See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303668653

Evaluation of External and Internal Quality of

Chicken Table Eggs at Retailers in Eastern
Ethiopia

Article January 2016

DOI: 10.5455/jasa.20160524124303

CITATIONS READS

0 180

2 authors, including:

Ewonetu Kebede Senbeta

Haramaya University
10 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ewonetu Kebede Senbeta on 06 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Animal Science Advances

Evaluation of External and Internal Quality of Chicken

Table Eggs at Retailers in Eastern Ethiopia
Ewonetu K. S. and Negassi A. Z.

J Anim Sci Adv 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649

DOI: 10.5455/jasa.20160524124303

Online version is available on: www.grjournals.com

 ISSN: 2251-7219 EWONETU AND NEGASSI

Original Article

Evaluation of External and Internal Quality of

Chicken Table Eggs at Retailers in Eastern
Ethiopia

Ewonetu K. S. and Negassi A.Z.
*
Haramaya University.

Abstract
The study was conducted to assess retailers egg storage system and retention periods and to evaluate
internal and external quality of chicken table eggs at retail levels in major urban markets of Eastern Ethiopia.
Three major urban open markets from different agro-ecology were purposively selected for the study based on
their market potentials and ten retailers from each market were involved in egg selling for more than a year
were purposively selected and interviewed. A total of 480 eggs were randomly taken to determine external and
internal quality. Data obtained through measuring internal and external egg quality were analyzed using SAS.
Majority of retailers stored eggs any place in their living room and they did not give attention for environmental
conditions during storage or transit as to where and how the eggs are stored. The physical data revealed a good
uniformity for most of the studied external and internal traits, as the highly statistical significant differences
found among the market retailers. Longer egg storage duration, poor storage condition; exposure of eggs to
sunlight in the market and during transportation might have contributed for lower internal and external qualities
of eggs retailed in open markets. The results confirmed prolonged retention of eggs at retailers without proper
storage facilities during storage or transit lower egg quality. Therefore; awareness about the management and
carefully handling practice of eggs should be organized to create well-informed retailers and consumers to
maintain egg quality then offer safe and good quality eggs for consumption.

Keywords: Eastern Ethiopia, market, physical quality of eggs, table eggs, retailers.

Corresponding author: Haramaya University.

Received on: 21 Mar 2016
Revised on: 02 Apr 2016
Accepted on: 24 May 2016
Online Published on: 30 May 2016
1642 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
 EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL QUALITY OF
Introduction
Chicken eggs are familiar, nutritious,
economical and easy to prepare food, as they
provide balanced sources of nutrients for humans of
all ages (Matt et al., 2009). Egg is perishable food,
due to the low efficiency of its natural protection
barriers; when eggs are stored for long period of
time especially in inappropriate conditions, their
initial quality goes impaired, becoming, even, not
good for consumption and need quick cooling and
refrigerator treatments during storage for keeping
good quality. Storage revealed significant effect on
percent loss in egg weight, albumen and yolk pH
(Bufano, 2000). Environmental factors such as
temperature, humidity, and the presence of CO2 are
also of prime importance to maintain of egg quality.
Recent years table eggs are marketed from many
different destination of production, which stored
and transported for long time in different
temperature degrees, some are delivered directly to
retail outlets and others to ware house and other
intermediate distribution points before going to the
retail store or food service facility where they reach
the consumer (Olivier et al., 2009).
Egg quality refers to group of all traits that
influence the use of eggs as foodstuff (Schwaegele,
2003). Among many quality characteristics,
external factors including cleanliness, freshness,
and egg weight and shell quality are important in
consumers acceptability of shelled eggs (Sonaiya
and Swan, 2004). Unlike external quality, the
internal quality of eggs starts to decline as soon as
they are laid by hens. Thus, although factors
associated with the management and feeding of
hens can play a role in internal egg quality, egg
handling and storage practices also have a
significant impact on the quality of eggs reaching
consumers.
Worldwide, production of eggs of good shell
and internal quality is critical to the economic
viability of the egg industry (Ahmadi and Rahimi,
2011). Most researches were undertaken on the
internal and external quality of hatching eggs, but
the quality of table eggs at retailers are not as such
determined in eastern Ethiopia where egg menus
such as Fetira, Moluwa and boiled eggs are
very popular. The booming business activities in the
1643
study area are encouraging the community to give
breakfast and dinner outdoor where egg dishes are
highly consumed. To satisfy the increasing demand
for egg dishes, restaurant owners and street food
vendors need sufficient supply of quality eggs from
the market. The physical appearance of an egg
makes the first impression upon the consumer. If
the product does not meet perceived expectations,
consumer confidence diminishes (Watkins, 2004).
Therefore, external and internal characteristic of
eggs are prerequisite for safety, soundness and
wholesomeness of the eggs (Kemps et al., 2006). In
light of these, the study was tried to now retailers
egg storage system and retention periods before it
reaches consumers and to evaluate internal and
external quality of chicken table eggs at retail levels
in major urban markets of Eastern Ethiopia.
Material and Methods
Description of the Study Area
The study was carried out in major urban
settings of Eastern Ethiopia namely Dire Dawa,
Haramaya and Harar open markets, located 515,
508 and 527 km from Addis Ababa, respectively.
The elevation above sea level of the cities varies
from 950 - 1250, 1600-2100, and 1600-1900m,
respectively. The respective average temperature is
about 18.2 -31.4 for Dire Dawa, 10-15 for
Haramaya and 18-200C for Harar. The average
annual rainfall that Dire Dawa, Haramaya and Harar
gets are 604, 804.7 and 900mm, respectively
(Alemu, 2008).
Sampling Methods
Three major urban open markets were
purposively selected for the study based on their
market potentials and ten retailers from each market
were involved in egg selling for more than a year
were purposively selected and interviewed.
Collection of Sampling Eggs
A total of 480 eggs were randomly taken to
determine external and internal quality. The eggs
were sampled by hand, labeled accordingly, placed
in open carton filler-flats and brought by car, in
ambient conditions, to Haramaya University (HU)
poultry farm for quality measurement, on the same
day of collection.
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
 EWONETU AND NEGASSI
Internal and External Quality Evaluation
Egg weight, length and breadth, specific
gravity, shell weight, shell thickness, albumen and
yolk heights, yolk diameter and colour were
evaluated on weekly basis according to (Nonga et
al., 2010; Al-shami et al., 2011). The percentage of
shell, albumen, and yolk were calculated as stated
by (Tilki and Saatci, 2004; Kumari et al., 2008).
Individual Haugh unit score was calculated using
the egg weight and albumen height for individual
egg using the formula: Hu= 100 log (AH + 7.57-1.7
EW0.37), where Hu is Haugh unit, AH is thick
albumen height in mm and EW is egg weight in
gram.
Statistical Analysis
Data collected from external and internal
quality were subjected to ANOVA using the
General linear model (GLM) equation of SAS.
When the analysis of variance indicates the
existence of significant effect, then Tukey method
was used to locate the means that are significantly
different from each other. The following models
were used to analyze the quantitative data.
Model 1: Model for Physical Measurement
Yij = +Ai + eij
Where: Yij= Individual observation of egg
quality, = Overall mean,
Ai = the effect of ith agro-ecology on egg
quality (i= 1-4, Dire Dawa, Haramaya, Harar and
HU), eij= Error term
Model 2: Model for Yolk Colours
General logistic regression analysis was
employed for data recorded on yolk color (1-15),
scoring of eggs.
ln = 0 + 1 * (X)
1
Test H0: No scoring deference (i.e., 1=0) vs.
H1: significant scoring deference ( 1 0)
Where, = slope, X = Market location (urban
setting) where eggs were collected
1644 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
Results and Discussions
Retailers Egg Storage Condition and
Retention Periods
Majority of retailers stored eggs any place in
their living room and they did not give attention as
to where and how the eggs are stored (Table 1).
Even though some of the respondents store eggs in
cold room, it is very difficult to know the ideal
storage temperature and relative humidity in which
the retailers store their eggs. Similarly, Tilki and
Saatci (2004) reported in their study that more than
half of the respondents store their eggs in cold
places (under their bed) and inside cold container
(like clay pot) while the remaining farmers store
their eggs in warm places (on perch where cooking
takes place), inside grains and cold places covered
with cloths. Arturo et al., (2005) proved that
maintaining eggs at room temperature promotes the
proliferation of pathogenic and on pathogenic
bacteria present inside the egg and these bacteria are
deleterious for egg quality and hazardous to
consumers health. However, eggs are safest when
stored in the refrigerator till they are needed
because; egg white contains natural antibacterial
products that help to kill or inhibit the growth of
bacteria according to the report of (Gast and Holt,
2001). Storage condition in which the eggs are
stored may have played a great role for the observed
significant difference in external and internal
qualities in Table 3. The retention periods of eggs at
the hands of retailers before sale, took a range of
duration based on responses of retailers as indicated
in Table 1. Also, Tilki and Saatci (2004) reported as
63% of the households adapted storing their
incubating eggs as well as table or marketing eggs
to improve the shelf life by putting in cold
containers up to two weeks of duration, without
consideration of egg-position. Age of the eggs can
be one of the main factors for the observed
significant quality differences in Table 3.
External Egg Quality
The result did show strong significant
difference (p<0.0001) related to external quality of
eggs collected from different retailers (Table 2).
 EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL QUALITY OF

Table 1: Retailers egg storage system and duration in study site (n=30).
Egg storage system or Urban setting
Duration Harar (%) Haramaya (%) Dire Dawa (%)
Storage system
Refrigerator 10 - 30
Any place 50 70 60
In cold room 40 30 10
Duration(weeks)
<1 10 20 40
1-2 30 10 50
2-3 40 40 10
3-4 20 30 -
Where - indicates no retailers select the indicated storage duration, % indicates the percentage of retailers
in selected area that selected particular storage duration.

Table 2: Average value of external and internal quality of table eggs at retail levels.
Parameters Destination sites
HUPF Haramaya Harar Dire Dawa SEM SL
Egg weight (g) 50.66a 43.23b 41.16b 42.52b 0.81 ***
a b b b **
Egg length (mm) 51.60 49.71 49.00 49.14 0.30
Egg width (mm) 41.61a 40.09b 39.70b 39.46b 0.212 ***

Shape index (%) 80.64 80.72 81.01 80.33 0.377 NS

Shell weight (g) 5.51a 4.51b 4.42b 4.21b 0.115 ***
a b b b ***
Shell thickness (mm) 0.32 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.0044
3
Specific gravity (g/cm ) 1.11 1.06 1.05 1.09 0.011 NS
a b c b ***
Albumen weight (g) 30.27 23.01 21.16 22.93 0.7484
a c c b ***
Albumen height (mm) 7.23 4.24 4.23 4.93 1.613
a d c b ***
Huagh unit (%) 87.54 68.07 69.99 72.85 1.612
b a a ab ***
Yolk weight (g) 14.67 15.60 15.54 15.31 0.11
b a a ab *
Yolk Color (RF) 8.58 12.25 12.50 11.58 0.531
a bc c ab ***
Yolk height (mm) 15.16 14.41 13.99 14.73 0.105
b a a ab ***
Yolk diameter (mm) 37.45 38.85 39.45 38.18 0.224
a bc c b ***
Yolk index (%) 40.48 37.09 35.46 38.58 0.443
a,b,c,d **
: Means with in a row with different superscripts are significantly different, =Significant at
(P< 0.01), ***=Significant at (P<0.0001), NS=Non- significant (P>0.05), SL = significant level,
SEM = standard error of mean, HUPF=Haramaya university poultry farm.

Egg Weight storage at retailers and transportation of eggs until it

Most of the free range local chicken in Africa
produces eggs which weigh from 35 to 45g (Brake
et al., 1997). The differences in weight recorded in
eggs from the farms and retailers might be due to
the fact that egg weight is usually related to the
strain or genetic makeup, management, poor storage
and other environmental factors. Yakubu et al.,
(2008) have reported that the genetic background of
chickens would influence egg weight. This study
result indicated a lower albumen and egg weight
which might be because of moisture losses with
1645
reaches the consumers.
This study was analogous to studies reported by
(Brake et al., 1997; Silversides and Scott, 2001;
Jones and Musgrove, 2005) described that
prolonged poor storage of eggs under room
temperature decreases the egg weight. Bekele et al.,
(2010) as well reported as an egg exposed to sun
light at retailers becomes evaporated and loss of
moisture from eggs with increase in time and
temperature of storage resulted in decreased egg
weight, decreased albumen weight and increased
albumen dry matter.
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
 EWONETU AND NEGASSI
Shell Weight and Thickness
There was significant difference in average
shell weight and shell thickness for eggs collected
from different retailers (Table 2). This result was
higher than 0.26mm accounted by Tilki and Saatci
(2004) for local hens eggs collected from different
sources of Bure wereda and lower than the value of
0.71 mm and 0.69 mm reported by Dauda et al.,
(2006) for eggs collected from intensively managed
local chicken ecotypes of northwest Amhara and
RIR chicken breeds, respectively.
The result disagreed to Rajkumar et al., (2009)
who reported that smaller eggs have stronger shells
than larger ones, as hens have a limited capacity to
deposit calcium in the shell and as a result, the same
amount of calcium is spread around over a large
area.
The lower average shell thickness (Table 2) of
eggs collected from retailers in different markets
might be due to the fact that the exotic birds from
the farm were fed with diets containing enough
calcium and phosphorous compared to eggs which
might come from free range chickens that had to
scavenge for feed, which may lack calcium and
phosphorous.
Egg Dimension
The mean egg length obtained in this study
(Table 2) was lower than 56.20mm and 59.10 mm
obtained by Monira et al., (2003) who worked on
White Rock and White Leghorn breed of layers,
respectively. Variation of egg length and width
among breeds were also reported by (Al-Rubaiee,
2012) because they are genetically controlled
characteristics. Orheruata et al., (2006) reported
relatively lower average egg width 36.6 and
44.3mm for indigenous chickens of Nigeria and
exotic chickens, respectively.
Simultaneously, he reported lower average egg
length 30.5mm for indigenous chickens of Nigeria
and higher average egg length 58.8mm for exotic
chickens. Likewise; Tilki and Saatci (2004)
reported the mean width and length of 37.2 mm and
50.8 mm, respectively, for local hens eggs
collected from Bure wereda. Also, Anderson et al.,
(2004) reported 43.61mm the mean egg width for
the single comb White Leghorn.
1646 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
Internal Egg Quality
The result related to internal quality of eggs
collected from different retailers in Table 2 did
show strong significant difference (p<0.0001).
Albumen and Yolk Height
There was significant difference among eggs
collected from retailers of different markets and
farm, with respect to average albumen and yolk
height of eggs. Asuquo et al., (1992) reported mean
albumen and yolk height of 4.1mm and 15.1mm for
local hens eggs collected from Bure wereda,
respectively. The lower albumen and yolk height of
eggs obtained from various markets in this study
was due to longer retention period through transit
and at retailers as seen in Table 1.
Haugh Unit (Hu)
The values of Haugh unit in the current study
was lower than the values of 79.8 and 89.9 for eggs
collected from Nigerian local hens and Isa-Brown
chicken breeds, respectively, reported by (Niranjan
et al., 200). Chatterjee et al., (2006) reported ranges
from 74.60 to 79.42 for some indigenous backyard
poultry and their crosses in Indian. El Full et al.,
(2005) also reported lower Hu values; 59.62 to
71.62 for the white leghorn strains. Keener et al.
(2006) reported that Hu values significantly
decreased with increased temperature. (Dauda et al.,
2006; Rajkumar et al., 2009) reported a decline in
albumen height and Hu with increase in storage
time until they reach the consumers. Zaky (2006)
also reported lowering of Hu within 48 hrs of
storage from 91.66 (time zero) to 84.69 and 71.59
when storage temperature was 4C and 35C,
respectively.
The lower Hu values obtained in market
indicates the inferior quality of the albumen in the
eggs studied at retail levels. This might be attributed
to poor handling and storage of eggs until sale,
since egg Hough unit value is highly correlated with
storage condition and duration of eggs. Moreover,
the Haugh unit value is dependent on the strain of
the bird, and time lapsed during transit. Therefore,
interventions focused on increasing awareness of
retailers in proper handling of eggs could be
important.
 EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL QUALITY OF
Albumen and Yolk Weight
Relatively lower yolk weight and higher
albumen weight was recorded in this study (Table
2). It can be seen that the larger eggs have a greater
proportion of albumen, but a lower proportion of
yolk which was in agreement with the results of
(Scott and Silversides, 2001; Akyurek and Okur,
2009).
With storage at retail levels and transportation
of eggs until they reach the consumers, the albumen
weight of these eggs might be decreased because of
moisture losses, causing a lower egg weight. Yolk
weight is expected to increase with a longer period
of storage as amino acids and moisture move
through the vitelline membrane from the albumen
(Senkoylu, 2001). In contrast, Parmar et al., (2006)
reported that albumen and yolk weights did not
change within 10 days of storage at any
temperature. Higher albumen and yolk weight
found in the farm chicken eggs might be due to
freshness of eggs, good management and genetic
differences.
Yolk Index (YI)
The significant difference in yolk index values
among the market retailers which was also lower
than the YI of fresh, good quality eggs (45%)
reported by (Leeson and Summers, 1997).
Pavlovski et al., (1981) reported yolk index values
ranging from 35 to 38% for indigenous Kadaknath
breed of poultry in India, which were closely
similar to yolk index of eggs collected from
retailers. According to the works of Adenowo et al.,
(1999), a yolk index value of 45% was obtained for
Ethiopian naked-neck chickens under intensive
management, which is higher than that of the
present study. The lower YI in the current study
Table 3: Average composition of chicken table eggs at retail levels in selected urban settings, in percent (%).
Destination sites
Fraction HUPF Haramaya
Shell 10.88 10.43
Albumen 59.76a 53.22bc
b a
Yolk 28.96 34.66
a,b,c,
Means with in a row with different superscripts are significantly different, ***=Significant at (P<0.0001),
NS=Non- significant (P>0.05), SL = significant level, SEM = standard error of mean, HUPF=Haramaya university
poultry farm.
1647
might be caused by a diffusion of water from the
albumen to the yolk through retention at retailers,
resulting in changes of the vitellin membrane and in
a liquefaction of the yolk similar to the result
reported by Dauda et al., (2006). Also, the lower
yolk index in market table eggs might be due to
vibrations in shaking during transportation causing
deterioration of yolk quality, duration of the transit
and environmental temperature under the hot
climate of the market which has the greatest effect
on egg quality.
Yolk Color
The logistic regression results for yolk color
showed significant difference (pr >chisq <0.0001 at
= 0.05) among the various markets of egg sources
(Table 2). Consumers in most areas accept the
Roche color fan number of 7 to 8 (deeper yolk
color) (Li-Chan et al., 1995). Nevertheless, the
result of the present study was higher than this level
for eggs evaluated from the retailers which agreed
to (Joardar, 2003) who reported that the yolk colour
score of free range local hens is higher compared to
eggs collected from hens managed under intensive
chicken management condition. Eggs collected
from retailers had a higher yolk color which might
have come from free range chicken production
system because scavenging birds have free access to
green plants and other feed sources rich in
xanthophylls.
Egg Percentage Components
The weights of egg components are presented
as percentage in Table 3. The percentage of yolk
found in current study was significantly lower (P <
0.0001), with subsequent higher percentage
albumen in poultry farm comparative to eggs
collected from retailers.
Harar Dire Dawa SEM SL
10.73 9.93 0.1432 NS
51.43c 53.94b 0.6977 ***
a b ***
34.43 29.60 0.591
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
 EWONETU AND NEGASSI
Adenowo et al., (1999) reported 33.04% and
57.1% for chicken egg yolk and albumen values,
respectively. Li-Chan et al., (1995) reported 32.8,
56.9 and 10.3% for yolk, albumen and shell of
chicken eggs, respectively. Also, Joardar (2003)
reported that the total egg weight, shell forms about
10%, albumen 60% and yolk 30%. Nevertheless,
the study revealed higher yolk and lower albumen
percentage from retailers. This might be due to long
period retention of eggs at the hands of retailers
which lead to moisture and other chemical
movements from albumen to yolk.
Conclusions
Longer egg storage period of retailers without
proper storage facilities, lack of attention for
environmental conditions during storage or transit
could be related with high evaporation of water and
factors that affect the egg quality. The physical data
revealed a good uniformity for most of studied
external and internal traits, as highly statistical
significant (p<0.001) differences found among
retailers which was related with the poor
management practices such as storing eggs for 2-3
weeks without appropriate storage facilities. The
higher Roche color fan reading recorded for eggs
evaluated at retailers indicate as most eggs came
from free range chicken production system which
have free access to green plants and other feed
sources rich in xanthophylls. The results
demonstrated as many external and internal egg
qualities from retailers were significantly poor and
did not fit for consumption. Therefore; awareness
about the management and carefully handling
practice of eggs should be organized to create well-
informed retailers and consumers to offer safe and
good quality eggs for consumption. Retailers in
particular should be endeavor to store and retail
their eggs under refrigeration or good sanitary
condition for better quality maintenance and where
facilities are not available; eggs must be stored and
protected from direct sun light.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Kefelegn Kebede for
his help with the statistical analysis and Haramaya
1648 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649
University for covering the research cost and
allowing laboratory equipments.
References
Adenowo JA, Awe F, Adebambo OA, Ikeobi CON (1999).
Species variations in chemical composition of local
poultry eggs. In: Book of Proceedings 26th Annual NSAP
Conf., 21-25 March, 1999 Ilorin, Nigeria. 278-280.
Ahmadi F, Rahimi F (2011). Factors affecting quality and
quantity of egg production in laying hens: A Rev. World
Appl. Sci., 12(3): 372-384.
Akyurek H, Okur AA (2009). Effect of storage time,
temperature and hen age on egg quality in free-range
layer hens. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 8: 1953-1958.
Alemu Y (2008). Socio-economic impacts of flooding in Dire
Dawa, Ethiopia. International Center for Water Hazard
and Risk Manag. (ICHARM), PWRI, Japan. 2-3.
Al-Rubaiee MAM (2012). Comparison of egg quality of
brown and white shell eggs produced by Iraqi local
chicken breeds. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci., 2(5): 318-
320.
Al-shami MA, Salih ME, Abbas TE (2011). Effects of dietary
inclusion of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) leaf meal and
Xylan enzyme on laying hens performance and egg
quality. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci., 2(1): 14-18.
Anderson KE, Carey J, Ruszler P (2004). Egg quality and how
to conserve it. National Egg Quality School Proceedings.
Atlanta, GA. 47-53.
Arturo MM, Navarretea JV, Ontiveros Corpusa ML,
Valenciaa SD, Huidobroa DL, Tenorio Gutirreza VR
(2005). Identification of Salmonella Enteritidis in table
eggs in Mexico City Tc Pecu Mx., 43(2): 229-237.
Asuquo BO, Okon BO, Ekong AO (1992). Quality parameters
of Isa-Brown and Nigerian local chicken eggs. Niger. J.
Anim. Prod., 19: 1-5.
Bekele F, dny T, Gjen HM, Kathle J, Abebe G (2010).
Production performance of dual purpose crosses of two
indigenous with two exotic chicken breeds in sub-
tropical environment. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9(7): 702-710.
Brake J, Walsh TJ, Benton IR, Petitte CF, Meijerhof R,
Penalva G (1997). Poult. Sci., 76: 144-151.
Bufano S (2000). Keeping eggs safe from farm to table. Food
Technol., 54: 192.
Chatterjee RN, Sharma RP, Niranjan M, Reddy BLN, Mishra
A (2006). Genetic studies on egg quality traits in
different White Leghorn populations. In. J. Anim. Genet.
Breed., 27: 51-54.
Dauda TO, Adetayo AO, Tiamiyu AK (2006). Effects of
weather on egg characteristics of Isa brown layers
inIbadan, Nigeria. J. Anim. Sci., 77: 117-121.
El Full EA, Abd El Wahed HM, Namra MM, Osman AMR,
Hataba NA (2005). Results of random sample test for
laying performance of nine Egyptian strains of chickens.
Egypt Poult. Sci., 25: 195-208.
 EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL QUALITY OF

Gast RK, Holt PS (2001). Assessing the frequency and Eggs and Egg Products, September, Kusadasi, Turkey,
consequences of Salmonella Enteritidis deposition on the Proceed., 435-443.
egg yolk membrane. Poult. Sci., 80: 997-1002. Scott TA, Silversides FG (2001). The effect of storage and
Joardar D (2003). Weight losses in weight to measure your strain of hen on egg quality. J. Poult. Sci., 79: 1725-
hatchability and chick quality. Page 149-151 in: proc. 3rd 1729.
International Poultry show and seminar. Worlds Poult. Silversides FG, Scott TA (2001). Effect of storage and layer
Sci. Assoc., Bangladish. age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poult. Sci.,
Jones DR, Musgrove MT (2005). Effects of Extended Storage 80: 1240-1245.
on Egg Quality Factors. Poult. Sci., 84: 1774-1777. Sonaiya EB, Swan SEJ (2004). Small-scale poultry
Kemps B, Bamelis F, De Ketelaere B, Mertens K, Tona K, production, technical guide manual. FAO Animal
Decuypere EM, De Baerdemaeker JG (2006). Visible Production and Health 1. FAO (Food and Agriculture
transmission spectroscopy for assessment of egg qulaity. Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.
J. Sci. Food Agr., 86: 1399-1406. Tilki M, Saatci M (2004). Effects of storage time on external
Kumari BP, Gupta BR, Prakash MG, Reddy AR (2008). A and internal characteristics in partridge (Alectoris
study of egg quality traits in Japanese quails. Tamilnadu graeca) eggs. Revue Med. Vet., 155(11): 561-56.
J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 4(6): 227-231. Watkins S (2004). Clean Eggs-our most important
Leeson S, Summers JD (1997). Commercial Poultry Nutrition. merchandizing tool. National Egg Quality School
2nd Ed. Guelph, Ontario. 350. Proceedings. Atlanta, GA. May 17(20): 54-60.
Li-Chan ECY, Powrie WD, Nakai S (1995). The chemistry of Yakubu A, Ogah DM, Barde RE (2008). Productivity and Egg
eggs and egg products. In: Stadelman WJ, Cotterill OJ Quality Characteristics of Free Range Naked Neck and
(eds.), Egg Science and Technology, 4th edition. Food Normal Feathered Nigerian Indigenous Chickens. Int. J.
Products Press, New York. 105. Poult. Sci., 7(6): 579-585.
Matt D, Veromann E, Luik A (2009). Effect of housing Zaky HI (2006). The effect of heterosis between Faoumi and
systems on biochemical composition of chicken eggs. White Leghorn chickens on egg quality traits under
Agron. Res., 7: 662-667. desert conditions. Egypt. Poult. Sci., 26: 39-52.
Monira KN, Salahuddin M, Miah G (2003). Effect of breed
and holding period on egg quality characters of chicken.
Int. J. Poult. Sci., 2: 261-263.
Niranjan M, Sharma RP, Rajkumar U, Chartterjee RN, Reddy
BLN, Battacharya TK (2008). Egg quality traits in
chicken varieties developed for backyard poultry farming
in Indian. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 2(20): 2-7.
Nonga HE, Kajuna FF, Ngowi HA, Karimuribo ED (2010).
Physical egg quality characteristics of free-range local
chickens in Morogoro municipality, Tanzania. Livest.
Res. Rural Dev., 22(12).
Olivier A, Budka H, Buncic S, Colin P, Collins J, Koeijer A
(2009). Special measures to reduce the risk for
consumers through Salmonella in table eggs- e.g. cooling
of table eggs. Europ. Food Safety Authori. J., 957: 1-29.
Orheruata AM, Adegite AV, Okpeku M (2006).
Morphological and egg characteristics of indigenous
chicken in Endo State, Nigeria. University of Benin,
Nigeria. 120.
Parmar SNS, Thakur MS, Tomar SS, Pillai PVA (2006).
Evaluation of egg quality traits in indigenous Kadaknath
breed of poultry. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 18: 1782-1789.
Pavlovski Z, Masic B, Apostolov N (1981). Quality of eggs
laid by hens kept on free range and in cages. In:
Proceedings of first European symposium by World
Poult. Sci. Assoc., 231-235.
Rajkumar U, Sharma RP, Rajaravindra KS, Niranjan M,
Chatterjee RN (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.
Schwaegele F (2003). Egg quality assurance system under
aspect of the EU requirements and demand of the
consumer. IX European Symposium on the quality of
1649 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2016, 6(5): 1642-1649

View publication stats