Influence of the ratio of the mass and volume of quail eggs on their morphometric indicators and incubation results

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya Street, Russia

10.22124/cjes.2023.6941

Abstract

In industrial quail breeding all hatching eggs are subjected to preliminary selection according to external features and egg weight. This means that the issues of evaluating hatching eggs, increasing hatchability, and the viability of young animals during artificial incubation do not lose their relevance. Comparative assessment was carried out on the quality of incubation eggs of Estonian and Manchurian Golden quail breeds with different mass-to-volume ratios, as well as the results of incubation and the values of electromagnetic impulses during the incubation of quail eggs. The material for the study was the eggs of the Estonian and Manchurian Golden (MG) breeds of quials. Eggs were selected with a shelf life of no more than 7 days. At the first phase, 100 eggs of each breed were opened and morphologically analyzed. At the second, three incubations were carried out. For each incubation, 150 eggs of the Estonian and Manchurian Golden breeds were selected, of those, 50 eggs were opened and a morphological analysis of the eggs of each breed was made. The incubation of quail eggs at the 2nd phase was carried out in IPH-10 incubators. At the 3rd phase, eggs were incubated individually in an R-COM DX-8800XP incubator. During incubation, the development of embryos was monitored by candling eggs on days 6, 11, and 16 of incubation. In the Manchurian Golden breed, 7.5 times fewer eggs fell into the first variation class, and 2.3 times more eggs into the third variation class compared to the Estonian breed (p < 0.05). The large diameter of the egg increased on average by 4.3%, while the small one decreased by 3.2%. Egg shape index increased by 3.3% in Manchurian eggs, while by 2.9% in Estonian eggs (p < 0.05). The value of the "Haugh unit" index decreased by 4.2% in the eggs of the Manchurian Golden breed, while by 5.9% in the eggs of the Estonian breed (p < 0.05). The ratio of mass and volume significantly affected the results of incubation of eggs. In the second and third classes, an average of 6.1 and 2.7% more quials hatched than in the first class. In terms of hatchability of eggs, these differences were more significant and amounted to 15.8 and 14.0%, respectively.

Keywords

References

Adeniyi, PO, Obatolu, VA & Farinde, EO 2016, "Comparative evaluation of cholesterol content and storage quality of chicken and quail eggs." World Journal of Nutrition and Health, 4.1: 5-9. DOI: 10.4172/2155-9600.1000584.
Alabdallach, AZ, Nikishov, AA, Volkova, NA, Vetokh, AN, Rebouh, NY, Semenova, VI, Petrov, AK, Rystsova, EO, Bolshakova, MV, Krotova, EA & Drukovsky, SG 2020, Histological and morphometric characteristics of chicken embryos with different genotypes. EurAsian Journal of BioSciences, 14: 719-725, Corpus ID: 219109731.
Alabdallah, Ahmad et al. 2021, "Influence of different genders of japanese quail on the functional state of kidneys." Archives of Razi Institute, 76.3: 667. DOI: 10.22092/ari.2021.355522.1694.
Alabdallah, ZA, Nikishov, AA & Karamyan, AS 2021, Sex-related of some haematological and serum biochemical changes, fed high-protein diet in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Iranian Journal of Ichthyology, 8: 150-154.
Alabdallah, Z, Nikishov, A, Vatnikov, Y, Al Ragawi, A & Seleznev, S 2021, The effect of high protein in the feed mixture on the morphological changes in the kidneys of quail birds. Journal of Chemical Health Risks, 11: 383-392, DOI: 10.22034/jchr.2021.686023.
Alikhanov, J, Moldazhanov, A, Kulmakhambetova, A, Shynybay, Z, Penchev, SM, Georgieva, TD & Daskalov, PI 2021, Express methods and procedures for determination of the main egg quality indicators. TEM Journal: Technology, Education, Management, Informatics, 10: 171-176. DOI: 10.18421/TEM101-21.
Angel Daniel, PU, Jhonn Lenon, CJ, Laura Candelaria, CH, Alabdallah, Z & Nikishov, AA 2022, Alterations in the mass of quail eggs of different densities during storage. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20: 1163-1166.
Barroeta, AC, Izquierdo, D & Pérez, JF 2011, Brief approach manual to the poultry company for veterinary students. Poultry Farming Manual, Animal Science and Food Department Animal Science Unit, Veterinary Faculty, UAB.
Domatskiy, VN 2019, Differentiated incubation of chicken eggs. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 25(Suppl. 2), 54-58. Corpus ID: 229378066.
El Tarabany, MS, Abdel-Hamid, TM & Mohammed, HH 2015, Effects of cage stocking density on egg quality traits in Japanese quails. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fak Ltesi Dergisi, 1: 13-18. DOI:10.9775/kvfd.2014.11374.
Genchev, A 2012, Comparative investigation of the egg production in two Japanese quail breeds-Pharaoh and Manchurian golden. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 10, 48-56, Corpus ID: 85588716.
Genchev, A, Ribarski, S & Zhelyazkov, G 2010, Physicochemical and technological properties of Japanese quail meat. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 8: 86-94. http://www.uni-sz.bg.
Grashorn, M, Juergens, A & Bessei, W 2016, Effects of storage conditions on egg quality. Lohmann Information, 50: 22-27.
Inci, H, Sogut, B, Sengul, T, Sengul, AY & Taysi, MR 2015, Comparison of fattening performance, carcass characteristics, and egg quality characteristics of Japanese quails with different feather colors. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 44: 390-396, http://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902015001100003.
Milojević, M, Jokić, Ž & Mitrović, S 2019, Effects of morphometric indicators on incubation values of eggs and sex of the chicks of the light hen hybrids. In Animal Models in Medicine and Biology, p. 219. IntechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89191.
Narushin, VG 2005, "Egg geometry calculation using the measurements of length and breadth." Poultry Science, 84: 482-484, DOI:10.1093/PS/84.3.482.
Narushin, VG, Romanov, MN & Griffin, DK 2021, Egg and math: introducing a universal formula for egg shape. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1505: 169-177, DOI:10.1111/nyas.14680.
Narushin, VG & Romanov, MN 2002, Egg physical characteristics and hatchability. World's Poultry Science Journal, 58: 297-303, DOI:10.1079/WPS20020023.
Nasri, H, van den Brand, H, Najar, T & Bouzouaia, M 2020, Interactions between egg storage duration and breeder age on selected egg quality, hatching results, and chicken quality. Animals, 10: 1719. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101719.
Nowaczewski, S, Kontecka, H, Rosiński, A, Koberling, S & Koronowski, P 2010, Egg quality of Japanese quail depends on layer age and storage time. Folia Biologica, 58: 201-207, https://doi.org/10.3409/fb58_3-4.201-207.
Nowaczewski, S, Witkiewicz, K, Kontecka, HE, Krystianiak, S & Rosiński, A 2010, Eggs weight of Japanese quail vs. eggs quality after storage time and hatchability results. Archiv Tierzucht, 53: 720-730, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-53-720-2010.
Ondrušíková, S, Nedomová, S, Pytel, R, Cwiková, O & Kumbár, V 2018, Effect of different storage times on japanese quail egg quality characteristics. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 12: 560-565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5219/949.
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. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 26: 401-409, DOI:10.3382/japr/pfx008.
Reijrink, I 2010, Storage of Hatching Eggs: Effects of storage and early incubation conditions on egg characteristics, embryonic development, hatchability, and chicken quality. Wageningen University and Research, Corpus ID: 90389599.
Romanoff Alexis, L & Romanoff Anastasia, J 1959, The avian egg. New York, John Wiley, London, Chapman and Hall, 620 p., https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01008354345.
Roriz, BC, Sgavioli, S, Garcia, RG, Nääs, IA, Domingues, CHF, Caldara, FR & Bernnecke, K 2016. Storage period affects weight loss of Japanese quail eggs. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola, 8: 589-592. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0178.
Sampedro, F, Rodrigo, D, Martínez, A, Barbosa Cánovas, GV & Rodrigo, M 2006, Application of pulsed electric fields in egg and egg derivatives. Food Science and Technology International, 12: 397-405. DOI: 10.1177/1082013206070430.
Shafey, TM, Al Batshan, HA, Al Hassan, MJ, Al Haidary, AA, Al Faraj, A & Ghannam, MM 2005, Embryonic growth of chicks under the influence of electric field. International Journal of Poultry Science, 4: 872-878. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2005.872.878.
Song, KT, Choi, SH & Oh, HR 2000, A comparison of egg quality of pheasant, chukar, quail and guinea fowl. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 13: 986-990. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2000.986.
Świątkiewicz, S, Arczewska Włosek, A, Krawczyk, J, Puchała, M & Jozefiak, D 2015, Dietary factors improving eggshell quality: an updated review with special emphasis on microelements and feed additives. World's Poultry Science Journal, 71: 83-94, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933915000082.
Terčič, D & Smerdu, T 2015, Effect of storage period and egg weight on hatchability in Prelux-G chickens. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 104: 69-74, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14720/aas.2014.104.2.1.
Tona, K, et al. 2003, Effects of egg storage time on spread of hatch, chick quality, and chick juvenile growth. Poultry Science, 82.5: 736-741. DOI: 10.1093/PS/82.5.736.
Troscianko, J 2014, A simple tool for calculating egg shape, volume and surface area from digital images. Ibis, 156: 874-878. DOI: 10.1111/ibi.12177.
Wang, Z, Yang, P, Xu, H, Qian, A, Hu, L & Shang, P 2009, Inhibitory effects of a gradient static magnetic field on normal angiogenesis. Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, The European Bioelectromagnetics Association, 30: 446-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20501.
Youssef, K, Archonta, D, Kubiseski, TJ, Tandon, A & Rezai, P 2020, Electric egg-laying: Effect of electric field in a microchannel on C. elegans egg-laying behavior. BioRxiv.
Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences
Volume 21, Issue 3
July 2023
Pages 629-646

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics