marangon, 2012. Quality of organic eggs of hybrid and Italian breed hens. Poult. Sci., 91: 2330-2340.
20.
Sarma, M., N. Nahardeka, R. Islam, M. Borah, P. Deka and J. Mahanta, 2017. Fatty acid profiles and physical qualities of different varieties of chicken and duck eggs. Int. J. Livest. Res., 7: 105-111.
21.
Choudhuri, N.C., G. Paul, A. Kundu, M.S. Kundu, Arun Kumar De and N. Ram, 2014. Evaluation of egg quality traits of endangered Nicobari fowl and its crosses under intensive and backyard system of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Vet. World, 7: 693-697.
22.
Haunshi, S., M. Niranjan, M. Shanmugam, M.K. Padhi, M.R. Reddy et al., 2011. Characterization of two Indian native chicken breeds for production, egg and semen quality, and welfare traits. Poult. Sci., 90: 314-320.
23.
Mohanty, P.K. and Y. Nayak, 2011. Comparative evaluation of egg quality traits of native chicken population of Bhubaneswar with other improved chicken breeds. Indian J. Poult. Sci., 46: 390-395.
24.
Ahmad, S., A. Mahmud, J. Hussain and K. Javed, 2019. Productive performance, egg characteristics and hatching traits of three chicken genotypes under free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive housing systems. Braz. J. Poult. Sci., Vol. 21.
25.
Van, D.N., N. Moula, E. Moyse, L.D. Duc, T.V. Dinh and F. Farnir, 2020. Productive performance and egg and meat quality of two indigenous poultry breeds in Vietnam, Ho and Dong Tao, fed on commercial feed. Animals.
26.
Mube, H.K., J.R. Kana, C.D. Tadondjou, D.D.M. Yemdjie, Y. Manjeli and A. Teguia, 2014. Laying performances and egg quality of local barred hens under improved conditions in Cameroon. J. Applied Biosci., 74: 6157-6163.
27.
Yonas, K., B. Sandip and T. Mestawet, 2019. Some internal and external egg quality characteristics of local and exotic chickens reared in Yirgalem and Hawassa towns, Ethiopia. Int. J. Livest. Prod., 10: 135-142.
28.
Udoh, U.H., B. Okon and A.P. Udoh, 2012. Egg quality characteristics, phenotypic correlations and prediction of egg weight in three (naked neck, frizzled feather and normal feathered) Nigerian local chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 11: 696-699.
29.
Moula, N., N. Antoine-Moussiaux, E. Decuypere, F. Farnir, K. Mertens, J. de Baerdemaeker and P. Leroy, 2010. Comparative study of egg quality traits in two Belgian local breeds and two commercial lines of chickens. Arch. Geflügelk., 74: 164-171.
30.
Hocking, P.M., M. Bain, C.E. Channing, R.H. Fleming and S. Wilson, 2003. Genetic variation for egg production, egg quality and bone strength in selected and traditional breeds of laying fowl. Br. Poult. Sci., 44: 365-373.
31.
Monira, K.N., M. Salahuddin and G. Miah, 2003. Effect of breed and holding period on egg quality characteristics of chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 2: 261-263.
32.
Hrnčár, C., B. Biesiada-Drzazga, N. Nikolova, E. Hanusová, A. Hanus and J. Bujko, 2016. Comparative analysis of the external and internal egg quality in different pure chicken breeds. Acta Fytotechnica Zootechnica, 19: 123-127.
33.
Varguez-Montero, G., L. Sarmiento-Franco, R. Santos-Ricalde and J. Segura-Correa, 2011. Egg production and quality under three housing systems in the tropics. Trop. Anim. Health Prod, 44: 201-204.
34.
Hanusova, E., C. Hrnčár, A. Hanus and M. Oravcova, 2015. Effect of breed on some parameters of egg quality in laying hens. Acta Fytotechnica Zootechnica, 18: 12-24.
35.
Krawczyk, J., 2009. Effect of layer AGE and egg production level on changes in quality traits of eggs from hens of conservation breeds and commercial hybrids. Ann. Anim. Sci., 9: 185-193.
36.
Kraus, A., L. Zita, O. Krunt, Z. Volek, M. Tyller and V. Anderle, 2020. Comparison of basic internal and external egg quality traits of brown and white egg-laying hens in relationship to their age. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun., 68: 49-56.
37.
Sreenivas, D., M.G. Prakash, M. Mahender, R.N. Chatterjee and D. Sreenivas et al., 2013. Genetic analysis of egg quality traits in White Leghorn chicken. Vet. World, 6: 263-266.
38.
Rath, P.K., P.K. Mishra, B.K. Mallick and N.C. Behura, 2015. Evaluation of different egg quality traits and interpretation of their mode of inheritance in white Leghorns. Vet. World, 8: 449-452.
39.
Ledvinka, Z., L. Zita and L. Klesalová, 2012. Egg quality and some factors influencing it: A review. Sci. Agric. Bohemica, 43: 46-52.
40.
FNRI., 2019. Food Exchange Lists for Meal Planning. 4th Edn., Food and Nutrition Research Institute, Philippines,.