Article Sidebar

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 444 Download : 379

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and to compare the physicochemical composition of egg white, and to characterize and estimate the quantitative variations of egg white proteins of different birds’ species (duck, quail, Chicken, partridge and goose). For each bird species, the whole egg temperature, weight, height, density and shape index were evaluated. After breaking the eggs, a visual examination was performed then vitelline (VI) and albumen (AI) indexes and the haugh unit (HU) were measured. The study of the quality and the characterization of egg white proteins were performed by Agarose Gel Electrophoresis. The total egg weight varied within a range of (8.98±0.82 g to 142.91±10.34 g) for quail and goose, respectively. The thickness of the egg yolk was almost three times higher than that of the egg white in all breeds. The egg freshness, measured by HU, was higher in partridge, followed by quail and chicken breeds with values of 88.81±0.09, 87.45±3.33, 81.53±2.16, respectively. The VI shows values of about 0.40. The egg yolk/ white ratio ranged from 47 and the pH varied from 8.37 to 8.95 for all local species studied. The egg white protein content was higher for all species (up to 14.45g/100 g). Three types of proteins are identified by agarose gel electrophoresis (ovalhibitor, ovotransferrin and ovalbumin) with a quantitative difference between bird species. Densitometric analysis shows a qualitative difference due to the presence of type C lysozyme in chicken egg white.

Keywords

Egg white Species Quality Protein Electrophoresis

Article Details

Submission of a manuscript implies that the work described has not been published before or is under consideration for publication elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract). When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the copyright to the publisher.

How to Cite
Samira, M., El-Mokhtar, D. A., Noureddine, M., Mustapha, D., Mohammed, Z., Mohammed, B., & Mohammed, B. (2021). Egg Quality from Avian Species: Electrophoretic Characterization of Egg White Proteins. ANIMAL PRODUCTION, 23(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jap.2021.23.1.2
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Abeyrathne, E.D., H. Lee and D. Ahn. 2013. Egg white proteins and their potential use in food processing or as nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals a review.Poult Sci . 92 : 3292 à 3299.
  2. Akouango, P. 2014. Qualitative and quantitative evolution of the components of the egg during the three laying phases in the hen. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 74:6080-6085.
  3. Alkan, C.T., S.K. Karabag, A. Galic and M.S. Balcioglu. 2008. Effects of genotype and egg weight on hatchability traits and hatching weight in Japanese quail. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 38 (3):231- 237.
  4. Alloui, N. and O. Bennoune. 2013. Poultry production in Algeria: Current situation and future prospects. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 69, pp.613-619.
  5. Athias, A. 2003. Contribution to the comparative study of the commercial quality of eggs from the market and eggs from supermarkets: the case of the urban area of the city of Abidjan.Th.Méd. Ve.
  6. Bijve, Y. 2006. Etude l’évolution des œufs de consommation dans les conditions de stockage naturellesTh. :Méd.Vét: Dakar.
  7. Bouvarel, I., Y. Nys, M. Panheleux and P. Lescoat. 2010. How does chicken feeding influence the quality of eggs ?. Inra Productions Animales. 23(2), pp.167-182.
  8. Bradford, M.M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein–dye biding. Analytical Biochemistry, 72 : 248–254.
  9. Buffet, E. 2010. Packaging and packaging of eggs for consumption. In: F. Nau, C. Guérin-Dubiard, F. Baron, J L. Thapon, eds. 2010. Egg science and technology. Paris: Tec and Doc Lavoisier. 251-263.
  10. Desert, C., C. G. F. Nau, G. Jan, F. Val and J. Mallard. 2001. Comparison of different electrophoretic separations of hen egg white proteins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:4553–4561
  11. Egahi, J.O., N.I. Dim and O.M. Momoh. 2013. The effect of plumage modifier genes on quality indices of the nigerian local chicken. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 2(2), pp.04-06.
  12. Halbouche, M., L. Dahoum, A. Mouatz, M. Didi, S. Ghali, W. Boudjenah and A. Fellahi. 2009. Phenotypic inventory of local poultry populations in the Algerian North-West, morphological characterization of animals and eggs. Proceedings of the First Study Days: local poultry genetic resources. Mostaganem, Algeria, June 23-24.
  13. Hanusová, E., C. Hrnčár, A. Hanus and M. Oravcová. 2015. Effect of breed on some parameters of egg quality in laying hens. Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica, 18(1), pp.20-24
  14. Haugh, R.R. 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. U.S. Egg Poultry Magazine, No. 43, pages 552-555 and 572-573.
  15. Iqbal, J., S.H. Khan, N. Mukhtar, T. Ahmed and R.A. Pasha. 2016. Effects of Egg size (Weight) and Age on Hatching Performance and Chick Quality of Broiler Breeder. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 44, 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2014.987294.
  16. Islam, M., S. Bulbul, G. Seeland and A.B.M. Islam. 2001. Qualité des œufs de différents génotypes de poulet en été et en hiver. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 4, 1411-1414. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2001.1411.141
  17. Lafon, P.H. and F. Lafon. 2009. L’œuf et les ovoproduits. Technique de l’ingénieur. F7010.1-21. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 89(3), pp.379-383
  18. Lechevalier, V. 2005. Shearing, creation of interfaces and heat treatment. Doctoral thesis in physico-chemistry and quality of bioproducts. Life- Agro-Health doctoral school.
  19. Lederer , J. 1978. Encyclopédie moderne de l’hygiène alimentaire. Paris : Maloine.-870 p.
  20. Mead, G.C. and R.G. Wells. 1999. Poultry Meat Science. CAB International Publishing, Wallingford.
  21. Mein. 2015. Technical specifications applicable to eggs and egg products. Regulatory document produced by the study group of collective catering and nutrition (GEM-RCN). Paris: Ministry of Economy, Industry and Digital (France).
  22. Mertens, F.N., C. Guérin-Dubiard, F. Baron and J.L. Thapon. 2010. Physico-chemical quality of the consumer egg. Science and technology of the egg: Volume 2, From egg to egg products, Lavoisier, p.7
  23. Moula. 2018. Quality of eggs for consumption of three genetic types of hens marketed in eastern Algeria Article in Archivos de Zootecnia • August 2018 DOI: 10.21071/az.v67i259.3791.
  24. N'diaye, A. 2002. Contribution to the commercial quality of eggs for consumption in the Dakar Region. Thesis: Med. Vet .: Dakar; 16.
  25. Nau, F., Y. Nys, Y. Yamakawa and S. Rehault-Godbert. 2010. Nutritional interest of the egg in human food. INRA Animal Production 23 (2): 225-236.
  26. Nys, Y., J. Gautron, J.M. Garcia-Ruiz, M.T. Hincke. 2004. Avian eggshell mineralization: biochemical and functional characterization of matrix proteins. Comptes. Rendus Palevol 36), 549–562.
  27. Protais, J., Lahellec and M. Launay. 1981. Variations in the internal quality of the egg with storage temperature. Bul. inf. Station Exp. ploufragan poultry. 21, (1), 1981: 39-41
  28. Protais, M. 2010. Genetic selection and production of layers. In: F. Nau, C. Guérin Dubiard, F. Baron, J L. Thapon, eds. 2010. Egg science and technology. Paris: Tec quality characteristics of chicken. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2(4), pp.261-263.
  29. Romanoff, A. and A.J. Romanoff. 1949. The Avian Egg. (New York, John Wiley). USA. SAS (2003): The SAS System for Windows. Release 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc.
  30. Roriz, B.C., S. Sgavioli, R.G. Garcia, I.A. Nääs, C.H.F. Domingues, F.R. Caldara, L. Rombola, C.M. Ayla, K. Bernnecke. 2016. Storage Period Affects Weight Loss of Japanese Quail Eggs. / v.18 / n.4 / 589-592. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. vol.18 no.4 Campinas Oct./Dec. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0178
  31. Samiullah, R.J.R. and K.K. Chousalkar. 2014. Effet du système de production et de l'âge du troupeau sur la qualité des œufs et la charge bactérienne totale chez les poules pondeuses commerciales. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 23, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013
  32. Sauveur, B. 1988. Structure, composition and nutritional value of the egg. In Reproduction of poultry and egg production. Edition: INRA. ISBN: 2853409619. 347-436.
  33. Silversides, F.G. and T.A. Scott. 2001. Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poultry Science, 80(8), pp.1240-1245.
  34. Silversides, F.G. 1994. The Haugh unit correction for egg weight is not adequate for comparing eggs from chickens of different lines. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 3(2), pp.120-126
  35. Stadelman, W. and O.J. Cotterill. 2001. Egg Science and Technology. 4th ed. Avi Publ. Co., Westport.
  36. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2000. Egg-Grading Manual. Agricultural Handbook No. 75. USDA, July 2000.www.ams.usda.gov/poultry/pdfs/EggGra ding%20manual.pdf .A description of the Haugh procedure is on folio pages 34 and 35.
  37. Xiao, J.F., Y.N. Zhang, S.G. Wu, H.J. Zhang, H.Y. Yue and G.H. Qi. 2014. Manganese supplementation enhances the synthesis of glycosaminoglycan in eggshell membrane: A strategy to improve eggshell quality in laying hens. Poultry Science, 93 (2), pp.380-388.