1. bookAHEAD OF PRINT
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Do the differences in egg contamination, penetration, and resistance against microorganisms among the hen genotypes exist?

Published Online: 17 Sep 2021
Page range: -
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the impact of genotype and storage conditions (temperature and time) on microbiological contamination and eggshell quality. There were four genotypes of laying hens used, Czech golden spotted (CGS), Greenleg Partridge (GP), White Leghorn (WL) and commercial hybrid (CH) hens were included. After collection, the eggs were divided equally into five groups regarding the storage time (0, 14, 28 days) and temperature (5 and 20 °C). The microbiological analysis included counting of colonies forming units (CFU) of Escherichia coli (EC), Enterococcus (ENT) and total number of microorganisms (TNM) on eggshell surface, eggshell membranes and in thin albumen. The analysis of eggshell quality included the determination of eggshell proportion (SP), thickness (ST), strength (SST), index (SI) and surface (SS). Moreover, egg weight (EW) and egg weight loss (EWL) were determined. The significant effect of genotype was found in contamination of eggshell by EC, ENT and TNM, eggshell membranes by TNM and albumen by EC (all P ≤ 0.05). The significantly lowest contamination of eggshell from EC was in eggs from the WL hens (4.42 log CFU/eggshell), while from ENT was in eggs from the CGS hens (1.22 log CFU/eggshell) and from the WL hens (1.40 log CFU/eggshell). The lowest incidence of TNM was also detected in eggs from the WL hens (5.03 log CFU/eggshell). Statistically the lowest contamination of eggshell membranes by TNM was found in eggs from the WL (0.12 log CFU/eggshell membranes) and CH hens (0.15 log CFU/eggshell membranes). Regarding the effect of genotype, the GP (not detected) and WL (not detected) hens was in eggs with statistically the lowest occurrence of EC bacteria in albumen. Regarding the EW and eggshell quality, all the parameters were significantly affected by the genotype (P ≤ 0.0001). Also EWL was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected by genotype (after 14, 21 and 28 days of storage). There were found to be significant differences of microbial contamination of egg surface among observed hen genotypes. The penetration of selected microorganisms was also significant in contamination of eggshell membranes by TNM and in contamination of albumen by EC.

Keywords

Ahmed A.M.H., Rodríguez-Navarro A.B., Vidal M.L., Gautron J., García-Ruiz J.M., Nys Y. (2005). Changes in eggshell mechanical properties, crystallographic texture and in matrix proteins induced by moult in hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 46: 268–279.Search in Google Scholar

Akter Y., Kasim A., Omar H., Sazili A.Q. (2014). Effect of storage time and temperature on the quality characteristics of chicken eggs. J. Food Agric. Environ., 12: 87–92.Search in Google Scholar

Anderle V., Lichovníková M., Przywarová A., Dračková E. (2014). Egg quality of gene reserve the Czech Golden Spotted Hens. Acta Fytotech. Zootech., 17: 84–86.Search in Google Scholar

Aygun A., Sert D. (2013 a). Effects of prestorage application of propolis and storage time on eggshell microbial activity, hatchability, and chick performance in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) eggs. Poultry Sci., 92: 3330–3337.Search in Google Scholar

Aygun A., Sert D. (2013 b). Effects of vacuum packing on eggshell microbial activity and egg quality in table eggs under different storage temperatures. J. Sci. Food Agric., 93: 1626–1632.Search in Google Scholar

Bain M.M., Dunn I.C., Wilson P.W., Joseph N., De Ketelaere B., De Baerdemaeker J., Waddington D. (2006). Probability of an egg cracking during packing can be predicted using a simple non-destructive acoustic test. Brit. Poultry Sci., 47: 462–469.Search in Google Scholar

Batkowska J., Brodacki A. (2017). Selected quality traits of eggs and the productivity of newly created laying hen hybrids dedicated to an extensive rearing system. Arch. Anim., 60: 87–93.Search in Google Scholar

Brodacki A., Batkowska J., Drabik K., Chabroszewska P., Łuczkiewicz P. (2019). Selected quality traits of table eggs depending on storage time and temperature. Br. Food J., 121: 2016–2026.Search in Google Scholar

D’Alba L., Shawkey M.D. (2015). Mechanisms of antimicrobial defense in avian eggs. J. Ornithol. 156: 399–408.Search in Google Scholar

De Reu K., Messens W., Heyndrickx M., Rodenburg T.B., Uyttendaele M., Herman L. (2008). Bacterial contamination of table eggs and the influence of housing systems. World. Poultry Sci. J., 64: 5–19.Search in Google Scholar

Dikmen B.Y., İpek A., Şahan Ü., Petek M., Sözcü A. (2016). Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Sci., 95: 1564–1572.Search in Google Scholar

Elmi M. (2004). Food safety: current situation, unaddressed issues and the emerging priorities. East. Mediterr. Health J., 10: 794–800.Search in Google Scholar

Englmaierová E., Tůmová E., Charvátová V., Skřivan M. (2014). Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 59: 345–352.Search in Google Scholar

FAO (2003). Assuring food safety and quality: guidelines for strengthening national food control systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization Rome (Italy).Search in Google Scholar

FAO (2007). The state of world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Food; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome (Italy).Search in Google Scholar

Farewell A., Neidhardt F.C. (1998). Effect of temperature on in vivo protein synthetic capacity in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol., 180: 4704–4710.Search in Google Scholar

Fisher K., Phillips C. (2009). The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology, 155: 1749–1757.Search in Google Scholar

Hanusová E., Hrnčár C., Hanus A., Ondruška Ľ. (2017). Characterization of native Slovak chicken and goose: a review. Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 50: 144–148.Search in Google Scholar

Hanusova E., Hrnčár C., Hanus A., Oravcova M. (2015). Effect of breed on some parameters of egg quality in laying hens. Acta Fytotechn. Zootechn., 18: 20–24.Search in Google Scholar

Hernandez J.M., Beardswort P.M., Weber G. (2005). Egg quality meeting consumer expectations. Int. Poultry Prod., 13: 20–23.Search in Google Scholar

Hincke M.T., Gautron J., Panheleux M., Garcia-Ruiz J., McKee M.D., Nys Y. (2000). Identification and localization of lysozyme as a component of eggshell membranes and eggshell matrix. Matrix Biol., 19: 443–453.Search in Google Scholar

Hy-Line. (2021). Hy-Line Brown: The World's Most Balanced Egg Layer. Management Guide. https://www.hyline.com/varieties/brownSearch in Google Scholar

Iannotti L.L., Lutter C.K., Bunn D.A., Stewart C.P. (2014). Eggs: the uncracked potential for improving maternal and young child nutrition among the world's poor. Nutr. Rev., 72: 355–368.Search in Google Scholar

Jones D.R., Anderson K.E., Davis G.S. (2001). The effects of genetic selection on production parameters of single comb White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci., 80: 1139–1143.Search in Google Scholar

Jones D.R., Cox N.A., Guard J., Fedorka-Cray P.J., Buhr R.J., Gast R.K., Abdo Z., Rigsby L.L., Plumblee J.R., Karcher D.M., Robison C.I., Blatchford R.A., Makagon M.M. (2015). Microbiological impact of three commercial laying hen housing systems. Poultry Sci., 94: 544–551.Search in Google Scholar

Jones D.R., Curtis P.A., Anderson K.E., Jones F.T. (2004). Microbial contamination in inoculated shell eggs: II. Effects of layer strain and egg storage. Poultry Sci., 83: 95–100.Search in Google Scholar

Khatun H., Rashid M.A., Faruque S., Islam M.N., Ali M.Y. (2016). Study on egg quality characteristics of three commercial layer strains under different storage conditions. Int. J. Anim. Res., 1: 63–70.Search in Google Scholar

Kraus A., Zita L., Krunt O. (2019). The effect of different housing system on quality parameters of eggs in relationship to the age in brown egg-laying hens. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 25: 1246–1253.Search in Google Scholar

Kraus A., Zita L., Krunt O., Härtlová H., Chmelíková E. (2021). Determination of selected biochemical parameters in blood serum and egg quality of Czech and Slovak native hens depending on the housing system and hen age. Poultry Sci., 100: 1142–1153.Search in Google Scholar

Kraus A., Zita L., Krunt O., Pokorná K. (2020). How genotype influences the egg quality in the second half of laying cycle? J. Cent. Eur. Agric., 21: 215–221.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J. (2009). Quality of eggs from Polish native Greenleg Partridge chicken-hens maintained in organic vs. backyard production systems. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 27: 227–235.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J., Sokołowicz Z. (2015). Effect of chicken breed and storage conditions of eggs on their quality. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootech., 14: 109–118.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J., Sokołowicz Z., Szymczyk B. (2011). Effect of housing system on cholesterol, vitamin and fatty acid content of yolk and physical characteristics of eggs from Polish native hens. Arch. Geflugelkd., 75: 151–157.Search in Google Scholar

Krunt O., Zita L., Kraus A., Okrouhlá M., Chodová D., Stupka R. (2021). Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) eggs and free range housing: A convenient alternative to laying hens’ eggs in terms of food safety? Poultry Sci., 100: 101006.Search in Google Scholar

Kulshreshtha G., Rodriguez-Navarro A., Sanchez-Rodriguez E., Diep T., Hincke M.T. (2018). Cuticle and pore plug properties in the table egg. Poultry Sci., 97: 1382–1390.Search in Google Scholar

Kusuda S., Iwasawa A., Doi O., Ohya Y., Yoshizaki N. (2011). Diversity of the cuticle layer of avian eggshells. J. Poultry Sci., 48: 119–124.Search in Google Scholar

Lee M.H., Cho E.J., Choi E.S., Sohn S.H. (2016). The effect of storage period and temperature on egg quality in commercial eggs. Korean J. Poultry Sci., 43: 31–38.Search in Google Scholar

Lewko L., Gornowicz E. (2009). Egg albumen quality as affected by bird origin. J. Cent. Eur. Agric., 10: 455–463.Search in Google Scholar

Messens W., Grijspeerdt K., Herman L. (2005). Eggshell penetration by Salmonella: a review. World. Poultry Sci. J., 61: 71–86.Search in Google Scholar

Moyle T., Drake K., Gole V., Chousalkar K., Hazel S. (2016). Bacterial contamination of eggs and behaviour of poultry flocks in the free range environment. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 49: 88–94.Search in Google Scholar

Park Y.S., Yoo I.J., Jeon K.H., KimChang E.J., Oh H.I. (2003). Effects of various eggshell treatments on the egg quality during storage. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 1224–1229.Search in Google Scholar

Pohle K., Cheng H.W. (2009). Comparative effects of furnished and battery cages on egg production and physiological parameters in White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci., 88: 2042–2051.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts J.R. (2004). Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. J. Poultry Sci., 41: 161–177.Search in Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Navarro A.B., Domínguez-Gasca N., Muñoz A., Ortega-Huertas M. (2013). Change in the chicken eggshell cuticle with hen age and freshness. Poultry Sci., 92: 3026–3035.Search in Google Scholar

Samli H.E., Agma A., Senkoylu N. (2005). Effects of storage time and temperature on egg quality in old laying hens. J. Appl. Poultry Res., 14: 548–553.Search in Google Scholar

Sert D., Aygun A., Demir M. K. (2011). Effects of ultrasonic treatment and storage temperature on egg quality. Poultry Sci., 90: 869–875.Search in Google Scholar

Stepien-Pysniak D. (2010). Occurrence of Gram-negative bacteria in hens' eggs depending on their source and storage conditions. Pol. J. Vet. Sci., 13: 507–513.Search in Google Scholar

Svobodová J., Tůmová E. (2014). Factors affecting microbial contamination of market eggs: a review. Sci. Agric. Bohem., 45: 226–237.Search in Google Scholar

Theron H., Venter P., Lues J.F.R. (2003). Bacterial growth on chicken eggs in various storage environments. Food Res. Int., 36: 969–975.Search in Google Scholar

Vlčková J., Tůmová E., Ketta M., Englmaierová M., Chodová D. (2018). Effect of housing system and age of laying hens on eggshell quality, microbial contamination, and penetration of microorganisms into eggs. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 63: 51–60.Search in Google Scholar

Vlčková J., Tůmová E., Míková K., Englmaierová M., Okrouhlá M., Chodová D. (2019). Changes in the quality of eggs during storage depending on the housing system and the age of hens. Poultry Sci., 98: 6187–6193.Search in Google Scholar

Yamak U.S., Boz M.A., Ucar A., Sarcia M., Onder H. (2016). The effect of eggshell thickness on the hatchability of guinea fowl and pheasants. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic., 18: 49–53.Search in Google Scholar

You S.J., Udenigwe C.C., Aluko R.E., Wu J. (2010). Multifunctional peptides from egg white lysozyme. Food Res. Int., 43: 848–855.Search in Google Scholar

Zaheer K. (2015). An updated review on chicken eggs: production, consumption, management aspects and nutritional benefits to human health. Food Nutr. Sci., 6: 1208–1220.Search in Google Scholar

Zita L., Jeníková M., Härtlová H. (2018). Effect of housing system on egg quality and the concentration of cholesterol in egg yolk and blood of hens native resources of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. J. Appl. Poultry Res., 3: 380–388.Search in Google Scholar

Zita L., Tůmová E., Štolc L. (2009). Effects of genotype, age and their interaction on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Vet. Brno, 78: 85–91.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo