You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
AnimalsAnimals
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

16 January 2026

Genetic Parameters of Egg Quality Traits and Albumen Density in White Leghorn Chickens

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2
Hohhot Customs District, Hohhot 010010, China
3
College of Animal Science, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830000, China
4
Key Laboratory of Tarim Animal Husbandry Science & Technology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
Animals2026, 16(2), 284;https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16020284
This article belongs to the Section Poultry
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Simple Summary

In practical production, the traditional Kjeldahl method was not suitable for large-scale use to determine the protein content of eggs, which was a key issue. Therefore, our research aimed to seek an indicator that could be used to estimate the albumen protein content in different types of eggs. Our study measured the albumen weight (AW) and albumen volume (AV), and then calculated albumen density (AD). In addition, we accurately measured the average albumen protein quantity (AAP) and total albumen protein quantity (TAP) in one batch of eggs using the Kjeldahl method. The results showed highly significant positive correlations between AD, AAP, and TAP, indicating that we could use this indicator to estimate protein content.

Abstract

The conventional method for detecting protein content in egg albumen is the Kjeldahl method, but this method cannot be applied in practical production due to cost limitations. Therefore, we developed albumen density (AD), which had certain potential application value in low-cost and efficient evaluation of albumen protein content. We calculated the heritability of AD in White Leghorn (WL) chickens and its correlation with average albumen protein quantity (AAP), total albumen protein quantity (TAP), albumen weight (AW), albumen volume (AV), egg weight (EW), albumen height (AH), haugh unit (HU), and yolk color (YC). It is worth noting that albumen protein content was measured in a small subset of samples. The average value of AD in eggs was 0.97 and its heritability was less than 0.1. The average value of AAP in eggs was 10.1%, and the average value of TAP in eggs was 2.95 g. There were significant positive correlations between AAP, TAP, AW, AV, AD, and EW, and there were strong positive genetic and phenotypic correlations between EW, AW, AV, and AD. The results of this study indicated that AD might have potential value as a supplementary tool for albumen protein trait selection in breeding.

1. Introduction

Eggs are the most common and important dietary component in people’s daily lives; they are loved by people for their low price and high nutritional value [1,2]. Egg yolk and albumen are the most usable parts of eggs, containing a rich variety of amino acids, which are important components in providing protein in eggs [2,3,4,5,6]. The high digestibility and amino acid balance of egg yolk and albumen make them a source of high-quality protein for the human body [7]. And the presence of vitamins, selenium, and other antioxidants in eggs makes them an important antioxidant food [8], and the addition of vitamin D3 to feed can affect its content in eggs [9]. However, various factors such as egg laying age [10,11], chicken breed [5,6,12,13,14,15], feed additives [16,17,18,19], feed type [6], and housing system [20,21] can affect the nutritional contents of eggs.
The increasing demand for consumer choices guides eggs and their products towards diversification [22], such as specialty foods like green shell eggs [23,24]. The diversification of processing methods also ensures the quality of eggs used in food processing, such as commercial processing for modification and cleaning, which helps enhance eggshell function [25] and reduces microbial contamination [26]. The quality and freshness of eggs are generally evaluated using Haugh unit (HU) in production [22], which decreases during storage and are influenced by various factors such as storage time [27,28,29,30,31] and storage conditions [32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. And the decrease in egg quality also means a decrease in protein quantity [28]. In addition, albumen gel properties are also indicators for evaluating the quality of eggs based on appearance [39,40], including changes in gel ability, antibacterial activity, viscosity, elasticity, and protein contents of albumen during storage [41]. In general, long-term storage of eggs can cause the albumen to become thinner and eventually turn into liquid, resulting in a decrease in the quality, viscosity, and protein contents of the eggs [42]. Therefore, the protein contents in albumen are an important factor related to improving the quality of eggs. The Kjeldahl method was commonly used to measure the protein contents in eggs [4], but the time and monetary costs associated with this method also mean that its use in breeding was greatly limited. Given the limitations of traditional methods, we planned to develop an indicator with protein evaluation application value in breeding. We speculated that there might be a correlation between albumen density and albumen protein content, but there is little research in this area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals and Egg Collection

More than 2000 healthy White Leghorn (WL) chickens at 45 weeks of age and raised in the same housing conditions were selected for egg collection. All chickens were raised using a 3-tiered step single-cage feeding system and were fed according to the same feeding standards. Starting from day 413, we collected all eggs from each chicken for 3 consecutive days, and the weight and quality of normal eggs collected for 2 consecutive days were all tested within 72 h after they were sent to the laboratory. The temperature in the storage environment was 18–20 °C.

2.2. Measurements of Egg Quality and Albumen Density

In order to ensure measurement repeatability, reduce measurement errors, and improve measurement efficiency, all egg measurements were completed by the same person, and data recording was the responsibility of another person. However, due to unavoidable factors such as measurement time and machine errors, potential measurement errors might exist. There was no preference for the order in which each egg was measured, which meant that egg measurements were randomly sampled, and under this rule, we measured all eggs. Egg weight (EW) was measured with an electronic scale and the result was accurate to 0.01 g. Eggshell strength (ESS) was measured with an eggshell force gauge (MODEL-III, Robotmation Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Subsequently, the eggs were broken and the internal contents were transferred to a multifunctional egg tester (EMT-7300, Robotmation Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) to measure albumen height (AH), haugh unit (HU), and yolk color (YC). Then we used a yolk separator to separate the contents, measured the yolk weight (YW) and albumen weight (AW) using an electronic scale, and measured the albumen volume (AV) using a 100 mL graduated cylinder. Albumen density (AD) was the ratio of AW to AV. Albumen percentage (AP) was the ratio of AW to EW. Yolk percentage (YP) was the ratio of YW to EW. Yolk/Albumen (YA) was the ratio of YW to AW. After obtaining the egg quality measurement data, we observed that some of the egg measurement values were abnormal, but we did not filter them because we believed they were within the normal error range in the experiment, as mentioned earlier.

2.3. Measurements of Protein Contents in Egg Albumen

In order to discover the relationship between AD and average albumen protein quantity (AAP), we conducted a preliminary experiment by using the same method as described above to randomly detect 31 WL eggs laid on the same day from the same population and collected the albumen of each egg. Subsequently, the albumen was homogenized for AAP determination. AAP was calculated from nitrogen content determination by the Kjeldahl method, and the conversion factor from nitrogen to protein was 6.32. And total albumen protein quantity (TAP) was calculated based on AAP and sample quantity. The above analysis was only a preliminary verification.

2.4. Genetic Parameter Estimation

Based on complete phenotype and pedigree data, we used univariate and multivariate model in DMU V6 R5.2 software [43] to estimate the genetic parameters of AD and other traits, as shown below.
y = Xμ + Za + e
In this model, y is the phenotypic observations of traits, X is relation matrix of fixed effects, μ is vector composed of fixed effects, Z is correlation matrix of random effects, a is vector composed of random effects, and e is random residuals.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis in pre-experiment were conducted using SPSS software (version 26.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Egg Quality and Albumen Density of WL Chickens

The descriptive statistics of AD and egg quality traits are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The average value of AD measured was overall around 0.97, and the average value of YC measured was overall around 0.72. In addition, we could see that the average and minimum values of HU and AH in Table 2 were lower than those in Table 1.
Table 1. Egg quality traits and protein contents of albumen in pre-experiment.
Table 2. Egg quality traits of White Leghorn.

3.2. Protein Contents of Egg Albumen

The protein contents of 31 samples were determined using the Kjeldahl method, and the results are shown in Table 1. From the results, it could be seen that the AAP of albumen ranged from 9.21 to 11.1%, while the TAP of albumen ranged from 1.97 to 3.80 g, and the coefficient of variation of TAP was higher than that of AAP, indicating that the TAP was also related to EW. Then we conducted the correlation analysis on the test results of 31 eggs, and the results are shown in Table 3. The results showed significant positive correlations between AAP, TAP, AW, AV, AD, and EW, which meant that larger eggs might have more egg albumen and higher protein contents. AD was associated with AAP and TAP. But the applicability of this result was limited by the sample size.
Table 3. The correlation between protein contents and egg quality in pre-experiment phase.

3.3. Genetic Parameter Estimates

The genetic parameters of AD and egg quality traits estimated by univariate and multivariate model are shown in Table 2 and Table 4, respectively, and the results in both tables were consistent. In general, we found that the heritability of AW, AV, YW, EW, ESS, YC, YP, AP, and YA were all greater than 0.2, but the heritability of AD, AD, and HU were all less than 0.1. There were strong positive genetic and phenotypic correlations between EW, AW, AV, and AD, which also supported the results in Table 3. Therefore, we concluded that AD was less affected by genetic factors. However, as a derived trait, the correlation between AD and other traits might have mathematical dependence.
Table 4. Estimation of genetic parameters for egg quality traits.

4. Discussion

4.1. Egg Quality Traits and Albumen Protein Contents

Eggs provide various essential nutrients for humans [2], among which protein and other components play certain functional characteristics and biological activities [1], making them an important source of high-quality protein and leading to their wide use in the food industry [7,44]. But under different conditions, egg protein might undergo potential changes, which could affect its nutritional value and biological activity [44]. However, egg albumen and albumen proteins have received less attention in other research. Our study focused on the correlations between egg quality traits, AD, and egg albumen protein content, providing a theoretical basis for the effective utilization of egg albumen. During the egg quality testing period, the average values of AV, AW, and EW in the pre-experiment period were lower than those in the formal testing period, which might be due to the use of eggs from younger hens in the pre-experiment period. In the formal experiment, we determined that the number of eggs was larger and the usage time was longer. The limitation of measurement time and inevitable machine errors were the main reasons for the abnormal HU values in Table 2 and the HU values being lower than those in Table 1. We used the Kjeldahl method to measure the average value of AAP was 10.1, and the average value of TAP was 2.95. Lordelo et al. (2020) found that the protein content of albumen in various types of chicken eggs was all around 10.5%, and there was no significant difference between them [45]. Shafer et al. (1996, 1998) also found that the protein content of chicken egg albumen was around 10.0%, but different levels of methionine intake had a significant impact on the protein content of egg albumen [46,47]. The range of crude protein content in the egg albumen of six types of poultry (chicken, duck, goose, turkey, pigeon, and quail) was 8–11%, with goose having the lowest protein content, followed by pigeons, and the highest being chickens and turkeys [48]. But on dry matter basis, the protein content of albumen in various types of eggs ranged from 78% to 86% [49]. However, Cendron et al. found that the protein content of eight types of egg albumen was 8–10% on a wet basis and 83–89% on a dry matter basis [50]. The difference between Cendron et al.’s results and Somes et al.’s results might be due to differences in chicken breeds and updated measurement methods. The above studies all supported the results of our study. However, due to the limitations of the sample size and traditional measurement methods in this study, it was necessary to continue large-scale sample collection and validation. In addition, we also found that AAP and TAP were all significantly positively correlated with AV, AW, and EW indicating that egg albumen content and protein content increased with the size of eggs. In general, the protein content in egg albumen was affected by egg types (traditional or organic) [51], breeds [15,45,48,49,50,52], and methionine intake [46,47]. And the results of egg albumen proteomics of five local chicken breeds showed that 189 egg albumen proteins existed and most of them had antibacterial function, and the protein abundance in egg albumen across different breeds was different [53], which deepened our understanding of egg albumen.

4.2. Egg Quality Traits and Albumen Density

In our experiments conducted on two groups of WL eggs from different environments and periods, we measured the average values of AD and YC to be around 0.97 and 7.2, indicating that our study strictly followed the measurement standards. This result suggested that the heritability of these traits appeared to be similar in different populations. However, it could not be ignored that factors such as feeding environment and the age of hens were also important factors that affected the phenotypes of these traits. However, there were certain differences in the two measurement results of AV, AW, EW, HU, AH, and AP, indicating that the age and feeding environment of hens, as well as the egg storage time, had a certain impact on egg quality traits. Kowalska et al. (2021) also found that the average value of thick albumen density (TAD) at different egg laying stages was overall at around 1.0, and there were significant differences in EW, AW, YW, AP, YP, HU, AH, TAD, and YC at different ages of hens, indicating that the egg quality and TAD changed with the aging of hens [54]. But in our study, we used the whole egg albumen to calculate AD. Therefore, the slight differences in AD between the above results and our study might be due to differences in measurement methods, egg albumen selection, and egg types, which also indicated that thick albumen might have had more components than other parts of egg albumen. And the effects of diets with different protein sources on HU, AH, and YC were also found to be significant [54]. In terms of egg quality traits, it might be affected by light stimulation [55,56], hen age [57,58], breed [22,45,59,60,61], heat stress [62], and feed additives [46,63,64,65,66,67,68,69].
Based on complete pedigree and phenotype data, we estimated that the heritability of AD was less than 0.1, and AD was significantly positive correlated with AW, AV, and EW. As mentioned in our discussion, the protein content in egg albumen increases with the increase in EW, and the molecular weight of protein was higher than that of water, which led to the increase in AD with the increase in EW. Our study was the first to reveal the genetic mechanism of AD, and there were few studies to estimate the heritability of AD and its correlation with production traits and egg quality traits. The heritability of yolk proportion and eggshell strength were all greater than 0.2 [70,71], and genetic selection was used to change yolk proportion [72,73] and improve eggshell quality [74]. Zhang et al. (2021) found seven candidate genes that affect the yolk proportion in Wenchang chickens, including MNR2, AOX1, ANTXRL, GRAMD1C, EEF2, COMP, and JUND [75], while Chen et al. discovered three candidate genes related to ESS in the pure line of Rhode Island Red, including FRY, PCNX2, and ENSGALG00000052468 [71]. However, the heritability of AD was relatively low, which indicated that the significance of the AD trait lay in phenotypic monitoring rather than genetic selection centered on it.

5. Conclusions

In general, egg quality and protein content of albumen were affected by many factors, and egg freshness declined with storage time. This study preliminarily explored the possibility of using AD values as an indirect indicator for comparing the protein content of albumen. We found significant positive correlations between AAP, TAP, AW, AV, AD, and EW, indicating that AD could be used to indirectly reflect the protein content of albumen.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: L.Q., C.Q., L.B., and A.C.; data curation: A.C. and D.Z.; formal analysis: A.C. and D.Z.; funding acquisition: L.Q., C.Q., L.B., and Z.N.; methodology: L.Q. and A.C.; resources: X.Z., L.Q., H.L., H.W. (Huie Wang), and H.W. (Haiyan Wang); software: A.C.; supervision: L.Q., C.Q., and L.B.; writing—original draft: L.Q. and A.C.; writing—reviewing and edition: L.Q. and A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Construction and Demonstration Application of High Yield Green Shell Chicken Breeding System (NY2502130125), Beijing Innovation Team of the Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System for Poultry (BAIC06-2025-G01), Joint Fund Project of Tarim University and China Agricultural University “Research on Environmental Control Technology of High-density Layer Houses in Xinjiang” (2025TC054, ZNLH202501), Open Project of Provincial and Ministerial Scientific Research Platform, Fuyang Normal University (FSKFKT027D), and the Biological and Medical Sciences of Applied Summit Nurturing Disciplines in Anhui Province, grant number Anhui Education Secretary Department [2023]13.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was performed strictly by the protocols approved by the Laboratory Animal Welfare and Animal Experimentation Ethics Review Committee of China Agricultural University (No. XK622).

Data Availability Statement

No sequencing data generated.

Acknowledgments

We also appreciate the support of High-Performance Computing Platform of China Agricultural University.

Conflicts of Interest

The co-author Xiaoyu Zhao was employed by the company Xingrui Agricultural Stock Breeding, which provided eggs samples; the co-author Haiyan Wang was employed by the Hohhot Customs District, which provided experimental materials. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xiao, N.; Zhao, Y.; Yao, Y.; Wu, N.; Xu, M.; Du, H.; Tu, Y. Biological Activities of Egg Yolk Lipids: A Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 1948–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dermane, A.; Eloh, K.; Palanga, K.K.; Tchakinguena Adjito, D.; N’Nanle, O.; Karou, D.S.; Kpanzou, T.A.; Caboni, P. Comparative Metabolomic Profiling of Eggs from 3 Diverse Chicken Breeds Using GC-MS Analysis. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Attia, Y.A.; Al-Harthi, M.A.; Korish, M.A.; Shiboob, M.H. Protein and Amino Acid Content in Four Brands of Commercial Table Eggs in Retail Markets in Relation to Human Requirements. Animals 2020, 10, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Onyenweaku, E.O.; Akah, L.U.; Kesa, H.; Alawa, D.A.; Ebai, P.A.; Kalu, U.U.; Ajigo, I.; Owan, V.J. Protein Quality Evaluation of Some Commonly Consumed Bird Egg Varieties Using Amino Acid Scores. Biochem. Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 6536826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nishimura, K.; Ijiri, D.; Shimamoto, S.; Takaya, M.; Ohtsuka, A.; Goto, T. Genetic effect on free amino acid contents of egg yolk and albumen using five different chicken genotypes under floor rearing system. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Goto, T.; Shimamoto, S.; Ohtsuka, A.; Ijiri, D. Analyses of free amino acid and taste sensor traits in egg albumen and yolk revealed potential of value-added eggs in chickens. Anim. Sci. J. 2021, 92, e13510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sarantidi, E.; Ainatzoglou, A.; Papadimitriou, C.; Stamoula, E.; Maghiorou, K.; Miflidi, A.; Trichopoulou, A.; Mountzouris, K.C.; Anagnostopoulos, A.K. Egg White and Yolk Protein Atlas: New Protein Insights of a Global Landmark Food. Foods 2023, 12, 3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nimalaratne, C.; Wu, J. Hen Egg as an Antioxidant Food Commodity: A Review. Nutrients 2015, 7, 8274–8293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Browning, L.C.; Cowieson, A.J. Vitamin D fortification of eggs for human health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 1389–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Li, G.; Feng, Y.; Cui, J.; Hou, Q.; Li, T.; Jia, M.; Lv, Z.; Jiang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M.; et al. The ionome and proteome landscape of aging in laying hens and relation to egg white quality. Sci. China Life Sci. 2023, 66, 2020–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Csonka, F.A. Nitrogen, methionine and cystine content of hen’s eggs. Their distribution in the egg white and yolk. J. Nutr. 1950, 42, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goto, T.; Shimamoto, S.; Takaya, M.; Sato, S.; Takahashi, K.; Nishimura, K.; Morii, Y.; Kunishige, K.; Ohtsuka, A.; Ijiri, D. Impact on genetic differences among various chicken breeds on free amino acid contents of egg yolk and albumen. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lunven, P.; Le Clement de St, M.; Carnovale, E.; Fratoni, A. Amino acid composition of hen’s egg. Br. J. Nutr. 1973, 30, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Goto, T.; Ohya, K.; Takaya, M. Genotype affects free amino acids of egg yolk and albumen in Japanese indigenous breeds and commercial Brown layer chickens. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, L.; Xu, M.; Liu, F.; Li, R.; Azzam, M.M.; Dong, X. Characterization and Evaluation of Taihe Black-Boned Silky Fowl Eggs Based on Physical Properties, Nutritive Values, and Flavor Profiles. Foods 2024, 13, 3308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yu, A.C.; Deng, Y.H.; Long, C.; Sheng, X.H.; Wang, X.G.; Xiao, L.F.; Lv, X.Z.; Chen, X.N.; Chen, L.; Qi, X.L. High Dietary Folic Acid Supplementation Reduced the Composition of Fatty Acids and Amino Acids in Fortified Eggs. Foods 2024, 13, 1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tang, M.; Zhao, J.; Wu, Y.; Yu, C.; Peng, C.; Liu, H.; Cui, Y.; Lan, W.; Lin, Y.; Kong, X.; et al. Improving gut functions and egg nutrition with stevia residue in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carvalho, T.S.M.; Sousa, L.S.; Nogueira, F.A.; Vaz, D.P.; Saldanha, M.M.; Triginelli, M.V.; Pinto, M.; Baião, N.C.; Lara, L.J.C. Digestible methionine+cysteine in the diet of commercial layers and its influence on the performance, quality, and amino acid profile of eggs and economic evaluation. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2044–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tomczak, A.; Zielińska-Dawidziak, M.; Klimowicz, P.; Hejdysz, M.; Kaczmarek, S.; Siger, A.; Cieślak, A. Modification of the Protein Amino Acid Content in Hen Eggs as a Consequence of Different Concentrations of Lupine and Soy in Feed. Molecules 2024, 29, 3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kawamura, N.; Yokoyama, R.; Takaya, M.; Ono, R.; Goto, T. Combined Effect of Feed and Housing System Affects Free Amino Acid Content of Egg Yolk and Albumen in Brown Layer Chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 2023, 60, 2023007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kawamura, N.; Takaya, M.; Hayashi, H.; Goto, T. Housing Systems Affect Eggshell Lightness and Free Amino Acid Contents of Egg Albumen in Tosa-Jidori Chickens: A Preliminary Research. Animals 2023, 13, 1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hisasaga, C.; Griffin, S.E.; Tarrant, K.J. Survey of egg quality in commercially available table eggs. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 7202–7206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, S.; Ning, C.; Yang, C.; Li, W.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, D.; Tang, H. Identify Candidate Genes Associated with the Weight and Egg Quality Traits in Wenshui Green Shell-Laying Chickens by the Copy Number Variation-Based Genome-Wide Association Study. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, H.; Zhang, L.; Wei, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Ge, Y.; Pan, Y. Transcriptome analyses of shell color and egg production traits between the uteruses of blue-green eggshell chickens and Hy-Line brown layers. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 104438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lv, X.; Xia, Z.; Yao, X.; Shan, Y.; Wang, N.; Zeng, Q.; Liu, X.; Huang, X.; Fu, X.; Jin, Y.; et al. Modification Effects of Microorganisms and Enzymes on Egg Components: A Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2024, 72, 25462–25480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Musgrove, M.T.; Jones, D.R.; Northcutt, J.K.; Cox, N.A.; Harrison, M.A. Identification of Enterobacteriaceae from washed and unwashed commercial shell eggs. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 2613–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Waimaleongora-Ek, P.; Garcia, K.M.; No, H.K.; Prinyawiwatkul, W.; Ingram, D.R. Selected quality and shelf life of eggs coated with mineral oil with different viscosities. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, S423–S429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vlčková, J.; Tůmová, E.; Míková, K.; Englmaierová, M.; Okrouhlá, M.; Chodová, D. Changes in the quality of eggs during storage depending on the housing system and the age of hens. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 6187–6193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Scott, T.A.; Silversides, F.G. The effect of storage and strain of hen on egg quality. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 1725–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gogo, J.A.; Atitwa, B.E.; Gitonga, C.N.; Mugo, D.M. Modelling conditions of storing quality commercial eggs. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nasri, H.; van den Brand, H.; Najar, T.; Bouzouaia, M. Interactions between Egg Storage Duration and Breeder Age on Selected Egg Quality, Hatching Results, and Chicken Quality. Animals 2020, 10, 1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yimenu, S.M.; Kim, J.Y.; Koo, J.; Kim, B.S. Predictive modeling for monitoring egg freshness during variable temperature storage conditions. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 2811–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sert, D.; Aygun, A.; Demir, M.K. Effects of ultrasonic treatment and storage temperature on egg quality. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Berardinelli, A.; Ragni, L.; Giunchi, A.; Gradari, P.; Guarnieri, A. Physical-mechanical modifications of eggs for food-processing during storage. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 2117–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jones, D.R.; Tharrington, J.B.; Curtis, P.A.; Anderson, K.E.; Keener, K.M.; Jones, F.T. Effects of cryogenic cooling of shell eggs on egg quality. Poult. Sci. 2002, 81, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Reijrink, I.A.; van Duijvendijk, L.A.; Meijerhof, R.; Kemp, B.; van den Brand, H. Influence of air composition during egg storage on egg characteristics, embryonic development, hatchability, and chick quality. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1992–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Akarca, G.; Istek, Ö.; Tomar, O. The effect of resin coating on the quality characteristics of chicken eggs during storage. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 1243–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rouhollahi, G.; Mollazade, K.; Nourbakhsh, H. Predicting the S-ovalbumin content and determining the freshness of chicken eggs via transmittance spectroscopy. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 28405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, G.; Mi, S.; Zeng, Q.; Wang, L.; Liu, X.; Zhang, M.; Lv, Z.; Jin, Y.; Li, J.; Guo, Y.; et al. Quantitative proteomics provides insights into the mechanism of the differences in heat-induced gel properties for egg white proteins with different interior quality during ageing in laying hens. Food Chem. 2023, 419, 136031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Min, B.R.; Nam, K.C.; Lee, E.J.; Ko, G.Y.; Trampel, D.W.; Ahn, D.U. Effect of irradiating shell eggs on quality attributes and functional properties of yolk and white. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 1791–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Obianwuna, U.E.; Oleforuh-Okoleh, V.U.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.J.; Qi, G.H.; Qiu, K.; Wu, S.G. Potential Implications of Natural Antioxidants of Plant Origin on Oxidative Stability of Chicken Albumen during Storage: A Review. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Omana, D.A.; Liang, Y.; Kav, N.N.; Wu, J. Proteomic analysis of egg white proteins during storage. Proteomics 2011, 11, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Madsen, P.; Jensen, J. A User’s Guide to DMU. A Package for Analysing Multivariate Mixed Models Version; University of Aarhu: Aarhus, Denmark, 2013; Volume 6, pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meng, Y.; Qiu, N.; Guyonnet, V.; Mine, Y. Unveiling and application of the chicken egg proteome: An overview on a two-decade achievement. Food Chem. 2022, 393, 133403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lordelo, M.; Cid, J.; Cordovil, C.; Alves, S.P.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Carolino, I. A comparison between the quality of eggs from indigenous chicken breeds and that from commercial layers. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1768–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shafer, D.J.; Carey, J.B.; Prochaska, J.F. Effect of dietary methionine intake on egg component yield and composition. Poult. Sci. 1996, 75, 1080–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shafer, D.J.; Carey, J.B.; Prochaska, J.F.; Sams, A.R. Dietary methionine intake effects on egg component yield, composition, functionality, and texture profile analysis. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1056–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sun, C.; Liu, J.; Yang, N.; Xu, G. Egg quality and egg albumen property of domestic chicken, duck, goose, turkey, quail, and pigeon. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 4516–4521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Somes, R.G., Jr.; Francis, P.V.; Tlustohowicz, J.J. Protein and cholesterol content of Araucana chicken eggs. Poult. Sci. 1977, 56, 1636–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cendron, F.; Currò, S.; Rizzi, C.; Penasa, M.; Cassandro, M. Egg Quality of Italian Local Chicken Breeds: II. Composition and Predictive Ability of VIS-Near-InfraRed Spectroscopy. Animals 2022, 13, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Filipiak–Florkiewicz, A.; Dereń, K.; Florkiewicz, A.; Topolska, K.; Juszczak, L.; Cieślik, E. The quality of eggs (organic and nutraceutical vs. conventional) and their technological properties. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 2480–2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tharrington, J.B.; Curtis, P.A.; Jones, F.T.; Anderson, K.E. Comparison of physical quality and composition of eggs from historic strains of single comb White Leghorn chickens. Poult. Sci. 1999, 78, 591–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bílková, B.; Świderská, Z.; Zita, L.; Laloë, D.; Charles, M.; Beneš, V.; Stopka, P.; Vinkler, M. Domestic Fowl Breed Variation in Egg White Protein Expression: Application of Proteomics and Transcriptomics. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 11854–11863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kowalska, E.; Kucharska-Gaca, J.; Kuźniacka, J.; Lewko, L.; Gornowicz, E.; Biesek, J.; Adamski, M. Egg quality depending on the diet with different sources of protein and age of the hens. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Renema, R.A.; Robinson, F.E.; Feddes, J.J.R.; Fasenko, G.M.; Zuidhof, M.J. Effects of light intensity from photostimulation in four strains of commercial egg layers: 2. Egg production parameters. Poult. Sci. 2001, 80, 1121–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Silversides, F.G.; Korver, D.R.; Budgell, K.L. Effect of strain of layer and age at photostimulation on egg production, egg quality, and bone strength. Poult. Sci. 2006, 85, 1136–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ledur, M.C.; Liljedahl, L.E.; McMillan, I.; Asselstine, L.; Fairfull, R.W. Genetic effects of aging on fitness and nonfitness traits in laying hens housed three per cage. Poult. Sci. 2003, 82, 1223–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rossi, M.; Pompei, C. Changes in some egg components and analytical values due to hen age. Poult. Sci. 1995, 74, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hejdysz, M.; Nowaczewski, S.; Perz, K.; Szablewski, T.; Stuper-Szablewska, K.; Cegielska-Radziejewska, R.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Przybylska-Balcerek, A.; Buśko, M.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; et al. Influence of the genotype of the hen (Gallus gallus domesticus) on main parameters of egg quality, chemical composition of the eggs under uniform environmental conditions. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Biesiada-Drzazga, B.; Banaszewska, D.; Wielogórska, K.; Kaim-Mirowski, S. The effect of the genetic origin of hens on selected egg traits. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2020, 19, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Romero, C.; Yustos, J.L.; Sánchez-Román, I.; López-Torres, M.; Chamorro, S. Assessment of performance and egg quality in laying hens of Spanish indigenous breed Black Castellana as compared with a selected white egg-layer strain. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 104096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, Y.; Yu, S.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, M.; An, L. Effects and Mechanisms Investigation of Heat Stress on Egg Yolk Quality in Huaixiang Chickens. Animals 2023, 13, 3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Palomar, M.; Soler, M.D.; Tres, A.; Barroeta, A.C.; Muñoz-Núñez, M.; Garcés-Narro, C. Influence of free fatty acid content and degree of fat saturation in laying hen diets on egg quality, yolk fatty acid profile, and cholesterol content. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vlaicu, P.A.; Untea, A.E.; Lefter, N.A.; Oancea, A.G.; Saracila, M.; Varzaru, I. Influence of rosehip (Rosa canina L.) leaves as feed additive during first stage of laying hens on performances and egg quality characteristics. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Liu, Y.; Lin, X.; Zhou, X.; Wan, D.; Wang, Z.; Wu, X.; Yin, Y. Effects of dynamic feeding low and high methionine diets on egg quality traits in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 1459–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abou-Elezz Fouad Mohammed, K.; Sarmiento-Franco, L.; Santos-Ricalde, R.; Solorio-Sanchez, J.F. The nutritional effect of Moringa oleifera fresh leaves as feed supplement on Rhode Island Red hen egg production and quality. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 1035–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shang, X.G.; Wang, F.L.; Li, D.F.; Yin, J.D.; Li, J.Y. Effects of dietary conjugated linoleic acid on the productivity of laying hens and egg quality during refrigerated storage. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 1688–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, J.T.; Jessen, K.A.; Beltran, R.; Starkl, V.; Schatzmayr, G.; Borutova, R.; Caldwell, D.J. Effects of mycotoxin-contaminated diets and deactivating compound in laying hens: 2. effects on white shell egg quality and characteristics. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 2096–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Iskender, H.; Yenice, G.; Dokumacioglu, E.; Kaynar, O.; Hayirli, A.; Kaya, A. Comparison of the effects of dietary supplementation of flavonoids on laying hen performance, egg quality and egg nutrient profile. Br. Poult. Sci. 2017, 58, 550–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sun, C.; Qu, L.; Yi, G.; Yuan, J.; Duan, Z.; Shen, M.; Qu, L.; Xu, G.; Wang, K.; Yang, N. Genome-wide association study revealed a promising region and candidate genes for eggshell quality in an F2 resource population. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, X.; Li, X.; Zhong, C.; Jiang, X.; Wu, G.; Li, G.; Yan, Y.; Yang, N.; Sun, C. Genetic patterns and genome-wide association analysis of eggshell quality traits of egg-type chicken across an extended laying period. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hartmann, C.; Johansson, K.; Strandberg, E.; Rydhmer, L. Genetic correlations between the maternal genetic effect on chick weight and the direct genetic effects on egg composition traits in a White Leghorn line. Poult. Sci. 2003, 82, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hartmann, C.; Johansson, K.; Strandberg, E.; Wilhelmson, M. One-generation divergent selection on large and small yolk proportions in a White Leghorn line. Br. Poult. Sci. 2000, 41, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Arad, Z.; Marder, J. Comparison of the productive performances of the Sinai Bedouin fowl, the White Leghorn and their crossbreds: Study under laboratory conditions. Br. Poult. Sci. 1982, 23, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zhang, J.; Duan, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, F.; Chen, J.; Lai, X.; Qu, L.; Sun, C.; Xu, G. Screening and validation of candidate genes involved in the regulation of egg yolk deposition in chicken. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Download PDF
The Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Bigeye Tuna and Yellowfin Tuna in the Northwest Indian Ocean and Their Relationship with Environmental Factors
Previous
Integrated Targeted and Untargeted Metabolomics Reveals the Toxic Mechanisms of Zearalenone in Goat Leydig Cells
Next