Analysis of Egg Production Curves Using Three Mathematical Models and the Variation in Egg Quality between Commercial (Hy-Line Brown) Layer Hens and Sentul Hens
Subject Areas :
S.A. Santosa
1
,
I. Ismoyowati
2
*
,
D. Purwantini
3
,
A. Susanto
4
,
M.Y. Abare
5
*
1 - Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia
2 - Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia
3 - Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia
4 - Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia
5 - Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Faculty of Postgraduate, University of Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia
Keywords: egg production and quality, genetic variation, Hy-Line Brown hens, mathematical models, selective breeding, Sentul Hens,
Abstract :
Egg production is a crucial economic trait in poultry, with heritability challenges. The study investigated egg production and quality in commercial (Hy-Line Brown) and local (Sentul) chicken strains through mathematical modeling and detailed egg quality assessments. Utilizing 100 hens from each strain for up to 80 weeks, mathematical models: Gamma Wood, Quadratic, and Quartic, were applied to analyze egg pro-duction curves. The Quartic model exhibited outstanding accuracy, surpassing other models with signifi-cantly higher coefficients of determination (R2) for both Hy-Line Brown (R2=89.67%) and Sentul (R2=89.92%) hens showing the Quartic model's superior ability to precisely represent the persistence in egg production curves over time. Correlation analysis identified multiple linkages shaping egg quality, notably positive relationships of egg weight with shell strength, yolk color, yolk weight, albumen weight and shell weight as well as a trade-off between egg weight and Haugh units. Egg quality parameters were systemati-cally compared. Commercial hens demonstrated significantly (P<0.005) higher values in several quality parameters, including egg weight (62.35±5.02 g), shell strength (0.42±0.10), albumen weight (32.5±2.71 g), Haugh Unit (95.99±7.94), and shell weight (8.16±0.86 g), compared to local hens. Positive correlations were identified between egg weight and shell strength (0.224**), yolk color (0.033), yolk weight (0.968**), albumen weight (0.993**), and shell weight (0.488**). Conversely, a negative correlation is noted between egg weight and Haugh Unit (-0.040), indicating a trade-off between egg size and freshness. The Identified correlations between egg weight and quality parameters showed the multifaceted nature of egg characteris-tics, shaped by genetic and management factors. These findings provide comprehensive insights into the genetic and environmental influences on egg production and quality, offering a foundation for selective breeding strategies and management practices permitting productive strategies to ensure animal welfare in diverse chicken populations. This research notably illuminates untapped potential of the Quartic model for forecasting laying persistence amidst environmental fluctuations, while also suggesting hybridization op-portunities to infuse specialized commercial vigor and consistency into local gene pools. With global de-mand for affordable, quality nutrition expanding amidst climate change, these unified insights to bolstering egg quantity and quality through predictive modeling and strategic breeding carry far-reaching implications for sustaining poultry production.
Ahmadi F. and Rahimi F. (2011). Factors affecting quality and quantity of egg production in laying hens: A review. World Appl. Sci. J. 12(3), 372-384.
Alfonso-Carrillo C., Benavides-Reyes C., Mozos J., Dominguez-Gasca N., Sanchez-Rodriguez E., García-Ruiz A. and Rodríguez-Navarro A. (2021). Relationship between bone quality, egg production, and eggshell quality in laying hens at the end of an extended production cycle (105 weeks). Animal. 11(3), 623-631.
Alig B.N., Malheiros R.D. and Anderson K.E. (2023). Evaluation of physical egg quality parameters of commercial brown lay-ing hens housed in five production systems. Animal. 13(4), 716-725.
Alkan S., Galiç A., Karsli T. and Karabağ K. (2015). Effects of egg weight on egg quality traits in partridge (Alectoris chu-kar). J. Appl. Anim. 43(4), 450-456.
Almeida G., Mendonça M., Weitzel L., Bittencourt T., Matos A., Valentim J. and Oliveira A. (2021). Physical quality of eggs of four strains of poultry. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 43, 1-8.
Al-Samarai F.R., Al-Kassie G.A., Al-Nedawi A.M. and Al-Soudi K.A.A. (2008). Prediction of total egg production from partial or cumulative egg production in a stock of White Leghorn hens in Iraq. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 7(9), 890-893.
Alshaheen S.A. (2017). Analysis of egg production and egg weight curves by two mathematical models in Japanese quail (Coturnix c. japonica). Int. J. Poult. Sci., 11(1), 58-68.
Atta M., Eljack B.H. and Obied A.A. (2010). Use of mathematical modeling to evaluate production performance of some com-mercial layer strains under Khartoum State conditions (Su-dan). Int. J. Poult. Sci. 1(1), 19-22.
Awada L., Chalvet-Monfray K., Tizzani P., Caceres P. and Ducrot C. (2021). Global formal live poultry and hatching egg trade network (2004-2016): Description and association with poul-try disease reporting and presence. Poult. Sci. 100(9), 101322-101329.
Berkhoff J., Alvarado-Gilis C., Keim J.P., Alcalde J.A., Vargas-Bello-Pérez E. and Gandarillas M. (2020). Consumer prefer-ences and sensory characteristics of eggs from family farms. Poult. Sci. 99(11), 6239-6246.
Bai D.P., Hu Y.Q., Li Y.B., Huang Z.B. and Li A. (2019). Poly-morphisms of the prolactin gene and their association with egg production traits in two Chinese domestic ducks. British Poult. Sci. 60(2), 125-129.
Biesiada-Drzazga B., Banaszewska D. and Kaim S. (2022). Analysis of selected external and internal characteristics of the eggs of Hy-Line Brown hens in relation to their age. Poult. Sci. 18(1), 45-56.
Biscarini F., Bovenhuis H., Ellen E.D., Addo S. and van Aren-donk J.A.M. (2010). Estimation of heritability and breeding values for early egg production in laying hens from pooled data. Poult. Sci. 89(9), 1842-1849.
Chang L. (2021). Comparative study on nutritional components and egg quality of Bashang Longtail laying hens in different feeding models. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 25(05), 1002-1006.
Cheng C.W., Jung S.Y., Lai C.C., Tsai S.Y. and Jeng C.C. (2020). Transmission spectral analysis models for the assessment of white-shell eggs and brown-shell eggs freshness. J. Super-comput.76(3), 1680-1694.
Chicco D., Warrens M.J. and Jurman G. (2021). The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE, and RMSE in regression analysis evalua-tion. PeerJ. Comput. Sci. 7, 623-632.
Choi J.H., Kang W.J., Baik D.H. and Park H.S. (1983). A study on some characteristics of fractions and shell quality of the chicken egg. Korean J. Anim. Sci. 25, 651-655.
Da Silva Pires G., da Silva Pires D., Cardinal K.M. and Bavaresco C. (2020). The use of coatings in eggs: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 106, 312-321.
Dijkslag M.A., Kwakkel R.P., Martin-Chaves E., Alfonso-Carrillo C., Walvoort C. and Navarro-Villa A. (2021). The effects of dietary calcium and phosphorus level, and feed form during rearing on growth performance, bone traits, and egg produc-tion in brown egg-type pullets from 0 to 32 weeks of age. Poult. Sci. 100(6), 101130-101138.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2014). Scientific Opin-ion on the Public Health Risks of Table Eggs Due to Deterio-ration and Development of Pathogens. EFSA J. 12(7), 3782-3789.
Feng P., Zhao W., Xie Q., Zeng T., Lu L. and Yang L. (2018). Polymorphisms of melatonin receptor genes and their associa-tions with egg production traits in Shaoxing duck. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Scie. 31(10), 1535-1542.
França M.M., Funari M.F., Nishi M.Y., Narcizo A.M., Domenice S., Costa E.M. Habashy W.S. and Adomako K. (2018). The relationship between egg production, reproductive hormones, and the GDF9 gene in three different chicken strains. Anim. Gene. 27, 200147-200156.
Gautron J., Dombre C., Nau F., Feidt C. and Guillier L. (2022). Review: Production factors affecting the quality of chicken ta-ble eggs and egg products in Europe. Animal. 16, 100425-100437.
Gavora J.S., Liljedahl L.E., McMillan I. and Ahlen K. (1982). Comparison of three mathematical models of egg production. Br. Poult. Sci. 23(4), 339-348.
Goto T. and Tsudzuki M. (2017). Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci for egg production and egg quality traits in hens: A review. J. Poult. Sci. 54(1), 1-12.
Gous R.M., Fisher C., Tůmová E., Machander V., Chodová D., Vlčková J., Uhlířová L. and Ketta M. (2019). The growth of turkeys 1. Growth of the body and feathers and the chemical composition of growth. British Poult. Sci. 60(5), 539-547.
Grossman M., Gossman T.N. and Koops W.J. (2000). A model for persistency of egg production. Poult. Sci. 79(12), 1715-1724.
Guyot N., Rehault-Godbert S., Slugocki C., Harichaux G., Labas V. and Helloin E. (2016). Characterization of egg white anti-bacterial properties during the first half of incubation: A com-parative study between embryonated and unfertilized eggs. Poult. Sci. 95(12), 2956-2970.
Hammershøj M. and Johansen N.F. (2016). Review: The effect of grass and herbs in organic egg production on egg fatty acid composition, egg yolk colour, and sensory properties. Livest. Sci. 194, 37-43.
Hill W.G. and Mackay T.F.C. (2004). Falconer and introduction to quantitative genetics. Genetics. 167(4), 1529-1536.
Hy-Line International. (2023). Performance Summary Hy-Line Brown. In Hy-Line, USA.
Iqbal J., Mukhtar N., Rehman Z.U., Khan S.H., Ahmad T., Anjum M.S., Pasha R.H. and Umar S. (2017). Effects of egg weight on the egg quality, chick quality, and broiler performance at the later stages of production (week 60) in broiler breeders. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 26(2), 183-191.
Johnston S.A. and Gous R.M. (2007). Modelling the changes in the proportions of the egg components during a laying cycle. Br. Poult. Sci. 48(3), 347-353.
Ketelaere B.D., Govaerts T., Coucke P., Dewil E., Visscher J., Decuypere E. and Baerdemaeker J.D. (2002). Measuring the eggshell strength of 6 different genetic strains of laying hens: Techniques and comparisons. British Poult. Sci. 43(2), 238-244.
Ketta M. and Tůmová E. (2017). Relationship between eggshell thickness and other eggshell measurements in eggs from litter and cages. Italian J. Anim. Sci. 17(1), 234-239.
Ketta M. and Tůmová E. (2018). Eggshell characteristics and cuticle deposition in three laying hen genotypes housed in en-riched cages and on litter. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 63(1), 11-16.
Kocevski D., Nikolova N. and Kuzelov A. (2011). The influence of strain and age on some egg quality parameters of commer-cial laying hens. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 27(4), 1649-1658.
Lee J., McCurdy C., Chae C., Hwang J., Karolak M., Kim D. and Lee K. (2021). Myostatin mutation in Japanese quail increased egg size but reduced eggshell thickness and strength. Animals. 12(1), 47-58.
Masito H., Karkas K., Ayam O., Terseleksi S., Harnanik S., Ma-sito D., Pengkajian B., Pertanian T. and Selatan S. (2019). Karakteristik karkas dan olahan ayam sentul terseleksi. Pros. Semin. Nas. Hasil Litbangyasa Ind. 2(2), 1-12.
Narinc D., Uckardes F. and Aslan E. (2014). Egg production curve analyses in poultry science. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 70(4), 817-828.
Narushin V.G. (1997). The avian egg: Geometrical description and calculation of parameters. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 68(3), 201-205.
Niknafs S., Nejati-Javaremi A., Mehrabani-Yeganeh H. and Fatemi S.A. (2012). Estimation of genetic parameters for body weight and egg production traits in Mazandaran native chicken. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44(7), 1437-1443.
Nowaczewski S., Witkiewicz K., Frątczak M., Kontecka H., Rut-kowski A., Krystianiak S. and Rosiński A. (2008). Egg quality from domestic and French guinea fowl. Nauka Przyroda Technol. 2(2), 8-15.
Nys Y., Jondreville C., Chemaly M. and Roudaut Q.B. (2018). Qualités des œufs de consommation. Pp. 315-338 in Alimenta-tion Des Animaux et Qualité de Leurs Produits. Tec & Doc Lavoisier, Paris, France.
Onyutha C. (2020). From R-squared to coefficient of model accu-racy for assessing "goodness-of-fits". Geosci. Model Dev. Dis-cuss. 2020, 1-23.
Park J.A. and Sohn S.H. (2018). The influence of hen aging on eggshell ultrastructure and shell mineral components. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Res. 38(5), 1080-1087.
Poggenpoel D.G. (1986). Correlated response in shell and albu-men quality with selection for increased egg production. Poult. Sci. 65(9), 1633-1641.
Rehault-Godbert S., Baron F., Mignon-Grasteau S., Labas V., Gautier M. and Hincke M.T. (2010). Effect of temperature and time of storage on protein stability and anti-Salmonella activ-ity of egg white. J. Food Protec. 73(9), 1604-1612.
Rodríguez-Navarro A., Kalin O., Nys Y. and García-Ruiz J. (2002). Influence of the microstructure on the shell strength of eggs laid by hens of different ages. Br. Poult. Sci. 43(3), 395-403.
Savegnago R.P., Cruz V.A.R., Ramos S.B., Caetano S.L., Schmidt G.S., Ledur M.C., El Faro L. and Munari D.P. (2012). Egg production curve fitting using nonlinear models for selected and nonselected lines of White Leghorn hens. Poult. Sci. 91(11), 2977-2987.
Schaeffer L.R., Jamrozik J., Kistemaker G.J. and Van Doormaal J. (2000). Experience with a test-day model. J. Dairy Sci. 83(5), 1135-1144.
Sharifi M.A., Patil C.S., Yadav A.S. and Bangar Y.C. (2022). Mathematical modeling for egg production and egg weight curves in a synthetic white leghorn. Poult. Sci. 101(4), 101766-101775.
SPSS Inc. (2011). Statistical Package for Social Sciences Study. SPSS for Windows, Version 20. Chicago SPSS Inc., USA.
Stadelmann W.J. (1995). The preservation of quality in shell eggs. Pp. 67-80 in Egg science and technology. W.J. Stadelman and O.J. Cotterill, Eds., Food Products Press, Binghamton, New York.
Sudrajat S. and Isyanto A.Y. (2018a). Factors that influence the revenue of Sentul chicken farming in Ciamis Regency. Mim-bar Agribis. 4(1), 70-83.
Sudrajat S. and Isyanto A.Y. (2018b). The performance of Sentul chicken farming in Ciamis District. Mimbar Agribis. 4(2), 237-248.
Teguh M., Hartoyo B. and Tugiyanti E. (2023). Provision of lactic acid as acidifier in probiotics-containing ration on protein per-formance of Sentul chicken. J. Agripet. 23(1), 9-15.
Thanapal P., Hong I. and Kim I. (2021). Influence of low and high-density diets with yeast supplementation on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, egg production, and egg quality in Hy-Line Brown laying hens. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 23(3), 1-11.
Wang J., Wang W., Qi G., Cui C., Wu S., Zhang H., Xu L. and Wang J. (2021). Effects of dietary Bacillus subtilis supplemen-tation and calcium levels on performance and eggshell quality of laying hens in the late phase of production. Poult. Sci. 100(3), 100970-100979.
Wolc A., Arango J., Settar P., O’Sullivan N.P. and Dekkers J.C.M. (2011). Evaluation of egg production in layers using random regression models. Poult. Sci. 90(1), 30-34.
Wood P.D.P. (1967). Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle. Nature. 216(5111), 164-165.
Xu J., Gao X., Li X., Ye Q., Jebessa E., Abdalla B.A. and Nie Q. (2017). Molecular characterization, expression profile of the FSHR gene and its association with egg production traits in muscovy duck. J. Genet. 96, 341-351.
Yadav N.K. and Vadehra D.V. (1977). Mechanism of egg white resistance to bacterial growth. J. Food Sci. 42(1), 97-99.
Yang H.M., Yang Z., Wang W., Wang Z.Y., Sun H.N., Ju X.J. and Qi X.M. (2014). Effects of different housing systems on visceral organs, serum biochemical proportions, immune per-formance and egg quality of laying hens. European Poult. Sci. 78, 1-9.
Ye Q., Xu J., Gao X., Ouyang H., Luo W. and Nie Q. (2017). Associations of IGF2 and DRD2 polymorphisms with laying traits in Muscovy duck. Peer J. 5, 4083-4098.
Zita L., Tůmová E. and Štolc L. (2009). Effects of genotype, age, and their interaction on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Vet. Brno. 78(1), 85-91.