Impacts of various storage periods on egg quality, hatchability, post-hatching performance, and economic benefit analysis of two breeds of quail

Impacts of various storage periods on egg quality, hatchability, post-hatching performance, and economic benefit analysis of two breeds of quail

∗

Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Wealth Development, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Alexandria University, Rasheed, Edfina 22758, Egypt; † Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Wealth Development, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Damanhour University, 22511, Egypt; ‡ Department of Poultry, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt; § Department of Animal Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; ¶ Department of Theriogenology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt; and # Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt loss. Moreover, FWQ eggs exhibited higher (P < 0.05) hatchability compared to BJQ eggs after 10 d of storage and yielded heavier chicks (P < 0.05) after all storage periods. The economic analysis indicated that the storage costs for FWQ eggs were significantly greater than those of BJQ at a 0 d of storage (2.42 vs. 4.81 US cent (¢); P < 0.05). Furthermore, the total costs for BJQ eggs were significantly lower than the total costs for FWQ eggs (3.0 vs. 7.0 ¢; P < 0.05). With respect to profitability, the total return represented by selling the chicks was calculated at 5.43 ¢ for BJQ and 9.01 ¢ for FWQ. The net return estimated for FWQ was significantly greater than that of BJQ (3.0 vs. 2.0 ¢; P < 0.05). However, the hatchability loss for FWQ was significantly greater than that of BJQ over different storage periods.

ABSTRACT The effect of storage period on hatching and post-hatching performance of two quail breeds (brown Japanese quail (BJQ) and French white quail (FWQ)) was investigated using 940 eggs from each breed. Eggs were divided into four equal groups (235 eggs each), in each group. A total number of 210 eggs were used for incubation (with three replicates, 70 eggs each) and additional 25 eggs served as samples for egg quality parameters, each group was kept for special storage period. The first group was incubated on the same day of collection (zero day storage). Whereas the second, third, and fourth groups were stored for 4, 7, and 10 d, respectively. Increasing the storage period more than 4 d significantly decreased the relative albumen weight, yolk index, total hatchability, and fertile eggs but significantly increased the relative yolk/albumen ratio, absolute and relative egg weight

Key words: quail, storage period, hatchability, economic analysis 2018 Poultry Science 0:1–8 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey468

INTRODUCTION

plumage color. The most common strain is the mottled brown quail (BJQ) while the least common is the white quail (FWQ) and popularly known among farmers as “albino” for its characteristic white plumage. Intensive study of C. japonica has revealed that the species is suitable for poultry research (Baumgartner et al., 2007). Most egg production studies in quail focus on the laying breed of Japanese quail (Garcia et al., 2000; Ribeiro et al., 2003; Murakami et al., 2006; Araujo et al., 2007; Murakami et al., 2007). However, research on potential egg production from the meat breed of Japanese quail is scarce (Mori et al., 2005; Barreto et al., 2007). For the consumer, egg weight is the most crucial quality trait. In Japanese quail, this trait is connected to the genetic structure of a flock (Rajkumar et al., 2009), sexual maturity (Kumar et al., 2000), production type (Panda and Singh, 1990), nutrition (G¨ uc¸l¨ u et al., 2008), stage of production cycle (Silversides and Scott, 2001;

The Japanese quail, Coturnix japonica, was likely been domesticated in the 12th century in Japan. These quail spread from Japan to America, Europe, and the Middle East between the 1930s and 1950s, with specific lines raised for egg and meat production (Ashok and Prabakaran, 2012). The Japanese quail is highly adaptable to an extensive range of ecological conditions due to an unusually high frequency of polymorphic loci and average individual heterozygosity (Akintan et al., 2017). At present, there are two strains of Japanese quail in worldwide classified according to  C 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received August 28, 2018. Accepted September 6, 2018. 1 Corresponding authors: [email protected], [email protected] (M. E. Abd El-Hack); [email protected] (A. A. Swelum)

1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

A. E. Taha,∗ A. S. El-Tahawy,† M. E. Abd El-Hack,‡,1 A. A. Swelum,§,¶,1 and I. M. Saadeldin§,#

2

TAHA ET AL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS This experiment was conducted at the hatchery lab of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Wealth Development, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Alexandria University, from November 2016 to January 2017. For post-hatching performance, all experimental procedures were carried out according to the Local Experimental Animal Care Committee, and approved by the ethics of the institutional committee of Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Wealth Development, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt.

Source of Eggs A total of 1,880 quail eggs from two breeds (Japanese and French white) were obtained from a commercial quail farm in the Governate of Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt from breeding quail approximately 80 d of age (940 eggs from each breed). Eggs were collected at 4 p.m., sorted to remove and cull abnormal eggs, loaded into quail egg racks, and transferred directly to the hatchery lab.

Experimental Design A total of 940 eggs were used from each breed (Japanese and French white) and divided into four equal storage period groups. The eggs were divided into four equal storage period groups (235 eggs) as 210 eggs for incubation with three replicates (70 eggs each) in each group and 25 eggs as a sample for egg quality parameters from each group. The first group of eggs was incubated on the day of collection (0 d storage), whereas the second, third, and fourth groups of eggs were stored for 4, 7, and 10 d, respectively.

Egg Management and Incubation Eggs were stored in a cabinet after disinfection with TH4 solution at 18◦ C and 70% RH. Eggs from different strains and stored for different periods were set in quail egg incubation trays and sprayed with TH4 solution for disinfection (2 ml/liter of water). The eggs were incubated in a quail incubator for 14 d at 37.5◦ C and 65% RH. At the end of the 14th day of incubation, eggs were transferred to a hatchery cabinet at 37.4◦ C and 70% RH until hatching.

Studied Parameters At the start of the experiment, eggs stored for 0 d, weighed to assess differences in weight between the two studied breeds. Then, eggs from each strain and different storage periods were individually weighed at 0, 4, 7, and 10 d to estimate the absolute and relative egg weight loss from initial egg weight.

Fertility and Hatchability Estimates Fertility% = (number of fertile eggs/total number of eggs set) ×100 Hatchability% = (number of hatched chicks/total number of eggs set) ×100 Hatchability of fertile eggs % = (number of hatched chicks/number of fertile eggs) ×100 Hatched chicks of each breed at different storage periods were weighed to the nearest gram. Egg Quality Parameters A sample from each storage group of each breed (n = 25) was used to assess egg quality parameters. Egg length and width were measured with a digital calliper. Relative weights for albumen, yolk, and shell were calculated from total egg weight. Yolk index (yolk height/yolk diameter) and yolk/albumen ratio were also calculated. Egg shape index was calculated as (egg width/length) ×100, according to Anderson et al. (2004), and egg surface area (S) was calculated according to Carter (1975) as S = 3.9782 × egg weight in grams0.7056 . Economic Parameters Total costs and total returns were calculated according to El-Tahawy et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

Nowaczewski et al., 2010), and housing density (Bhanja et al., 2006). In terms of storage period, Woodard and Morzenti (1975) stated that length of storage for eggs from pheasant and quail was critical, with noteworthy fertility decline in eggs stored beyond 14 d. Additionally, a negative association was observed between storage length and hatchability in numerous studies (Fasenko et al., 2001; Narahari et al., 2002). According to Pedroso et al. (2006), hatchability remains high in quail eggs stored for 72 h. However, Seker et al. (2005) recommend that eggs not be stored for more than 9 d to achieve high rates of hatchability in Japanese quail. Quail eggs are usually collected and stored over a period from 1 d up to 3 wk before incubation (Romao et al., 2008). Several aspects affect the hatchability of stored eggs, including storage temperature and storage length. Also, quail eggs exhibited 85% hatchability when stored up to 10 d at 20◦ C and 60% relative humidity (RH; Romao et al., 2008). In a study conducted by Garip and Dere (2011), hatchability was 78.4% for quail eggs stored for 5 d at 21◦ C and declined to 35.4% when the storage period was prolonged to 15 d at the same storage temperature. Furthermore, according to Hassan and Abd Alsattar (2015), the best storage period for Japanese quail eggs was 7 to 10 d at room temperature (20◦ C). They further stated that specific associations between variety and storage period indicated the presence of genotype–environment interactions. The aim of this study was to explore the influence of storage period on the hatching performance and egg quality of two quail breeds and to investigate the economic value of different storage periods.

3

IMPACTS OF STORAGE PERIODS ON QUAIL EGGS Table 1. Effect of storage period on the egg quality parameters. Storage period (days) Breed

Albumen (%)

BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ

Yolk (%) Yolk Index Shape index Shell (%) Surface area Length (Cm) Width (Cm) Yolk/Albumen ratio a,b

Zero 52.79 54.48 32.20 31.43 0.41 0.45 77.23 75.13 15.01 14.09 5.91 6.26 3.35 3.28 2.59 2.48 0.61 0.58

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.73a 0.74a 0.73b 0.57c 0.02a 0.02a 0.62 1.27 0.40a 0.35 0.09b 0.08a,A 0.03 0.10b 0.02 0.11b 0.02b 0.02c

Four 51.46 51.81 34.39 33.88 0.33 0.38 76.63 76.31 14.15 14.31 5.89 6.12 3.39 3.47 2.60 2.64 0.67 0.66

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.66a,b 0.84b 0.62a 0.76b 0.01b,B 0.01b,A 0.47 0.71 0.28a,b 0.38 0.12a 0.08a 0.03 0.03a 0.03 0.02a 0.02a,b 0.02b

Seven 50.46 49.69 35.54 35.90 0.29 0.31 76.90 76.99 14.00 14.41 5.93 6.18 3.41 3.47 2.62 2.67 0.71 0.73

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.83b 0.77b,c 0.84a 0.75a 0.01c 0.00c 0.95 0.56 0.32b 0.31 0.10a 0.10a 0.05 0.04a 0.02 0.02a 0.03a 0.03a

Ten 49.73 48.56 36.04 36.42 0.26 0.27 78.69 76.87 14.23 15.01 5.93 6.06 3.35 3.45 2.63 2.65 0.73 0.76

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.84b 0.67c 0.70a 0.51a 0.01c 0.01d 0.77 0.59 0.26a,b 0.38 0.07a 0.10a 0.03 0.03a 0.01 0.02a 0.03a 0.02a

Means within the same raw of the same breed having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. Means within the same column of the same parameter having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05.

A,B

(2017). Storage costs and incubation costs were also estimated. Total costs were calculated as the sum of storage and incubation costs. The selling of hatched chicks represented the total returns. Net return was calculated as the difference between total costs and total returns (El-Tahawy, 2007). The hatchability loss was calculated on the basis of hatchability% for each breed multiplied by the selling price of the chick. Correlation analysis (Pearson correlation) was performed between the different dependent parameters. Logarithmic regression analysis was conducted between chick weight, fertility %, hatchability %, weight gain, and total returns. Different trials were performed, and the best equation was characterized by the highest R2 .

Statistical Analysis Data for all of the parameters were analyzed using the general linear model with the SAS statistical software package (2004) and a level of significance at (P < 0.05) according to the following model: Xrfk = μ + Sr + Bf + Ir∗f + erfk

In which Xrfk = value of any observation μ = population mean Sr = storage time effect (0, 4, 7, and 10 d) Bf = breed effect (brown Japanese and French white quail) Ir∗f = the interaction between storage period and breed of quail erfk = random error

RESULTS Table 1 presents the egg quality parameters for eggs from the two quail breeds stored at different periods. The percentage of albumen was significantly (P < 0.05) different for the brown quail eggs between the different storage length periods. The eggs stored for 0 and 4 d had higher albumen (52.79% and 51.46%, respectively) than those stored for 7 and 10 d (50.46% and 49.73%, respectively). However, the percentage of albumen in eggs from FWQ stored for 0 d was significantly higher (54.88%; P < 0.05) than in eggs stored for 4, 7, or 10 d. Concerning breed effect, the differences among different storage periods were not significant. The yolk percentage in BJQ eggs stored for 0 d (32.20%) was significantly lower than in eggs stored for 4, 7, and 10 d. Moreover, the yolk percentage for FWQ eggs stored for 0 d was significantly lower than in eggs stored for 4 d (31.43% vs. 33.88%); a significant increase was observed after 7 and 10 d compared with the percentages for those stored for 0 and 4 d. However, the breed effect between BJQ and FWQ did not exhibit any significant differences between different storage periods. Data on egg quality showed significant decreases in yolk index for both BJQ and FWQ over longer storage periods. The highest yolk indexes were recorded for eggs after 0 d storage for both BJQ and FWQ quail (0.41 and 0.45, respectively). The breed effect was non-significant for 0, 7, and 10 d of storage, whereas the yolk index of FWQ eggs stored for 4 d was significantly higher than that of BJQ eggs (0.38 vs. 0.33). Regarding shape index, no significant differences were recorded during different storage periods within and between eggs from BJQ and FWQ breeds. Shell percentages for the BJQ eggs did not differ significantly during 0, 4, and 10 d of storage, but

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

Parameters

4

TAHA ET AL.

Table 2. Effect of storage period on the fertility and hatchability percentage. Storage period (days) Breed

Fertility (%)

BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ

Hatchability (%)

Total eggs Fertile eggs

a,b

Zero 91.67 86.29 75.60 70.95 82.48 84.22

± ± ± ± ± ±

Four

3.57 2.43 1.19a 0.48a 0.95a 1.23a

89.88 84.76 78.57 69.52 87.40 77.42

± ± ± ± ± ±

Seven

2.59 1.19 2.06a,A 1.26a,B 1.81a,A 1.39a,B

87.33 86.67 68.45 58.10 82.34 82.09

± ± ± ± ± ±

4.29 3.33 4.29a,A 3.33b,B 4.75a 3.37a

Ten 88.33 85.57 38.10 50.95 50.08 64.69

± ± ± ± ± ±

2.04 2.18 3.23b,B 3.81b,A 2.27b,B 3.02b,A

Means within the same raw of the same breed having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. Means within the same column of the same parameter having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05.

A,B

significantly decreased (14.00%, P < 0.05) after 7 d of storage compared with that of eggs stored for 0 d (15.01%). However, the shell percentage of eggs from FWQ did not show any significant differences after different storage periods. The breed effect for shell percentage during different storage periods was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.05). For the surface area of eggs, the data presented in Table 1 did not demonstrate a significant difference between different storage periods for either BJQ or FWQ eggs. Moreover, the breed effect for surface area was not significant after 4, 7, and 10 d of storage but was significant on the 0 d of storage, with the eggs of FWQ exhibiting a higher surface area (6.26; P < 0.05) than BJQ eggs (5.91). Egg length and width data for brown Japanese quail showed no significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) during different storage periods, whereas the length and width of FWQ eggs decreased significantly (3.28 and 2.48 cm, respectively) compared with that of eggs stored for 4, 7, and 10 d. However, the breed effect was not detected for egg length and width over different storage periods. The yolk/albumen ratio increased linearly for BJQ and FWQ eggs from 0 to 10 d of storage, with a significant increase observed in BJQ after 7 and 10 d of storage (0.71 and 0.73, respectively) compared with that in eggs that were not stored (0.61). However, for FWQ eggs, a significant increase in the ratio was observed after 4, 7, and 10 d of storage compared with that in control eggs (0.66, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively, vs. 0.58). Table 2 shows the percentages of fertility and hatchability from the total eggs and the hatchability from fertile eggs. Fertility percentages did not show any significant differences for BJQ and FWQ eggs stored for

different periods. Moreover, fertility percentage was not affected by quail genotype. Hatchability from total eggs for BJQ did not significantly decrease after storage for 0, 4, or 7 d and then decreased significantly after 10 d of storage. The hatchability of total FWQ eggs decreased (P < 0.05) after 7 and 10 d of storage (58.10% and 50.95%, respectively) compared with that of eggs stored for 0 and 4 d (70.95% and 69.52%, respectively). Regarding the breed effect governing the hatchability of total eggs, BJQ exhibited higher (P < 0.05) percentages than FWQ after 0, 4, and 7 d of storage, whereas FWQ eggs demonstrated a higher hatchability percentage than BJQ after 10 d of storage (50.95% vs. 38.10%, respectively). The hatchability of fertile eggs from both BJQ and FWQ was higher (P < 0.05) after storage periods of 0, 4, and 7 d than for eggs stored for 10 d. Breed affected the hatchability of fertile eggs, with the BJQ possessing a higher (P < 0.05) fertile egg hatchability than that of FWQ at 4 d of storage (87.40% vs. 77.42%) and that of FWQ higher than BJQ after 10 d of storage (64.69% vs. 50.08%). The hatch weight of BJQ did not differ significantly (P ≥ 0.05) among different storage periods and ranged from 8.80 to 9.06 g from 0 and 10 d of storage, respectively. The same trend was recorded for the hatch weight of FWQ chicks, and the weights ranged from 9.62 to 9.78 g from 0 and 7 d of storage, respectively. However, the breed effect for hatch weight (P < 0.05) was significant, with weights higher for FWQ than for BJQ during different storage periods. Moreover, increasing the length of the storage period was associated with worse values of both weight gain and RGR % (Table 3).

Table 3. Effect of storage period on the growth parameters. Storage period (days) Parameters Chick weight (g) Weight gain (g) RGR (%) a,b

Breed

Zero

BJQ WJQ BJQ WJQ BJQ WJQ

± ± ± ± ± ±

8.80 9.62 203.10 313.80 183.91 188.37

Four B

0.09 0.13A 2.95a,A 2.95a,B 0.24a,B 0.24a,A

8.84 9.63 202.56 292.02 183.85 187.55

± ± ± ± ± ±

Seven B

0.12 0.16A 2.95a,B 2.95b,A 0.24a,B 0.24b,A

9.01 9.78 196.36 288.02 183.11 187.24

± ± ± ± ± ±

Ten B

0.10 0.12A 3.14a,b,B 2.84b,c,A 0.26b,B 0.23b,A

Means within the same raw of the same breed having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. Means within the same column of the same parameter having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05.

A,B

9.06 9.69 191.92 281.47 182.67 187.05

± ± ± ± ± ±

0.11B 0.14A 2.98b,B 2.86c,A 0.24b,B 0.23b,A

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

Parameters

5

IMPACTS OF STORAGE PERIODS ON QUAIL EGGS Table 4. Effect of storage period on egg weight loss. Storage period (days) Parameter Egg weight

Egg weight loss (%) a,b

Zero

Four

BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ

12.67 ± 0.14 13.26 ± 0.13A – – – – B

12.60 13.07 0.25 0.19 1.97 1.49

± ± ± ± ± ±

Seven B

0.14 0.13A 0.02c,A 0.02c,B 0.15c,A 0.13c,B

12.59 12.99 0.36 0.33 2.79 2.51

± ± ± ± ± ±

0.17 0.15 0.02b 0.02b 0.18b 0.16b

Ten 12.56 12.92 0.47 0.40 3.60 3.07

± ± ± ± ± ±

0.24 0.22 0.03a 0.03a 0.26a 0.23a

Means within the same raw of the same breed having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. Means within the same column of the same parameter having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05.

A,B

Table 5. Economic analysis of the different storage periods. Storage periods (days) Parameter

Breed

Storage costs (¢∗ )

BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ

Incubation cost (¢) Total cost(¢) Selling chick (total return) (¢) Net return (¢)

Zero 2.42 4.81 1.20 1.21 3.62 6.02 5.43 9.01 1.81 2.99

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.52c,B 1.40b,A 0.32 0.52 1.32b,B 2.50b,A 1.15B 1.29A 0.18a,B 1.15a,A

Four 3.25 5.77 1.20 1.21 4.46 6.98 5.43 9.01 0.97 2.03

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

1.13b,B 1.16a,b,A 0.15 0.98 1.68a,B 2.20a,b,A 2.15B 3.49A 0.10b,B 1.10b,A

Seven 3.61 6.15 1.20 1.21 4.81 7.36 5.43 9.01 0.61 1.65

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

1.33a,B 2.18a,A 0.82 1.15 1.70a,B 2.14a,A 1.85B 1.28A 0.09b,B 1.44b,A

Ten 3.90 6.55 1.20 1.21 5.11 7.75 5.43 9.01 0.32 1.26

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

1.11a,B 1.24a,A 0.42 1.14 1.19a,B 1.04a,A 2.10B 2.20A 0.01c,B 0.81b,A

Means within the same raw of the same breed having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. Means within the same column of the same parameter having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. ¢ = 0.01 US dollar.

a,b

A,B ∗

Table 4 presents the egg weights and weight loss of BJQ and FWQ eggs stored for different periods. The mean egg weights for BJQ were not significantly different after 0, 4, 7, and 10 d of storage, and the same trend was recorded for FWQ eggs. However, the egg weight of the FWQ was higher (P < 0.05) than that of BJQ after 0 and 4 d of storage (13.26 and 13.07 vs. 12.67 and 12.60 g, respectively) but was not significantly different after 7 and 10 d of storage. Absolute and relative water loss increased significantly with increased in egg storage time for both quail genotypes. The breed effect was detected for absolute and relative egg weight loss at storage periods from 0 to 4 d, with higher egg weight loss occurring in BJQ than in FWQ (0.25 vs. 0.19 g); the percentage egg weight loss was also for higher for BJQ after 4 d (1.97% vs. 1.49%). As shown in Table 5, the storage costs even for the 0 d with FWQ were significantly greater for BJQ (2.42 vs. 4.81 ¢; P < 0.05). The same trend was observed for all of the storage periods. However, these costs within the breed were also estimated. No significant differences were observed among different storage periods, with storage costs that ranged from 2.42 ¢ after 0 d of storage to 30.90 ¢ on the 10th day. The incubation cost was estimated to be 1.20 ¢ for BJQ and 1.21¢ for FWQ. This cost was the same during different storage periods. The total costs for BJQ were significantly lower than the total costs for FWQ (3.62 vs. 6.02 ¢; P < 0.05). Total costs showed similar

changes for the two breeds during other storage periods. The total return from selling chicks was calculated to be 5.43 ¢ for BJQ and 9.01 ¢ for FWQ. The net return estimated for FWQ was significantly larger than the net return for the brown one (2.99 vs. 1.81 ¢; P < 0.05). Moreover, within BJQ, the net return for 0 d of storage, although not significantly larger, was greater than the net return estimated for other storage periods. Additionally, for FWQ, the net return was highest without storage, and although not significant, and the net return was higher after 4 d of storage than after 7 and 10 d of storage. Hatchability loss calculated from the hatchability percentage (Table 6) for FWQ showed that the loss in total eggs was significantly greater than for BJQ for storage periods of 0, 4, and 10 d, with values of 6.21, 6.26, and 4.59 ¢, respectively. Similarly, for fertile eggs, the hatchability loss for FWQ was significantly greater than for BJQ for different storage periods. As presented in Table 7, the correlation between chick weight loss and egg weight loss was strong and positive (0.786). Additionally, total costs positively correlated (0.642) with chick weight loss. However, a negative correlation was observed between chick weight loss and total return and net return. Additionally, the hatchability % was negatively correlated with chick weight loss (–0.612). Egg weight loss was positively correlated with total costs (0.447) but negatively correlated with total return, net return, fertility, and hatchability %.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

Egg weight loss (g)

Breed

6

TAHA ET AL.

Table 6. Hatchability loss for the two breeds for the total and fertile eggs. Storage period (days) Parameter Hatchability Loss (¢)

∗

Total eggs

Zero

BJQ FWQ BJQ FWQ

± ± ± ±

4.10 6.39 4.48 7.59

Four a,B

1.80 1.65a,A 1.53B 2.12a,A

3.86 6.26 4.74 6.98

± ± ± ±

Seven a,B

1.01 2.06a,A 1.89B 1.09a,A

3.71 5.23 4.47 7.42

± ± ± ±

Ten a,A

1.49 1.83b,A 1.75B 2.38a,A

2.07 4.59 4.51 5.83

± ± ± ±

1.03b,B 1.85b,A 1.15A 1.54b,A

Means within the same raw of the same breed having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. Means within the same column of the same parameter having different letters considered significant at P < 0.05. ¢ = 0.01 US dollar.

a,b

A,B ∗

Table 7. Pearson correlation between dependent parameters.

Egg weight loss Total costs Total returns Net return Fertility % Hatchability%

Egg weight loss

Total costs

Total returns

Net return

0.447∗ –0.608∗∗ –0.740∗∗ –0.411∗ –0.533∗∗

0.442∗ 0.501∗∗ 0.641∗∗ 0.587∗∗

0.400∗ 0.576∗∗ 0.531∗∗

0.462∗ 0.621∗∗

Fertility %

Hatchability %

0.646∗∗

∗∗ ∗

P < 0.01. P < 0.05.

Regression equation: Log Chick weight = 0.89 + 0.13 log fertility % + 0.62 log hatchability + 1.01 log weight gain + 0.90 log total returns R2 = 0.69%; F = 124.29 (P < 0.001) From the equation above, fertility and hatchability increased chick weight when increased by 1% to 0.13% and 0.62%, respectively. Additionally, weight gain and total returns positively influenced chick weight by 1.01% and 0.90%, respectively.

DISCUSSION With increasing storage time, a significant decrease was observed for albumen percentage and yolk index, and a significant increase in yolk percentages and yolk/albumen ratios was observed (Table 1). The decrease of albumen percentages could be due to increasing water loss from the eggs. Consistent with results reported by Khan et al. (2014) who concluded that storage period significantly affected albumen weight and albumen index in Rhode Island Red chicken eggs stored up to 9 d. Tilki and Saatci (2004) also reported a significant increase in yolk percentages with increasing storage period in partridge eggs, as did Khan et al. (2013) in Fayoumi chickens and Khan et al. (2014) in RIR chickens. The yolk index decreased significantly in both BJQ and FWQ eggs, which might be due to increasing water loss from stored eggs. Moreover, the non-significant effect of breed on albumen percentage is supported by results obtained by Hrnˇc´ar et al. (2014), who found that albumen percentages were not affected by quail genotype. However, these results disagree with Hrnˇc´ar et al. (2014) who found a significant effect for quail genotype on yolk percentage. The length of storage and breed did not affect the shape index, shell percentage,

surface area, or length and width of the stored eggs. These findings are consistent with those obtained by Tilki and Saatci (2004) and Hrnˇc´ar et al. (2014) but are in contrast to those of Egbeyale et al. (2013), who found a significant increase in egg shape index with increasing storage times for pullet eggs. Moreover, Charati and Esmailizadeh (2013) found that quail genotype did not affect egg shape index or egg width. Egg storage had no effect on egg weight, whereas a breed difference was observed after 0 and 4 d. Lacin et al. (2008) and Roriz et al. (2016) reported similar results and found that the storage period of Japanese quail eggs had no effect on egg weight. However, Alsobayel et al. (2013) reported that breed and storage time affected the egg weight of commercial broiler breeders. The increase in weight loss as the storage period increased might be due to continuous water loss. These results are similar to those reported by Petek and Dikmen (2004), Lacin et al. (2008), Alsobayel et al. (2013), Khan et al. (2013, 2014), and Roriz et al. (2016). Although hatch weight was not affected by storage period (Table 2), the breed effect was observed, which is consistent with results obtained by Petek and Dikmen (2004), Petek et al. (2005), and Genchev (2009) who reported a non-significant effect for storage period on hatch weight of Japanese quail. Significant effects of storage period and breed on hatch weight in commercial broiler breeders were reported by Alsobayel et al. (2013). Moreover, Khan et al. (2013) reported a significant effect for storage period on hatch weight in Fayoumi chickens, and Khan et al. (2014) found a significant effect in RIR hens. The storage period and quail genotype had no significant effect on fertility percentages (Table 3), which is consistent with reports of Petek and Dikmen (2004) and Khan et al. (2013). However, Othman et al. (2014)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

Fertile eggs

Breed

IMPACTS OF STORAGE PERIODS ON QUAIL EGGS

relative yolk weight, yolk/albumen ratio, and absolute and relative egg weight loss. Moreover, FWQ eggs exhibited higher hatchability than BJQ eggs at 10 d of storage and produced heavier chicks. An economic analysis indicated that the storage costs for a storage period of zero for FWQ were significantly greater than for BJQ. With respect to profitability, the net return estimated for FWQ was significantly greater than the net return for BJQ and the hatchability loss for FWQ was significantly greater than that for BJQ over different storage periods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors extended their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for partially funding this work through the research group project (#RG-1438-066). Conflict of Interest: The authors have no potential conflict of interest.

REFERENCES Akintan, A. A., O. H.Osaiyuwu, and M. O. Akinyemi. 2017. Genetic variation of the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix Japonica) based on biochemical polymorphism. Bio. Anim. Husb. 33:321– 332. Alsobayel, A. A., M. A. almarshade, and M. A. Albadry. 2013. Effect of breed, age and storage period on egg weight, egg weight loss and chick weight of commercial broiler breeders raised in Saudi Arabia. J. Saud. Soc. Agric. Sci. 12:53–57. pgbAnderson, K. E., J. B. Tharrington, P. A. Curtis, and F. T. Jones. 2004. Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb White Leghorn chickens and the relationship of egg shape to shell strength. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 3:17–19. Araujo, M. S., S. L. T. Barreto, J. L. Donzele, R. F. M. Oliveira, R. T. Umigi, W. P. Oliveira, E. M. Balbino, A. P. Assis, and G.V. C. Maia. 2007. N´ıveis de cromo orgˆanico na dieta de codornas japonesas mantidas em estresse por calor na fase de postura. R. Bras. Zootec. 36:584–588. Ashok, A., and R. Prabakaran. 2012. Evaluation of growth traits in short term selection for different ages in Japanese quail. Ind. J. Fund. Appl. Life. Sci. 2:152–157. Barreto, S. L., M. S. Araujo, R. T. Umigi, W. C. Moura, C. H. Costa, and M. F. Souza. 2007. N´ıveis de s´odio em dietas para codorna japonesa em pico de postura. R. Bras. Zootec. 36:1559–1565. Baumgartner, J., Z. Konˇcekov´a, and J. Benkov´ a. 2007. Line effect and phenotypic correlations among egg qualitative traits in Japanese quail eggs selected on yolk cholesterol content. Slovak. J. Anim. Sci. 40:13–18. Bhanja, S. K., S. K. Agarwal, and S. Majumdar. 2006. Effect of cage floor space on the egg production performance of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) during winter. Ind. J. Poult. Sci. 41:205–207. Carter, T. C. 1975. The hen’s egg: A rapid method for routine estimation of flock mean shell thickness. Br. Poult. Sci. 16: 131–143. Charati, H., and A. K. Esmailizadeh. 2013. Carcass traits and physical characteristics of eggs in Japanese quail as affected by genotype, sex and hatch. J. Livest. Sci. Tech. 1:57–62. Daikwo, I. S., A. A. Okpe, and J. O. Ocheja. 2011. Phenotypic characterization of local chickens in dekina. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 10:444– 447. Egbeyale, L. T., M. K. Bosa, O. M. Sogunle, and O. O. Adeleye. 2013. Effect of pre-incubation storage periods on weight loss, embryonic development, and hatchability of pullet eggs. Pacific. J. Sci. Tech. 12:416–424.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

reported a significant decrease in the fertility of Japanese quail eggs ranging from 96.46% to 78.62% with increasing storage time. Moreover, Hassan and Abd Alsattar (2015) reported significant differences in fertility for three varieties of Japanese quail. In contrast, severe declines were observed for the hatchability of total eggs and the hatchability from fertile eggs after 10 d of storage for both BJQ and FWQ, which might be due to increasing water loss and pH changes in the interior of the stored eggs. Seker et al. (2005), Lacin et al. (2008), Egbeyale et al. (2013), Khan et al. (2013), Othman et al. (2014), and Stepi´  nska et al. (2017) reported similar results. By contrast, Petek and Dikmen (2004) observed a non-significant effect on quail egg hatchability after a storage period of up to 17 d, and Genchev (2009) found that the hatchability of Japanese quail eggs ranged from 82.05% to 86.26% after a storage period extended up to 11 d. Regarding the breed effect on hatchability after 10 d of storage, Hassan and Abd Alsattar (2015) found that genotype had no effect on the hatchability of total eggs and the hatchability of fertile eggs for three quail varieties after different storage periods. A difference between the two breeds of quail was observed regarding storage cost over different storage periods (Table 5). These results are consistent with data from El Kholya and El-Tahawy (2017), who indicated that breed had a significant effect on storage period and subsequently on the storage costs. The incubation and total cost estimated for both breeds were also assessed by Siddique and Mandal (1996) who concluded that most of the total costs were represented by feed costs, veterinary expenses, and incubation cost. Moreover, the total return represented by selling the chicks was also calculated by Siddique and Mandal (1996), who estimated the total returns for quail using an average gross return measure per 100 quail in TK currency. Furthermore, they calculated the net return above cash and full costs for the quail in TK currency. The hatchability loss calculated from the hatchability percentage for FWQ showed that the loss in total eggs was significantly greater than for BJQ over the storage period (Table 6). These outcomes support Daikwo et al. (2011), who found that losses from hatchability were significantly different between the examined breeds and constituted a large portion of total losses calculated. Daikwo et al. (2011) also examined correlations between dependent parameters and found that hatching chick weight was positively and significantly (P < 0.01) correlated with egg weight (r = 0.96), egg length (r = 0.79), and egg width (r = 0.74). Additionally, the results obtained in this study for the regression analysis are consistent with those of Daikwo et al. (2011). In conclusion, the present study confirmed that increasing the storage period more than 4 d significantly decreased the relative albumen weight, yolk index, and hatchability percentages but significantly increased the

7

8

TAHA ET AL. Narahari, D., K. A. Mujeer, and K. A. Rajini. 2002. Pre-oviposition factors influencing the fertility and hatchabilitiy in Japanese quail. Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 72:756–761. Nowaczewski, S., H. Kontecka, A. Rosi´ nski, S. Koberling, and P. Koronowski. 2010. Egg quality of Japanese quail depends on layer age and storage time. Folia. Biol. (Krakow) 58:201–207. Othman, R. A., M. R. Amin, and S. Rahman. 2014. Effect of egg size, age of hen and storage period on fertility, hatchability, embryo mortality and chick malformations in eggs of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). IOSRJAVS 7:101–106. Panda, B., and R. P. Singh. 1990. Developments in processing quail meat and eggs. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 46:219–234. Pedroso, A. A., M. B. Caf´e, N. S. M. Leandro, J. H. Stringhini, and L. S. Chaves. 2006. Desenvolvimento embrion´ ario e eclodibilidade de ovos de codornas armazenados por diferentes per´ıodos e incubados em umidades e temperaturas distintas. R. Bras. Zootec. 35:2344–2349. Petek, M., H. Bapinar, M. O´ uan, and F. Balci. 2005. Effects of egg weight and length of storage period on hatchability and subsequent laying performance of quail. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci.29:537– 542. Petek, M., and S. Dikmen. 2004. The effects of prestorage incubation of quail breeder eggs on hatchability and subsequent growth performance of progeny. Anim. Res. 53:527–534. Rajkumar, U., R. P. Sharma, K. S. Rajaravindra, M. Niranjan, B. L. Reddy, T. K. Bhattacharya, and R. N. Chatterjee. 2009. Effect of genotype and age on egg quality traits in naked neck chicken under tropical climate from India. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 8:1151–1155. Ribeiro, M. L. G., J. H. V. Silva, M. O. Dantas, F. G. P. Costa, S. F. Oliveira, J. J. Filho, and E. L. Silva. 2003. Exigˆencias nutricionais de lisina para codornas durante a fase de postura, em fun¸c˜ao do n´ıvel de prote´ına da ra¸c˜ao. R. Bras. Zootec. 32:156–161. Romao, J. M., T. G. V. Moraes, R. S. C. Teixeira, W. M. Cardoso, and C. C. Buxade. 2008. Effect of egg storage length on hatchability and weight loss in incubation of egg and meat type Japanese quails. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 10:143–147. Roriz, B. C., S. Sgavioli, R. G. Garcia, I. A. N¨ aa¨s, C. H. F. Domingues, F. R. Caldara, L. G. Rombola, C. M. Ayla, and K. Bernnecke. 2016. Storage period affects weight loss of Japanese quail eggs. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 8:589–592. SAS. 2004. Statistical user’s Guide. INT, Cary, NC. USA. Seker, I., S. Kul, and M. Bayraktar. 2005. Effects of storage period and egg weight of Japanese quail eggs on hatching results (short communication). Arch. Tierz. Dummerstorf. 48:518–526.. Siddique, S. A., and M. A. Mandal. 1996. Economics of Japanese quail farming in dhaka metropolitan city. Bangladesh J. Agric. Econom. 19:1–2 Silversides, F. G., and T. A. Scott. 2001. Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poult. Sci. 80:1240– 1245. oz, M. Krawczyk, K. Otowski, and A. G´ orska. Stepi´  nska, M., E. Mr´ 2017. Effect of hen age and storage time on egg weight loss and hatchability results in turkeys, Annals. Anim. Sci. 17:447–462. Tilki, M., and M. Saatci. 2004. Effects of storage time on external and internal characteristics in partridge (Alectoris graeca) eggs. Revue. M´ed. V´et. 155:561–564. Woodard, A. E., and A. Morzenti. 1975. Effect of turning and age of egg on hatchability in the Pheasant, Chukar, and Japanese quail. Poult. Sci. 54:1708–1711.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/ps/pey468/5123770 by University of New England user on 09 October 2018

El Kholya, S. Z., and A.S. El-Tahawy. 2017. Effects of early feed restriction on some welfare indices and economic efficiency of White Pekin and Mule ducks. Alex. J. Vet. Sci. 52:68–80. El-Tahawy, A. S. 2007. Cattle diseases and their effects on economic and productive efficiency of dairy farms. PhD Vet. Med., Univ. Alexandria, Egypt. El-Tahawy, A. S., A. E. Taha, and S. A. Adel. 2017. Effect of flock size on the productive and economic efficiency of Ross 308 and Cobb 500 broilers. Europ. Poult. Sci. 81, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart. DOI: 10.1399/eps.2017.175. Fasenko, G. M., V. L. Christensen, M. J. Wineland, and J. N. Petitte. 2001. Examining the effects of prestorage incubation of turkey breeder eggs on embryonic developmentand hatchability of eggs stored for four or fourteen days. Poult. Sci. 80:132–138. Garcia, J., A. E. Murakami, E. M. Martins, and A. C. Furlan. 2000. Exigˆencias nutricionais de c´ alcio e f´ osforo para codornas japonesas (Coturnix coturnix japonica) em postura. Acta. Scientiarum. Anim. Sci. 22:733–739. Garip, M., and S. Dere. 2011. The effect of storage period and temperature on weight loss in quail eggs and the hatching weight of quail chicks. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 10:2363–2367. Genchev, A. 2009. Influence of hatching eggs storage period upon the incubation parameters in Japanese quails. J. Cen. Eur. Agric. 10:167–174. G¨ uc¸l¨ u, B. K., F. Uyanik, and K. M. Iscan. 2008. Effects of dietary oil sources on egg quality, fatty acid composition of eggs and blood lipids in laying quail. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 38:91–100. Hassan, K. H., and A. Abd Alsattar. 2015. Effect of egg storage temperature and storage period pre-incubation on hatchability of eggs in three varieties of Japanese quail. AVS 3:5–8. Hrnˇc´ar, C., E. Hanusov´ a, A. Hanus, and J. Bujko. 2014. Effect of genotype on egg quality characteristics of Japanese quail (Coturnix Japonica). Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 47:6–11. Khan, M. J., S. H. Khan, A. Bukhsh, M. I. Abbass, and M. Javed. 2013. Effect of different storage period on egg weight, internal egg quality and hatchability characteristics of fayumi eggs. Italian J. Anim. Sci. 12:e51 Khan, M. J. A., S. H. KhanBukhs, and A. Amin. 2014. The effect of storage time on egg quality and hatchability characteristics of Rhode Island Red (RIR) hens. Vet. Arhiv. 84:291–303. Kumar, A., S. M. H. Akhtar, S. B. Verma, and K. G. Mandal. 2000. Influence of age, body weight, egg weight, clutch size and pause on egg production in Japanese quails. Ind. J. Anim. Health. 39:82– 84. Lacin, E., O. Coban, and N. Sabuncuoglu. 2008. Effects of egg storage material and storage period on hatchability in Japanese quail. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 21:1183–1188. Mori, C., E. A. Garcia, A. C. Pavan, A. Piccinin, M. R. Scherer, and C. C. Pizzolante. 2005. Desempenho e qualidade dos ovos de codornas de quatro grupos gen´eticos. R. Bras. Zootec. 34:864– 869. Murakami, A. E., J. I. M. Fernandes, M. I. Sakamoto, L. M. G. Souza, and A. C. Furlan. 2007. Efeito da suplementa¸c˜ao enzim´atica no desempenho e qualidade dos ovos de poedeiras comerciais. Acta. Sci. Anim. Sci. 29:165–172. Murakami, A. E., M. I. Sakamoto, L. M. G. Souza, J. R. G. Franco, and M. A. O. Mituo. 2006. Determina¸c˜ao do melhor n´ıvel de sal comum para codornas japonesas em postura. R. Bras. Zootec. 35:2333–2337.