Printer Friendly

EGG QUALITY TRAITS AT DIFFERENT AGES AS AFFECTED BY SELECTION FOR HIGHER THREE WEEK BODY WEIGHT IN THREE GENERATIONS OF JAPANESE QUAIL.

Byline: J. Hussain, K. Javed, M. Akram, H. A. Ahmad, A. Mahmud, S. Mehmood, S. Ahmad, F. Ahmad, A. S. Jatoi, Y. Abbas and F. Hussnain

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to compare egg quality traits (egg weight, shell thickness, yolk index, Haugh unit score and the incidence of meat and blood spots) in a population of Japanese quail being selected for higher three week body weight by applying mass (MS) and pedigree based selection (PS) procedures along with running a random-bred control (RBC) group for three generations. A total of 180 eggs, comprising 60 eggs from each group (MS, PS and RBC) separately at three different ages (eight, fourteen and twenty weeks) were subjected to egg quality analysis in each generation. The data thus collected were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) technique under Completely Randomized Design in factorial arrangement. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using Duncan's multiple range test. Statistical analysis of data revealed significantly improved egg weight in selected groups at all ages in each generation.

Egg shell thickness also showed higher values for selected birds with advancing generations while yolk index and Haugh unit score showed significant variation without establishing any consistent trend. Hence, it can be concluded that selection for higher three week body weight did not cause any deterioration in egg quality characteristics, rather showed improvement in certain traits.

Key words: Selection, higher body weight, egg weight, shell thickness, yolk index, Haugh unit score.

INTRODUCTION

Eggs, either form chicken or quail are regarded as a complete diet with all essential nutrients and their quality is the major price contributing factor, hence, any deterioration in quality indices can cut down its overall economics by up to 5-8% (Krshavarz, 1994). Not only economics, egg quality traits also play vital role in breeding of poultry because hatching traits (Cavero and Schmutz, 2009), chick quality, growth and production performance in the subsequent generation are directly related with these traits (McDaniel et al., 1978; Altinel et al., 1996; Islam et al., 2001). In continuation to the preceding discussion, the effect in the upcoming generations regarding egg quality might be caused by the genetic structure of the parents used in each generation (Sezer, 2007).

Selection for higher body weight is found to have significant effect on egg quality parameters (Alkan et al., 2010) and further strengthened by the fact that larger body size birds produce eggs with higher egg length, width and better internal egg qualities than those of smaller ones (Ricklefs, 1983). Selection for better hatchability is also in line with improved external egg quality as well as internal egg quality traits like the proportion of yolk. Whilst, relation between Haugh units and hatchability is inverse (Cavero and Schmutz, 2009). However, there still exists contradiction in literature regarding egg quality traits as affected by selection for higher or lower body weight. Hence, it was of utmost importance to have a well-planned and properly executed experiment to observe egg quality parameters as a consequent effect of selection for higher body weights. The present experiment is an effort in the same direction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was conducted at Avian research and training (ART) Centre, UVAS, Lahore, with the aim of comparing egg quality traits in three generations of Japanese quail under three different selection systems for three week body weight.

Selection Process: In G1, 11000 quail chicks were randomly distributed into 22 sub-groups. After 3 weeks, birds were weighed and sexed; the higher body weight birds were selected as the parents of next generation. Out of these 22 sub-groups, first group was maintained with fully pedigree records, in second group birds were picked randomly without following any selection procedure, rest 20 groups were subjected to mass selection. The same procedure was repeated in the next two generations.

Egg Quality Parameters: A total of 180 eggs, comprising 60 eggs from each group (MS, PS and RBC) separately at 3 different ages (eight, fourteen and twenty weeks) were subjected to egg quality analysis in all the 3 generations. Data were collected for egg weight, shell thickness, Haugh unit score (Kondaiah et al., 1983), yolk index (Funk, 1948) and the incidence of meat and blood spots.

Formulas for the estimation of Haugh unit score and yolk index (Alkan et al., 2010) are given below: Haugh Unit = 100 log (H-1.7W0.37 + 7.6)

Where "H" is the albumen height and "W" is egg weight in grams

(EQUATION)

Egg weight was recorded with the help of digital weighing balance capable of measuring up to 0.1 g accuracy and shell thickness was measured using digital micrometer screw gauge.

Statistical Analysis: The data thus collected were analyzed according to Completely Randomized Design (CRD) under factorial arrangements using GLM (General Linear Model) procedures (Steel et al., 1997). Differences among means were worked out using Duncan's (1955) Multiple Range (DMR) test with the help of SAS, 9.1. (2003), assuming following statistical model:

Yijk = u + ai + bj + (ab)ij + eijk

Where,

Yijk = Dependent variable

u = Overall Population mean

ai = First factor effect (i=3 generations)

bj = Second factor effect (j=3 selection systems)

(ab)ij = Overall interaction effect

eijk = Residual effect

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Egg weight: Among different generations egg weight showed significant (P[?]0.05) improvement with the advancement of generations i.e. higher values for generation three at the age of fourteen (12.71+-0.1076g) and twenty (13.62+-0.142g) weeks than those of generation one (12.17+-0.0627g and 13.17+-0.0838g) (Table 1). The comparison among different selection methods also showed significant variation (P[?]0.05) in egg weight at all three ages with higher values for body weight in selected birds(PS and MS) than those of RBC. In the overall interactions (generations x selection methods) significant differences (P[?]0.05) were observed with the highest value (11.46+-0.188g) for PS in generation three and the lowest (10.38+-0.378g) for RBC in the same generation at the age of eight weeks. Pedigree based selected birds also showed significantly higher egg weight at the age of 14 (13.03+-0.130g) and 20 weeks (13.91+-0.26g) in generation three.

Improvements in egg weight in the current study in successive generations specially in pedigree based selected birds might be the result of improvement in body weight of the selected birds (Hussain et al., 2013, 2014) as egg weight and body weight are positively correlated (Siegel, 1962; Festing and Nordskog, 1967; Jr Kinney, 1969). Improvement in egg weight in response to selection for higher body weight (Wilhelmson, 1980; Inal et al., 1996; Alkan et al., 2010) may be the consequent effect of increase in the size of ova along with increased albumen secretions (Altan et al., 1998).

Shell thickness: Shell thickness among different generations showed significant variation (P[?]0.05) at different ages with the higher values for generation three at the age of eight, fourteen and twenty weeks (table 1). Among different selection methods significantly lower values were observed for RBC than those of PS and MS. The results of the overall interaction (Generations x selection methods) also showed significantly higher values of egg shell thickness in higher body weight selected birds at the age of eight weeks than those of RBCs. Significantly (P[?]0.05) higher egg shell thickness in selected (PS and MS) birds might be attributed to the additive genetic variance plus the superior body conditions of selected birds, leading to appropriate calcification in the shell gland. An improved shell thickness in high body weight selected lines is evidenced in another study (Alkan et al., 2010) and it might be due to higher egg size and shell weight (Ricklefs, 1983).

Shell thickness is reported to be an indicator of egg weight, hence, any improvement in egg weight consequently increases shell thickness (Selim and Seker, 2004).

Yolk index: Generation 2 showed significantly higher (48.12+-0.687) yolk index (P[?]0.05) at the age of fourteen weeks than those of Generation 1 and Generation 3 (table 2). Among different selection methods yolk index showed non-significant (P>0.05) differences. In interactions between different generations and selection methods varying results were observed without establishing any trend. Yolk index is a function of height and width of yolk (Funk, 1948) and might have no relationship with yolk weight. The weak vitelline membrane may rupture due to any reason leading to deterioration in the quality of yolk (Kirunda et al., 2001). Hence, the yolk index looks more to be a functional property of environmental factors than genetics as evidenced by another study (Hussain et al., 2014) where the heritability estimates for yolk index were almost negligible.

In some other studies non-significant variation in yolk index on the basis of strain variation (Rehman, 2006) and genetic groups (Haunshi et al., 2006) has also been observed. Inconsistent trends for yolk index have been reported in some other studies too, where some of the authors have reported increased yolk index value as a result of selection (Alkan et al., 2010) while, some others have reported decreased values both in selected and random bred control group as the generations progressed (Keener et al., 2006).

Haugh unit score: Haugh unit score differed significantly (P[?]0.05) among different generations with the highest values for G2 at 14th week (99.66+-0.860) and G1 at 20th week (100.94+-0.734) (table 2). Among different selection methods mass selected birds showed significantly higher (P[?]0.05) haugh units at 8th (94.22+-0.7264) and 20th week (101.05+-0.739) than those of PS and RBC. In the overall interaction between different generations and selection methods, mass selected birds depicted the highest haugh unit scores at different ages. Similar to these findings, some others studies (Keener et al., 2006; Sert et al., 2010) suggested that increasing and decreasing trend in Haugh unit score might have been a product of change in environmental factors regardless of genotype (Hussain et al., 2014). Some other scientists also could not find any significant difference in Haugh unit scores in light and heavy weight imported quails (Rehman, 2006) and chickens (Afifi et al., 2010).

Incidence of meat and blood spots: Any reportable incidence of meat and blood spots was not observed in the eggs analyzed for internal egg quality traits at different ages (eight, fourteen and twenty weeks) in different generations and selection groups. This may be complemented to the nutritionists for carefully formulating (balanced) quail breeder ration, because a number of the scientists (Pingel and Jeroch, 1997) reported that the incidence of blood and meat spots can be seen due to low levels of vitamin A.

Table 1.Three generations comparative egg weight and egg shell thickness at the age of eight, fourteen and twenty weeks.

###Egg weight (g)###Shell thickness (mm)

###Means +- SEM###Means +- SEM

###8 week###14 week###20 week###8 week###14 week###20 week

Comparison between different generations

G1###10.74+-0.1073###12.17+-0.0627b###13.17+-0.0838b###0.17+-0.0020ab###0.17+-0.0018b###0.17+-0.0016b

G2###10.99+-0.0886###12.58+-0.0785a###13.42+-0.1041ab###0.16+-0.0015b###0.18+-0.0017a###0.18+-0.0016a

G3###11.05+-0.1517###12.71+-0.1076a###13.62+-0.1429a###0.17+-0.0019a###0.18+-0.0026a###0.18+-0.0021a

Comparison between different selection methods

Mass###11.00+-0.0332b###12.56+-0.0829a###13.47+-0.1053a###0.17+-0.0019a###0.18+-0.0024###0.18+-0.0017

###a

Pedigree###11.35+-0.0839###12.68+-0.0861a###13.59+-0.1137a###0.17+-0.0020a###0.18+-0.0019###0.18+-0.0019

###c

Random-bred###10.43+-0.1671###12.21+-0.0894b###13.15+-0.1196b###0.16+-0.0014b###0.17+-0.0021###0.18+-0.0019

Overall interaction between different generations and selection groups

G1 x Mass###10.74+-0.0316bcd###12.11+-0.1086c###13.11+-0.1489b###0.17+-0.0040ab###0.17+-0.0037bc###0.18+-0.0031ab

G1 x Pedigree###11.22+-0.0306abc###12.29+-0.1140bc###13.22+-0.1493b###0.17+-0.0033ab###0.17+-0.0033c###0.17+-0.0032b

G1 x Random-bred###10.27+-0.2856d###12.12+-0.1039c###13.19+-0.1438b###0.17+-0.0029b###0.16+-0.0018c###0.17+-0.0023ab

G2 x Mass###10.98+-0.0242abc###12.69+-0.1179ab###13.50+-0.1734ab###0.17+-0.0034ab###0.18+-0.0028abc###0.18+-0.0027a

G2 x Pedigree###11.35+-0.1664a###12.73+-0.1560a###13.64+-0.1303ab###0.16+-0.0017b###0.18+-0.0028ab###0.18+-0.0032a

###cd

G2 x Random-bred###10.65+-0.1784###12.32+-0.1172bc###13.11+-0.2145b###0.16+-0.0027b###0.17+-0.0033bc###0.18+-0027ab

###ab

G3 x Mass###11.30+-0.0101###12.90+-0.1434a###13.80+-0.1961a###0.17+-0.0028ab###0.19+-0.0050a###0.17+-0.0032ab

G3 x Pedigree###11.46+-0.1882a###13.03+-0.1309a###13.91+-0.2615a###0.18+-0.0041a###0.18+-0.0035abc###0.18+-0.0031ab

###d

G3 x Random-bred###10.38+-0.3780###12.19+-0.2209c###13.17+-0.2578b###0.16+-0.0019b###0.18+-0.0046ab###0.18+-0.0046ab

Conclusions: From the above discussion it can be concluded that egg weight increased with the advancement in generations in response to selection for higher three week body weight. Shell thickness also increased with advancing generations, however, yolk index and Haugh unit scores remained inconsistent among different generations and selection methods.

Acknowledgements: The authors thankfully acknowledge the administration of Avian Research and Training (ART) Centre for facilitating the whole process, Authors are also thankful to Punjab Agricultural Research Board (PARB) for their financial support to complete the study.

Table 2. Three generations comparative Yolk index and Haugh Units values at the age of eight, fourteen and twenty weeks

###Yolk index###Haugh unit score

###Means +- SEM###Means +- SEM

###8 week###14 week###20 week###8 week###14 week###20 week

Comparison between different generations

G1###44.78+-0.9311###46.06+-0.8710ab###48.28+-0.6421###94.05+-0.6687###96.13+-0.9112b###100.94+-0.7344a

G2###42.57+-0.7913###48.12+-0.6871a###48.50+-0.5371###92.57+-0.7043###99.66+-0.8601a###100.45+-0.8859a

G3###45.20+-0.9553###44.12+-0.9482b###46.93+-0.6913###92.35+-0.9346###94.49+-1.0249b###97.43+-1.0119b

Comparison between different selection methods

Mass###44.82+-0.8819###45.49+-0.8435###48.17+-0.6827###94.22+-0.7264a###95.58+-0.9938###101.05+-0.7390a

Pedigree###43.54+-0.8720###47.11+-0.8667###47.18+-0.6054###91.34+-0.8032b###98.27+-0.9570###97.88+-1.0216b

Random-bred###44.18+-0.9599###45.70+-0.8811###48.36+-0.5976###93.40+-0.7733ab###96.43+-0.9432###99.89+-0.8908ab

Overall interaction between different generations and selection groups

G1 x Mass###44.69+-1.6530abc###46.54+-1.4207a###48.47+-1.1115###93.27+-0.9665ab###96.24+-1.6764ab###100.75+-1.3773ab

G1 x Pedigree###46.84+-1.1522ab###47.36+-1.9176a###47.00+-1.1495###95.32+-1.0994a###98.06+-1.7973ab###100.45+-1.3545abc

G1 x Random-

###42.81+-1.8939bc###44.28+-1.0501ab###49.39+-1.0635###93.54+-1.3757ab###94.09+-1.1305bc###101.61+-1.1206a

bred

G2 x Mass###42.66+-1.1984bc###48.35+-1.1510a###48.95+-0.9058###93.37+-1.3418ab###100.00+-1.4001a###102.88+-0.6606a

G2 x Pedigree###42.21+-1.6191bc###47.88+-1.1113a###48.15+-0.9929###90.56+-1.2503bc###99.59+-1.5565a###96.39+-2.0494bc

G2 x Random-

###43.38+-1.3129abc###48.13+-1.3538a###48.40+-0.9293###93.78+-0.9668ab###99.40+-1.5806a###102.07+-1.1655a

bred

G3 x Mass###47.66+-1.5060a###41.57+-1.4111b###47.09+-1.4788###96.02+-1.3882a###90.52+-1.4255c###99.50+-1.5646abc

G3 x Pedigree###41.57+-1.5041c###46.10+-1.4132a###46.41+-1.0123###88.14+-1.3537c###97.16+-1.6493ab###96.80+-1.7782bc

G3 x Random-

###46.36+-1.6995abc###44.68+-1.9557ab###47.30+-1.1036###92.88+-1.6497ab###95.80+-1.9335ab###95.99+-1.8903c

REFERENCES

Afifi, Y.O., Aly, and N. El-Ella (2010). Effect of crossing on the performance of local chicken strains. Egypt. Poult. Sci. 30: 1171-1188.

Alkan, S., K. Karabag, A. Galic, T. Karsli, and M. S. Balcioglu (2010). Effects of selection for body weight and egg production on egg quality traits in Japanese quails (Coturnix coturnix japonica) of different lines and relationships between these traits.Kafkas. Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 16: 239-244.

Altan, O., I. Oguz, and Y. Akbas (1998). Effects of selection for high body weight and age of hen on egg characteristics in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Turk. J. Vet. and Anim. Sci. 22: 467-473.

Altinel, A., H. Gunep, T. Kirmizibayrak, S.G. Corekci, and T. Bilal (1996). The studies on egg quality characteristics of Japanese quails. J. Fac. Vet. Univ. Istanbul. Turkey. 22(1): 203-213.

Cavero, D. and M. Schmutz (2009). Relationship between egg quality traits and hatchability in pure-line white layer strains. Proc. World Poult. Sci. Assoc., 1-7.

Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 11: 1-42.

Festing, M.F. and A. W. Nordskog (1967). Response to selection for body weight and egg weight in chickens. Genet. 55: 219-231.

Haunshi, S., S. C. Saxena, D. Biswajtt, and K. M. Bujarbaruah (2006). Comparative study of certain egg quality traits of Vanaraja and White Leghorn chicken. Ind. J. Poult. Sci. 41(3): 323.

Hussain, J., M. Akram, A. W. Sahota, K. Javed, H. A. Ahmad, S. Mehmood, S. Ahmad, R. Sulaman, I. Rabbani (2013). Selection for higher three week body weight in Japanese quail. 1: Effect on growth performance. J. Anim. Plant. Sci. 23(6): 1496-1500.

Hussain, J., M. Akram, A.W. Sahota, K. Javed, H. A. Ahmad, S. Mehmood, A. S. Jatoi, and S. Ahmad (2014). Selection for higher three week body weight in Japanese quail. 2: Estimation of genetic parameters. J. Anim. Plant. Sci. 24(3): 869-873.

Inal, S., S. Dere, K. Kiiriikcii, C. Tepeli (1996). The effects of selection for body weight of Japanese quail on egg production, egg weight, fertility, hatchability and survivability. Vet. Bilimleri. Dergisi. 12: 13-22.

Islam, M.A., S. M. Bulbuli, G. Seeland, and A. B. Islam (2001). Egg quality of different chicken genotypes in summer and winter. Pakistan J. Bio. Sci. 4: 1411-1414.

Jr Kinney, T.B. (1969). A summary of reported estimates of heritabilities and of genetic and phenotypic correlations for traits of chickens. Agri. Res. Service, USDA.

Keener, M., K. McAvoy, J. B. Foegeding, P. A. Curtis, K. E. Anderson, and J. A. Osborne (2006). Effect of testing temperature on internal egg quality measurements. Poult. Sci. 85: 550-555.

Kirunda, D.F.K., S. E. Scheidler, and S. R. McKee (2001). The efficacy of vitamin E (DL-a-tocopheryl acetate) supplementation in hen diets to alleviate egg quality deterioration associated with high temperature exposure. Poult. Sci. 80: 1378-1383.

Kondaiah, N.B., Panda, and Singhal (1983). Internal egg quality measure of quail eggs. Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 53: 1261-1264.

Krshavarz, K. (1994). Laying hens respond differently to high dietary levels of phosphorus in monobasic and dibasic calcium phosphate. Poult. Sci. 73: 687-703.

McDaniel, G.R., D. A. Roland, and M. A. Coleman (1978). The effect of egg shell quality on hatchability and embryonic mortality. Poult. Sci. 58: 10-13.

Pingel, H. and H. Jeroch (1997). Egg quality as influenced by genetic, management and nutritional factors. Proc. VII European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg Products. 13-27.

Rehman, Z. U. (2006). Comparative productive performance of Japanese quail from different local and imported stocks. M.Phil. thesis (unpublished). Deptt. of Poult. Prod., Univ. Vet. and Anim. Sci., Lahore, Pakistan.

Ricklefs, R.E. (1983). Egg characteristics of lines of Japanese quails selected for 4 weekly body mass. Poult. Sci. 61: 1933-1938.

SAS Institute. (2003). SAS(r) Users Guide: Statistics. Version 9.01.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.

Selim, K. and I. Seker (2004). Phenotypic correlations between some external and internal egg quality traits in the Japanese quail (Coturnix Coturnix Japonica). Int. J. Poult. Sci. 3: 400-405.

Sert, D., A. Aygun, and M. K. Demir (2010). Effects of ultrasonic treatment and storage temperature on egg quality. Poult. Sci. 90: 869-875.

Sezer, M. (2007). Genetic Parameters Estimated for Sexual Maturity and Weekly Live Weights of Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20(1): 19-24.

Siegel, P. B. (1962). Selection for body weight at eight weeks of age. 1. Short term responses and heritabilities. Poult. Sci. 41: 954-962.

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie, and D.A. Dickie (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A biometric approach, 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, Book Publishing Company, Toronto, Canada.

Wilhelmson, M. (1980). Breeding experiments with Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) II. Comparison between index selection and specialized selection followed by crossing. Acta. Agr. Scand. A-An. 30: 373-387.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
Date:Feb 28, 2017
Words:3840
Previous Article:ECOLOGICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, GENETIC TRADE-OFFS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF TROPHY HUNTING AS A CONSERVATION TOOL: A NARRATIVE REVIEW.
Next Article:GENETIC EVALUATION OF LAYING TRAITS IN IRANIAN INDIGENOUS HENS USING UNIVARIATE AND BIVARIATE ANIMAL MODELS.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |