International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering 2015, 5(1): 59-67

DOI: 10.5923/[Link].20150501.08

Proximate Composition and Physical Characteristics of

Eggs from Laying Chickens Fed Different Proprietary
Vitamin-Mineral Premixes Under Two Rearing Systems
During Storage
Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole*, Akinola Yinka Paul Ojelade,
Mutiu Oyeyemi Oyewo, Emem Aquawo Essien

Agricultural Biochemistry & Nutrition Unit, Department of Animal Science, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract The proximate composition and physical characteristics of eggs from laying chickens fed diets supplemented
with five different proprietary vitamin-mineral premixes (VMP) under two rearing systems (RS) in the duration of storage
(DOS) were assessed. A 240 twenty week-old black Bovan nera chickens at the point of lay were randomly allotted equally to
two RS in the deep litter (DL) and battery cages (BC)., Pullets were further allocated in each RS to five dietary treatments of
24 birds per treatment each in triplicate of eight birds per replicate. Five isocaloric and isonitrogenous diets formulated were
each supplemented with 0.25% of the different VMP 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to obtain treatments T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 respectively.
Experimental diets and water were offered to respective birds ad libitum. At week 36, 75 eggs were sampled from each RS,
stored at room temperature and thereafter assayed at days 0, 7, 14, 21 and 28. The experiment was a 2 X 6 X 5 factorial
arrangement in completely randomized design. Crude protein (11.63%) and ether extract (7.67%) were significantly higher
(P<0.05) in eggs from hens fed T1 compared to others. Crude protein (11.45 to 11.59), and ash (1.24 to 1.34) increased
significantly (P<0.05) with decreased moisture content during storage. Shell thickness, weight loss, albumen height, and
Haugh unit were significantly affected (P<0.05) by the DL. Egg albumen heights from birds fed diets T1 (3.69), T4 (3.67) and
T5 (3.72) were significantly higher (P<0.05) compared to that fed T3. Haugh unit (83.08 to 15.38), albumen height (6.99 to
1.62), yolk height (15.52 to 5.41) and yolk index (41.94 to 11.38) decreased while albumen pH (8.77 to 9.39) and weight loss
(0.0 to 3.2) increased significantly (P<0.05) with DOS. Interaction among RS, VMP type and DOS were not significantly
different (P>0.05) for all parameters measured. Haugh unit and yolk index relative to DOS both gave negative and highly
significant (P<0.01) regression equations: y = 0.000x4-0.044x3+0.864x2-7.915x+83.08 (R2 =0.874) and y = -0.000x3
+0.050x2-1.861x+41.89 (R2 =0.935) respectively. Conclusively, extent of reduction in egg quality in the DOS was influenced
by the different dietary VMP employed in the feeding as well as the hens RS.
Keywords Duration of storage, Haugh unit, Chemical composition, Egg quality indices, Yolk index

to improved safety, reliability and performance [3] of laying

1. Introduction birds and quality of eggs produced. However, in Nigeria like
some other developing countries, refrigeration of eggs is
Vitamin and mineral supplementations in layer diet seldom practiced and eggs produced are temporarily stored
remained indispensable due to their participation in all at room temperature until sold to final consumers.
biochemical processes and chicken gut flora provide very Apart from direct human consumption, eggs are valuable
little vitamin synthesis but compete with the host for dietary raw materials for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries
vitamins [1]. Chicken eggs contain high-quality proteins, due to their multifunctional properties like foaming, gelling
carbohydrates, easily digestible fats and minerals, as well as and emulsifying [4] which are highly dependent on interior
valuable vitamins [2]. The use of quality premix is an and exterior characteristics reflected both in the quality and
important feature of a successful poultry production leading size [5]. The quality is composed of those characteristics of
egg that affects its acceptability to consumers such as
* Corresponding author:
droaogunwole@[Link] (Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole) cleanliness, freshness, weight, shell quality; yolk index,
Published online at [Link] albumen index, Haugh unit and chemical composition [6].
Copyright © 2015 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved As reported [7-9], egg quality is influenced by management,
60 Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole et al.: Proximate Composition and Physical Characteristics of Eggs from Laying
Chickens Fed Different Proprietary Vitamin-Mineral Premixes Under Two Rearing Systems During Storage

climatic factors, nutrition, breed and post-lay handling composition of the test VMP as shown on the respective
practice. Eggs are highly susceptible to internal quality labels.
deterioration during storage [10] depending on shell and At week 36, a total of 75 eggs were sampled from each RS,
internal content [11, 12]. Factors associated with the level of they were stored at room temperature for 28 days and were
quality loss are time, temperature, humidity, air movement subsequently withdrawn serially for analyses on days 0, 7, 14,
and handling [13]. There is therefore the need for further 21 and 28. Recorded minimum and maximum ambient
documentation of the effects of dietary VMP vis a vis temperature in the DOS of eggs were 23.4 and 27.9 ℃
possible interaction of RS on DOS of eggs in the hot humid respectively while the relative humidity ranged between 73
tropical environment. Therefore, this study was aimed at to 87%. Proximate compositions and physical characteristics
evaluating the proximate composition and physical (external and internal) of the eggs were measured at days 0, 7,
characteristics of eggs from hens fed different commercial 14, 21 and 28 DOS. Each egg was homogenized and the
VMP under two RS as affected by the DOS. proximate composition determined [14]. Egg length and
diameter were measured with electronic venier caliper. Eggs
were weighed and broken on a flat surface, and the height of
2. Materials and Methods thick albumen was measured with a tripod micrometer. The
albumen and yolk were separated, and only yolk was
The study was carried out at the Poultry Unit, Teaching weighed. Shell thickness was measured with micrometer
and Research Farm, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. screw gauge after air drying at room temperature. Egg
240 twenty weeks old black Bovan nera at the point of lay weight loss was determined as the difference between
were allotted to two RS (i.e. BC and DL systems) with 120 successive weights of eggs at different weighing days.
birds per RS. In each RS, birds were randomly allotted to six Albumen weight was determined by the difference between
dietary treatments in triplicate of eight birds per replicate egg weight, yolk weight and shell weight while albumen pH
making 24 birds per treatment. Five isonitrogenous and was measured with pH meter. Yolk index was estimated
isocaloric layer diets were formulated. The composition of from the ratio of yolk height to yolk width. Haugh unit was
the experimental diets is shown in the Table 1. The feed were determined from albumen height and egg weight using the
each supplemented respectively with 0.25% Nutripoult (T1), equation as described [15]; HU= 100log (h + 7.6 - 1.7W0.37)
Hinutrients (T2), Agrimix (T3), Daramvita (T4) and where HU is Haugh unit, h is albumen height (mm), W= egg
Micromix (T5). The experimental diets and water were given weight (g).
to the birds ad libitum for fifteen weeks. Table 2 shows the
Table 1. Gross Composition (%) of Experimental Diets Fed to Layers

Ingredients T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Maize 59.00 59.00 59.00 59.00 59.00
Soybean meal 24.37 24.37 24.37 24.37 24.37
Wheat Bran 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Palm Kernel Cake 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Di-calcium Phosphate 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Limestone 9.30 9.30 9.30 9.30 9.30
Biotronics 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Mycofix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Methionine 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Lysine 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
VMP 1 0.25 - - - -
VMP 2 - 0.25 - - -
VMP 3 - - 0.25 - -
VMP 4 - - - 0.25 -
VMP 5 - - - - 0.25
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Calculated Nutrients
ME (Kcal/kg) 2687.56 2687.56 2687.56 2687.56 2687.56
Crude Protein % 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00
Crude Fiber % 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80
Fat % 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59
Lysine % 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Meth + Cyst % 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
Calcium % 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68
Phosphorous % 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
 International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering 2015, 5(1): 59-67 61

Table 2. Composition per 2.5 kg of Test Vitamin-mineral premixes as shown on the labels

Test Test Test Test Test

Vitamins and Minerals Ingredient Ingredient Ingredient Ingredient Ingredient
1 2 3 4 5
10,000,000
Vitamin A (IU) 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000
2,000,000
Vitamin D3 (IU) 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,400,000
23,000
Vitamin E (IU) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
2,000
Vitamin K3 (mg) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
3,000
Vitamin B1 (mg) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
6,000
Vitamin B2 (mg) 5,000 4,000 5,000 4,000
5,000
Vitamin B6 (mg) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,800
25
Vitamin B12 (mcg) 10 10 10 10
50,000
Niacin (mg) 15,000 15,000 15,000 25,000
10,000
Calcium Panthotenate (mg) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
1,000
Folic acid (mg) 600 500 600 500
50
Biotin (mcg) 20 20 20 25
400,000
Choline chloride (mg) 150,000 100,000 150,000 240,000
120,000
Manganese (mg) 80,000 75,000 75,000 80,000
80,000
Zinc (mg) 60,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
100,000
Iron (mg) 40,000 20,000 25,000 20,000
8,500
Copper (mg) 8,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
1,500
Iodine (mg) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,200
120
Selenium (mg) 150 200 100 200
300
Cobalt (mg) 250 500 400 200
120,000
Antioxidant (mg) 100,000 125,000 125,000 125,000

2.1. Statistical Analysis interactions of DOS X VMP only resulted in significantly

different (P<0.05) EE values. Also, the interactions of the RS
Data were analyzed using three way analysis of variance
X VMP altered all eggs proximate values highly
[16] while significant means were separated by least squares
significantly (P<0.01). However, the interactions of RS X
method.
DOS and the RS X VMP type X DOS on egg proximate
parameters were all not significantly different (P>0.05).
3. Results and Discussion Effect of RS, VMP and the DOS on external
characteristics of chicken eggs is shown in Table 4. The net
Effect of RS and VMP in the DOS on proximate weight loss in eggs from DL was 1.7% which was
composition of chicken eggs is shown in Table 3. The crude significantly higher (P<0.05) when compared with those
protein (CP) varied only numerically (P>0.05) among from BC (1.6%). The weight losses significantly (P<0.05)
treatments and was not affected by RS. This observation increased with the DOS. Weight losses in eggs during
conformed to the documented opinion [17] that egg storage were 0, 0.9, 1.7, 2.5 and 3.2% for days 0, 7, 14, 21,
displayed very consistent composition with regard to its and 28 respectively which varied significantly (P<0.05) from
content of total proteins, essential amino acids, total lipids, one another. Weight losses from eggs of hens fed T1, T2 and
phospholipids, phosphorus, and iron. Also, protein and total T3 were not significantly different (P>0.05) during storage,
lipid content of eggs were noted [18] not to be affected by the however, they were significantly higher (P<0.05) when
diet of the hen but the types of lipids (fatty acid composition) compared with stored eggs from hens on diets T4 and T5.
which in a way contradicted other proximate values of ether The consistent increased weight loss in egg with advancing
extracts (EE), total ash and nitrogen free extracts in Table 3. DOS agreed with the earlier report [19]. However, authors
It was observed that dietary VMP type altered the moisture, [20] opined that egg weight did not change in the first 10
CP and EE composition of eggs in this study highly days of storage. According to reports [21-24], the losses
significantly (P<0.01). The CP and EE (11.63 and 7.67 could be ascribed to the release of carbon dioxide, ammonia,
respectively) were significantly higher (P<0.01) in eggs from nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide gas and water from eggs.
hen fed diets containing T1 compared to others. In the DOS, Another report [25] also suggested that reduction in egg
CP (11.45 to 11.59), and ash (1.24 to 1.34) increased very weight could be attributed to the loss of humidity from inside
significantly (P<0.01) with decreased moisture content. the egg due to evaporation effects.
Aside from EE composition, the DOS altered other Eggs from hens on DL and those fed diets containing
proximate values highly significantly (P<0.01). The VMP 2 were observed to lose more weight compared to
62 Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole et al.: Proximate Composition and Physical Characteristics of Eggs from Laying
Chickens Fed Different Proprietary Vitamin-Mineral Premixes Under Two Rearing Systems During Storage

others and this could be attributed to the lowered egg shell (P<0.05) from those fed T3. However, albumen height of
thickness. It was also noted [26] that thin-shelled eggs lost stored eggs from hens on T3 was similar (P>0.05) to those of
more moisture compared to when the shell was thick. Also, T2 though, the overall Haugh unit of all stored eggs on the
shell weight and shell thickness of eggs from hen fed different dietary VMP were similar (P>0.05). The overall
supplemental VMP 2 and 3 were observed to be lower in albumen heights were 6.99, 3.92, 3.22, 2.22 and 1.62mm for
both RS which thus resulted in higher weight losses during days 0, 7, 14, 21 and 28 respectively. Also, the Haugh unit
storage compared with those fed VMP 5 which recorded values were 83.08, 56.52, 48.03, 30.63 and 15.34 for the
lower weight loss. Dietary vitamin D determines the level of corresponding 0, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days respectively of
calcium metabolism for egg shell formation and vitamin D storage. These values significantly decreased (P<0.05) as the
deficiency has been observed to lead to poor eggshell quality, DOS increased irrespective of the RS and the VMP used.
mainly due to decreased eggshell weight [27]. Much deterioration was observed in overall values of
The effect of RS, VMP type and the DOS on albumen albumen heights (6.99mm to 1.62mm) and Haugh unit
characteristics of chicken eggs is shown in Table 5. The (83.08 to 15.38) with the DOS. These results agreed with
overall albumen height of stored eggs from hens fed T1, T2, those in literature [19, 20] on significant decrease in
and T4 were similar (P>0.05) but differed significantly albumen height and Haugh unit with increased DOS.
Table 3. Effect of Rearing Systems, Vitamin-mineral Premixes and the Duration of Storage on Proximate Composition of Chickens Egg

% Proximate Composition
Moisture Nitrogen Free
Factors Crude Protein Ether Extract Ash
content Extract
Rearing
Deep litter 78.43 11.54 7.64a 1.30a 1.08b
Systems
Battery Cage 78.42 11.56 7.59b 1.28b 1.15a
SEM 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
Vitamin-mineral
1 78.32d 11.63a 7.67a 1.28 1.09
Premix
2 78.45b 11.55b 7.57c 1.29 1.14
a c
3 78.50 11.44 7.65ab 1.28 1.12
4 78.48ab 11.54b 7.62b 1.30 1.04
c b c
5 78.37 11.59 7.56 1.29 1.18
SEM 0.02 0.021 0.02 0.01 0.04

0 78.51a 11.45b 7.61a 1.24c 1.15

Storage time
a a ab c
7 78.49 11.54 7.60 1.23 1.12
b a ab b
14 78.41 11.60 7.61 1.29 1.13
21 78.36c 11.55a 7.62a 1.35a 1.10
28 78.35c 11.59a 7.59b 1.34a 1.06
SEM 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04

Source Of Variation (P-Value)

Rearing system 0.3260NS 0.6550NS 0.0004* 0.0412* 0.0186*
** ** NS **
Storage time <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0816 <0.0001 0.4494NS
** ** ** NS
Vitamin-mineral premix <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.4152 0.0615NS
Storage time X Vitamin-mineral
0.2090NS 0.9237NS 0.0071* 0.7047NS 0.0116*
Premix
Rearing system X
<0.0001** <0.0001** <0.0001** <0.0001** <0.0001**
vitamin-mineral premix
Rearing system X Storage time 0.1860NS 0.1983NS 0.9652NS 0.8000NS 0.9323NS
Rearing System X Storage
0.4210NS 0.8890NS 0.6826NS 0.2026NS 0.6230NS
time X Vitamin-mineral Premix
a–d
Means of values with different superscripts are different significantly. SEM -Standard error of mean.
NS- not significant. *P< 0.05. **P< 0.001.
 International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering 2015, 5(1): 59-67 63

Table 4. Effect of Rearing Systems, Vitamin-Mineral Premixes and Storage Time on External Characteristics of Chicken Egg

Shell Weight Shell Thickness Weight Loss

Factors Egg Weight (g) Shape Index
(g) (mm) (%)

Rearing system Deep litter 5.58b 0.33b 1.37 1.7a

59.74
Battery cage 60.65 5.89a 0.35a 1.34 1.6b
SEM 0.56 0.58 0.00 0.14 0.0

Vitamin-mineral
1 5.89a 0.34 1.29 1.7a
Premix
60.96
2 60.09 5.59b 0.33 1.37 1.8a
b
3 59.81 5.61 0.33 1.35 1.7a
4 59.04 5.73ab 0.34 1.39 1.5b
ab
5 61.08 5.84 0.34 1.37 1.5b
SEM 0.89 0.92 0.00 0.02 0.1

Storage Time 0 5.54c 0.35a 1.32 0.0e

60.63
7 59.23 5.60bc 0.32b 1.36 0.9d
ab b
14 60.33 5.81 0.33 1.34 1.7c
abc a
21 60.47 5.76 0.35 1.38 2.5b
a a
28 60.31 5.95 0.35 1.38 3.2a

SEM 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.1

0.89
Rearing System
Vitamin-Mineral
0.8170NS 0.0855NS 0.7262NS 0.0568NS 0.0001*
premix
Storage Time 0.4690NS 0.0169* < 0.0001** 0.2053NS < 0.0001**
Rearing system X
Vitamin-mineral 0.4137NS 0.4448NS 0.5325NS 0.6123NS
0.0550NS
Premix
Rearing System X
0.0403NS 0.1227NS 0.0642NS 0.1685NS
Storage Time 0.6110NS
Vitamin-mineral
Premix X Storage 0.0769NS 0.0001** 0.4698NS 0.0844NS
0.6560NS
Time
Rearing System
X Storage Time X
0.7889NS 0.0007** 0.7168NS
Vitamin-mineral NS NS
0.8830 0.3572
Premix
a–e
Means of values with different superscripts are different significantly. SEM -Standard error of mean. NS- not significant. *P< 0.05. **P< 0.001.

During storage, some physical and chemical modifications y = 0.000x4- 0.044x3 + 0.864x2
take place in albumen. These are the thinning of the albumen
- 7.915x + 83.08 (R2 = 0.874) (1)
thickness [28], main increase of albumen pH caused by the
loss of carbon dioxide from the egg through the pores in the This indicated a strong negative and highly significant
shell [29] and changes occurring in ovomucin [28, 30]. A relationships (P<0.01).
rapid loss of CO2 leads to a decrease in quality until the state Effects of RS and VMP on albumen pH were not
of gas balance is reached between the inside and outside of significant (P>0.05). However, albumen pH values
the egg [25]. Haugh unit (56.52) was observed to fall in the significantly increased (P<0.05) with DOS, although there
grade of B (59-30) at days 7 of storage (Table 4) as against was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the albumen pH
the desired grade AA (100-72) or A (71-60). This showed obtained at days 21 and 28. The values for these days were
that decline in egg quality was sharp at room temperature in statistically higher (P<0.05) compared with the albumen pH
line with the documented report [31]. at days 0, 7 and 14. Also albumen pH obtained at days 0, 7
Also, Haugh unit was related to the DOS (Fig. 1) and the and 14 were significantly different (P<0.05). A rapid upsurge
regresion equation was in alkalinity of albumen was observed which increased from
64 Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole et al.: Proximate Composition and Physical Characteristics of Eggs from Laying
Chickens Fed Different Proprietary Vitamin-Mineral Premixes Under Two Rearing Systems During Storage

8.77 to 9.39 (Table 5). This observation conformed to those respectively with increased DOS. Tabidi [25] reported that
reported [19] on increased albumen pH from 7.47 to 9.11 in reduction rate of yolk index was sharp at room storage.
10 days of storage. Flattening of yolk was primarily due to increased water
Effect of RS, VMP and DOS on yolk characteristics of content caused by osmotic migration from albumen through
chicken eggs are shown in Table 6. Yolk height, yolk index, the vitelline membrane [28].
and yolk weight values were similar (P>0.05) among the Yolk index was related to the DOS (Fig. 2) and the
different VMP and the RS. The changes in yolk weight were regresion equation was:
observed not to be significantly altered (P>0.05) during y=-0.000x3+0.050x2-1.861x+41 (R2 =0.935) (2)
storage which conformed to earlier findings [20] that yolk
and shell weights were not changed by storage. Yolk height which also indicated a strong negative and highly significant
and yolk index was observed to decrease significantly relationships (P<0.01).
(P<0.05) from 15.52mm and 41.94 to 5.41mm and 11.38
Table 5. Effect of Rearing Systems, Vitamin-mineral Premixes and the Duration of Storage on Albumen Characteristics of Chickens egg

Albumen Height Albumen Weight

Factors Haugh Unit Albumen pH
(mm) (g)

Rearing system Deep litter

3.69a 40.26 48.68a 9.23
b b
Battery cage 3.50 40.63 44.78 9.21
SEM 0.07 0.72 1.03 0.01

Vitamin-mineral
1
Premix
3.69a 42.23 46.13 9.22
2 3.57ab 40.04 46.09 9.22
3 3.33b 40.65 46.08 9.23
4 3.67a 38.71 48.64 9.23
5 3.72a 40.58 48.03 9.21
SEM 0.10 1.14 1.64 0.01

Days of Storage 0
6.99a 40.21 83.08a 8.77d
b b
7 3.92 39.12 56.52 9.24c
c c
14 3.22 41.55 48.03 9.33b
d d
21 2.22 41.64 30.63 9.39a
28 1.62e 39.69 15.38e 9.39a
SEM 0.10 1.14 1.64 0.01
Source of Variation (P-value)

Rearing System 0.0480* 0.7150NS 0.0090* 0.0660NS

Storage Time < 0.0001** 0.4330NS < 0.0001** < 0.0001**
* NS NS
Vitamin-Mineral premix 0.0490 0.3010 0.4470 0.7280NS
Rearing System X Storage
Time 0.2570NS 0.2480NS 0.4060NS 0.2200NS
Rearing system X
Vitamin-mineral Premix 0.9110NS 0.2830NS 0.8220NS 0.7430NS
Vitamin-mineral Premix X
Storage Time 0.0360* 0.8400NS 0.2740NS 0.4690NS
Rearing System
X Storage Time X
Vitamin-mineral Premix 0.7740NS 0.6390NS 0.2590NS 0.6870NS
a–e
Means of values with different superscripts are different significantly. SEM -Standard error of mean. NS- not significant. *P< 0.05. **P< 0.001.
 International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering 2015, 5(1): 59-67 65

Table 6. Effect of Rearing Systems, Vitamin-mineral Premixes and Duration of Storage on Yolk Characteristics of Chickens Egg

Yolk height Yolk index

Factors Yolk Weight (g) Yolk Ratio Yolk/Albumen Ratio
(mm) (%)

Rearing System
Deep litter 13.91 9.67 22.9 23.31 0.36
Battery Cage 14.13 9.30 22.9 23.32 0.36
SEM 0.65 0.44 1.1 1.06 0.02
Vitamin-mineral
premix
1 12.85 9.61 22.3 21.03 0.37
2 14.46 9.78 22.9 24.13 0.38
3 13.55 8.72 21.4 22.64 0.35
4 14.61 9.51 23.6 24.89 0.36
5 14.65 9.83 24.2 23.89 0.37
SEM 1.03 0.69 1.7 1.68 0.03
Storage Time
0 14.88 15.52a 41.9a 24.61 0.37
7 14.50 11.09b 26.8b 24.39 0.38
14 12.96 8.37c 19.5c 21.31 0.34
21 13.08 7.03cd 14.8cd 21.89 0.35
28 14.68 5.41d 11.4d 24.39 0.39
SEM 1.03 0.69 1.7 1.68 0.03
Source of variation (P value)
Rearing System 0.8060NS 0.5490NS 0.9940NS 0.9930NS 1.0000NS
Storage Time 0.5240NS < 0.0001** < 0.0001** 0.4740NS 0.6260NS
Vitamin-mineral premix 0.6550NS 0.7920NS 0.7990NS 0.5180NS 0.5180NS
Rearing system X Storage
Time 0.8630NS 0.5950NS 0.7380NS 0.7810NS 0.7720NS
Rearing System X
Vitamin-mineral Premix 0.7390NS 0.7220NS 0.8240NS 0.4940NS 0.4540NS
Vitamin-mineral Premix X
Storage Time 0.9440NS 0.9860NS 0.9840NS 0.9330NS 0.9430NS
Rearing System X Storage
Time X Vitamin-mineral
Premix 0.9250NS 0.6610NS 0.6930NS 0.8530NS 0.8220NS
a–d
Means of values with different superscripts are different significantly. SEM -Standard error of mean. NS- not significant. *P< 0.05. **P< 0.001.

100.00

90.00

80.00 y = 0.0008x4 - 0.0446x3 + 0.8642x2 -

7.9157x + 83.082
70.00 R² = 0.8746
60.00 HAUGH UNIT
Haugh unit

50.00 (HAUGH
Polynomial
多项式 UNIT)Unit)
(Haugh
40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0 10 20 30
Duration of storage

Figure 1. Effects of Duration of Storage on Haugh Unit of chickens Egg

66 Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole et al.: Proximate Composition and Physical Characteristics of Eggs from Laying
Chickens Fed Different Proprietary Vitamin-Mineral Premixes Under Two Rearing Systems During Storage

50.00
y = -0.0006x3 + 0.0503x2 -
40.00 1.8615x + 41.899
R² = 0.935
30.00
Yolk Index 20.00 YOLK INDEX
(YOLK(Yolk
Polynomial
多项式 INDEX)
Index)
10.00

0.00
0 10 20 30
Duration of Storage

Figure 2. Effect of Duration of Storage on Yolk Index of Chickens Egg

4. Conclusions and Recommendations of Eggs and Egg Products. Poznan, Poland. WPSA Polish
branch, Poznan, Poland, pp. 127–144.
The RS and the type of dietary VMP both affected the
[8] Zemková, L. J. Simeonovová, M. Lichovníková, K.
composition and egg quality characteristics in the DOS. The Somerlíková. 2007. The effects of housing systems and age of
VMP 1 and 5 would be preferred in both RS as they both tend hens on the weight and cholesterol concentration of the egg.
to ensure good albumen height, Haugh unit, yolk height, yolk Czech J. Anim. Sci., 52(4): 110–115.
index, higher shell thickness and lowered weight loss.
[9] King’ori, A. M. 2012. Poultry egg external characteristics:
Quality of eggs was observed to decrease when stored at egg weight, shape and shell colour. [Link]. 5:14-17.
room temperature. Eggs qualities deteriorated bellow
desirable grade before day 7 of storage at room temperature [10] Wong Y. C., Herald T. J., Hachmeister K. A., 1996.
in the hot humid tropics. Thus, alternative methods should be Evaluation of mechanical and barrier properties of protein
coatings on shell eggs. Poult Sci 75: 417–22.
considered for storing excess eggs produced to enhance
retention of freshness. [11] Adeogun, I. O., Amole, F. O. 2004. Some Quality Parameters
of Exotic Chicken eggs Under Different Storage Conditions.
Bulletin for Animal Health and Production in Africa (Kenya),
Vol. 52 (1):43 – 47.
[12] Kul, S., Seker I. 2004. Phenotypic correlations between some
REFERENCES external and internal egg quality traits in the Japanese quail
(Coturnix coturnix japonica). Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3(6): 400-405.
[1] Asaduzzman, M., M. S. Jahan, M. R. Mondol, M. A. Islam
and A.K. Sarkar. 2005. Efficacy of different commercial [13] Stadelman, W. J. and O. J. Cotterill. 1995. Egg Science and
vitamin-mineral premixes on productive performance of Technology. 4th Edition. New York, Food Product Press.
caged laying pullets. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 4: 589-595.
[14] AOAC. 2000. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition.
[2] Huopalahti, R., López F., R., Anton, M. and Schade, R. (eds). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington,
2007. Bioactive Egg Compounds. Springer-Verlag, DC.
Heidelberg, pp. 298.
[15] Haugh, R. R. 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality.
[3] Raven, P. and G. Walker. 1980. Food and Agricultural In: US Egg Poult. Mag. 43:522–555, 572–573.
Organization of United Nation. Reitman, S. and S Frankel.
Am. J. Clin. Path., 1957, 28: 56. [16] SAS. 1999. SAS/STAT User’s guide Version 8 for Windows
SAS Institute Inc. SAS.
[4] Matt, D., E. Veromann and A. Luik. 2009. Effect of housing
systems on biochemical composition of chicken eggs. [17] Nys, Y, Gautron J. Garcia-Ruiz JM, Hincke MT. 2004. Avian
Agronomy Research 7(Special issue II), 662–667. eggshell mineralization: biochemical and functional
characterization of matrix proteins. Comptes Rendus Palevol
[5] Koelkebeck. K. W. 1999. What Is Egg Quality and 3: 549–62.
Conserving It? University of Illinois.[Link]
du/poultrynet/[Link]?ContentID=522. [18] Froning, G. W. 1998. Recent advances in egg products
research and development. Presented at the University of
[6] Song K. T, Choil S. C., Oh H. R. 2002. A comparison of egg California Riverside and Modesto egg processing workshop.
quality of pheasant, chukar, quail and guinea fowl. June 2-3, 1998.
Asian-Australian J. Anim. Sci., 13(7): 986-990.
[19] Samli H. E, A Agma and N Senkoylu. 2005. Effect of storage
[7] Ternes, W., S. Leitsch. 1997. Chemistry of egg yolk. In: time and temperature on egg quality in old laying hens. J Appl
Proceedings of the VII European Symposium on the Quality Poult Res, 14: 548-553.
 International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering 2015, 5(1): 59-67 67

[20] Scott, T. A. and F. G. Silversides. 2000. The effect of storage 73:1838-1845.

and strain of hen on egg quality. Poult. Sci. 79:1725-1729.
[27] Galea, F. 2011. Nutrition and food management and their
[21] Dudusola, I. O. 2009. Effects of Storage Methods and Length influence on egg quality. xlviii simposio científico de
of Storage on some Quality Parameters of Japanese Quail avicultura. Santiago de Compostela | 5 al 7 de octubre.
Eggs. Tropicultura, 27 (1): 45-48.
[28] Kato, S., T. Kawamura., T. Goto, H. ohduchi and K.
[22] Alsobayel, A. A. and M. A. Albadry. 2011. Effect of storage Toyolima. 1994. Effect of storing condition on interior
period and strain of layer on internal and external quality quality of quail (coturnix coturnix Japonica) egg. Research
characteristics of eggs marketed in Riyadh area. J Saudi Soc Bulletin of the Aichi-Ken Agricultural Research center, 26:
Agri Sci, 10: 41-45. 37.
[23] Jin Y. H, K. T Lee, W. I. Lee and Y. K. Han. 2011. Effects [29] Hill, A. T., and J. W. Hall. 1980. Effects of various
of Storage Temperature and Time on the Quality of Eggs combinations of oil spraying, washing, sanitizing, storage
from Laying Hens at Peak Production. Asian Aust J Anim Sci, time, strain, and age upon albumen quality changes in storage
24 (2): 279-284. and minimum sample sizes required for their measurement.
Poultry Science, 59: 2237-2242.
[24] Siyar H. S. A., H. Aliarabi, A. Ahmadi and N. Ashori. 2007.
Effect of different storage conditions and hen age on egg [30] Toussant, M. J. and Latshaw, J. D. 1999. Ovomucin content
quality parameters. Aust Poult Sci Symp. 19: 106-109. and composition in chicken eggs with different interior. J. Sci.
Food Aric. (79): 1666-1670.
[25] Tabidi, M. H. 2011. Impact of storage period and quality on
composition of Table egg. Adv Environ Biol, 5(5): 856-861. [31] USDA. 2000. United States standards, grades, and weight
classes for shell eggs. United States Department of
[26] Roque, L. and M. C. Soares. 1994. Effects of eggshell quality Agriculture. Agricultural Research note. RN 23 12/99.
and broiler breeder age on hatchability. Poultry Sci.