Alternatif ve kafes yetiştirme sistemleri ile üretilen perakende yumurtaların kalite özellikleri

Eda İlhan Tekin; Ece Çetin; Seran Temelli; Ayşegül Eyigör

doi:10.33188/vetheder.540604

Research Article

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

Year 2019, Volume: 90 Issue: 2, 143 - 151, 15.06.2019

Eda İlhan Tekin Ece Çetin Seran Temelli Ayşegül Eyigör

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.

Keywords

Rearing systems, layer hen, egg quality traits

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

Eda İlhan Tekin Ece Çetin Seran Temelli Ayşegül Eyigör

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.

Keywords

Yetiştirme sistemleri, yumurtacı tavuk, yumurta kalite özellikleri

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

There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language	Turkish
Subjects	Veterinary Surgery
Journal Section	RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors	Eda İlhan Tekin This is me 0000-0001-7369-2130 Ece Çetin 0000-0002-8783-5507 Seran Temelli 0000-0002-8869-4929 Ayşegül Eyigör 0000-0002-2707-3117
Publication Date	June 15, 2019
Submission 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. Vet Hekim Der Derg. 2019;90(2):143-51.

Download Cover Image

Article Files

Full Text

Veteriner Hekimler Derneği Dergisi (Journal of Turkish Veterinary Medical Society) is an open access publication, and the journal’s publication model is based on Budapest Access Initiative (BOAI) declaration. All published content is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license, available online and free of charge. Authors retain the copyright of their published work in Veteriner Hekimler Derneği Dergisi (Journal of Turkish Veterinary Medical Society).

Veteriner Hekimler Derneği / Turkish Veterinary Medical Society