| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
PHYSIOLOGY, ENDOCRINOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTION |
1Department of Animal Science, Veterinary Faculty, University of Selçuk, 42031, Konya, Turkey
1 Corresponding author: kkirikci{at}selcuk.edu.tr
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: partridge • live weight • egg production • egg quality
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Kirikç et al. (1999) obtained a 43.84% egg production rate in a group of Rock Partridges subjected to artificial lighting and 38.45% in a group maintained under natural lighting conditions. Rock Partridge egg weights range between 19.16 and 22.50 g (Woodard et al., 1982; Kirikç et al., 1999; Kirikç et al., 2004b).
The evaluation of eggshell quality characteristics has been well documented for domestic fowl (Yannakopoulos and Tserveni-Gousi, 1986; Poyraz, 1989; Tserveni-Gousi and Yannakopoulos, 1990; Scott and Silversides, 2000) and pheasants (Song et al., 2000; Kirikç et al., 2004a). However, information concerning the evaluation of shell quality in partridges is limited. Song et al. (2000) indicated that the shape index of partridge eggs is 78.00 and eggshell thickness is 0.232 mm. The important role of partridges as game birds and the problems associated with hatchability, which may be due to the shell quality, indicate the need for more detailed research in this area. Sufficient information on quality characteristics of partridge eggs could not be found in the literature. This study was designed to demonstrate the effects of partridge live weights on egg production and quality characteristics and to determine some of the quality characteristics of partridge eggs.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
.
|
Egg Quality Analyses
The first egg was obtained during wk 34 in all groups. The eggs obtained from the partridges were collected and recorded daily during the weekly research period from 34 to 41 wk of age. To determine egg quality characteristics, 40 partridge eggs from each group were used at 38 wk of age. The specific gravities of the eggs were determined the same day and were obtained by using the formula according to the Archimet method (Hempe et al., 1988): specific gravity = weight in air (g)/[weight in air (g) – weight in water (g)].
The short and long diameters of the eggs were measured by a digital caliper with a sensitivity of 0.001 mm to determine the shape index. The eggs were then broken one by one on a flat surface, with a waiting period of 5 min. The heights of the yolk and albumen, the long and short diameters of the albumen, and the diameter of the yolk were measured using the caliper. The yolks separated from the albumen were weighed and the weights were recorded. The shells of the broken eggs were washed under gently flowing tap water to release albumen residues, and were then air-dried and weighed. The shell thicknesses at the equator, blunt edge, and pointed edge of the eggshells with membrane and without membrane were measured using the caliper. From the values obtained, the following data were calculated using the formulas shown below (Yannakopoulos and Tserveni-Gousi, 1986):
 |
Statistical Methods
Analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of differences between egg production and egg quality characteristics of the various groups. The significance of the differences among the groups was determined by Duncan’s multiple range test (Petrie and Watson, 1999). Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS 11.0 program package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
shows egg production rates, egg weights, shape indexes, and specific gravities of the eggs. Table 3 shows internal egg quality characteristics. Table 4 shows the mean percentages of shell weight, yolk weight, and albumen weight of the groups.
|
|
|
, the weight of the hen affected the egg production rate, egg weight, and specific gravity (P < 0.05). Heavy eggs were obtained from the heavy group and light eggs were obtained from the light group. There was no difference among the groups with respect to the shape index of eggs. The specific gravity of eggs obtained from the control group was found to be different from the specific gravities of the middle and light groups (P < 0.05).
As noted in Table 3, there were no differences among the groups with respect to yolk index, but hen weight was found to affect the albumen index (P < 0.05). The shell weight and albumen weight of eggs obtained from the heavy group were greater than the corresponding values for eggs from the control, middle, and light groups. There was no group difference with respect to membrane weight. Shell thickness of the groups was thickest in the control group and thinnest in the light group. There was no difference among the groups with respect to both membrane weight and membrane thickness. With respect to the important criterion of Haugh unit to determine egg quality; the maximum value was 86.65, obtained from the light group, and the minimum value was 83.26, obtained from the heavy group. These groups did not differ with respect to yolk weight.
The BW of the hen was found to affect the mean percentage of shell weight, yolk weight, and albumen weight (P < 0.05). The maximum percentage of shell weight (10.52%) was obtained from the middle group, whereas the maximum percentage of yolk weight (39.02%) was obtained from the light group and the maximum percentage of albumen weight (53.55%) was obtained from the heavy group.
As noted in Table 2, the effect of hen BW on egg production was significant (P < 0.05). Egg production of the control and heavy groups was higher than that of other groups (P < 0.05). This finding supports the recommendation of Çetin and Kirikç (2000) for partridges, which necessitates the selection of females with heavy live weights for breeding. However, the average live weights of the middle and control groups were similar to each other; accordingly, hen BW alone did not explain the significance of group differences in egg production. The difference in egg production between these 2 groups may be due to genotype differences of the individuals within the groups. In the present study, egg production was followed for 8 wk, representing half the typical laying period of partridges, as reported by Kirikç et al. (1999) and Çetin (2002). Egg production obtained from the heavy and control groups was similar to the values of 40.53, 48.79, and 44.85% reported by Çetin (2002) for partridges mated at male-female rates of 1:3, 1:4, and 1:5, and to those of 38.45 and 43.84% reported by Kirikç et al. (1999). However, egg production of the light and middle groups was lower than the values reported by Çetin (2002) and Kirikç et al. (1999).
Table 2 shows the effect of female weight on egg weight. Although the heaviest eggs were obtained from the heavy group, the lightest eggs were obtained from females having a light BW (P < 0.05). When we bear in mind the high positive correlation between egg weight and chick weight (Shanawany, 1987; Tserveni-Gousi and Yannakopoulos, 1990), it is recommended that breeders of broiler-type partridges select heavy eggs and, consequently, for the females to have heavy live weights. In contrast, for companies breeding partridges for the purpose of providing game birds as hunting stock, it is advised to obtain light partridges for better flying capability by applying selection to females having light live BW. In the present study, the egg weights obtained from all the groups were found to be higher than the usual partridge egg weights reported in previous studies (Woodard et al., 1982; Yannakopoulos, 1992; Çetin et al., 1997; Kirikç et al., 1999). This may be due to the high live weights of the female partridges used in this research.
Although the shape index was found to be the lowest (76.09) in the heavy group, there was no difference among the groups. The shape indexes obtained had values similar to the 78.00 reported by Song et al. (2000) for partridges. The specific gravities of the eggs in the different groups ranged between 0.932 and 0.940, and there seemed to be little variation among the specific gravities of the eggs between groups. The reason for this lack of variation may be that the partridges from which the eggs were obtained were of the same age, and that care and feeding were applied under the same environmental conditions.
The Haugh units of the light group were higher than those of the other groups (P < 0.05). The yolk and albumen weights, respectively, were determined to be 8.19 and 11.94, 8.57 and 12.70, 8.32 and 11.54, and 8.40 and 10.88 g in the control, heavy, middle, and light groups. Although the heaviest egg yolks were found in the heavy group, the differences between yolk weights of the different groups were not significant. However, with respect to albumen weights, considerable differences were observed in the values obtained from the groups (P < 0.05). Therefore, the differences in egg weights of the groups may be related to the egg albumen weight and eggshell weight, which are the components forming the egg. According to the egg weight, the light group had the heaviest mean percentage of yolk weight (P < 0.05). However, the light group had the lowest mean percentage of albumen weight (P < 0.05). Other groups had similar values for the mean percentage of albumen weight. Kirikç et al. (2004b) reported that eggs of extreme weights (very small and large) had low fertility and that hatchability was disproportionately reduced in eggs that had lost less mass during incubation. The low fertility and hatchability values could have arisen from light eggs having low albumen weights and high yolk weights.
Based on this research, we recommend that the live weights of female partridges to be selected for breeding should not be much lower than the stock average to obtain better egg production from the partridges. Additional research is needed to determine other factors affecting partridges, for example, the effects of age and egg characteristics besides female weights.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received for publication January 4, 2007. Accepted for publication March 21, 2007.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Çetin, O., and K. Kirikç. 2000. Alternative Poultry Breeding, Pheasant-Partridge. Sel-Ün Publ., Konya, Turkey.
Çetin, O., K. Kirikç, and N. Gül
en. 1997. Some productivity characteristics of Chukar Partridges (A. chukar) in different management conditions. J. Vet. Sci. 13:5–10.[Medline]
Hempe, J. M., R. C. Laukxen, and J. E. Savage. 1988. Rapid determination of egg weight and specific gravity using a computerized data collection system. Poult. Sci. 67:902–907.[ISI][Medline]
Kirikç, K., O. Çetin, A. Günlü, and M. Garip. 2004a. Effect of hen weight on egg production and some egg quality characteristics in pheasants (Phasianus colchicus). Asian-australas. J. Anim. Sci. 17:684–687.
Kirikç, K., D. C. Deeming, and A. Günlü. 2004b. Effects of egg mass and percentage mass loss during incubation on hatchability of eggs of the Rock Partridge (Alectoris graeca). Br. Poult. Sci. 45:380–384.[ISI][Medline]
Kirikç, K., C. Tepeli, O. Çetin, A. Günlü, and A. Yilmaz. 1999. Some production characteristics of Rock Partridges (A. graeca) under different sheltering and lighting conditions. Vet. Bil. Derg. 15:15–22.
Nesheim, M. C., R. E. Austic, and I. E. Card. 1979. Poultry Production. 12th ed. Lea and Febiger, Malvern, PA.
Petrie, A., and P. Watson. 1999. Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science. Blackwell Sci., Malden, MA.
Poyraz, O. 1989. Phenotypic correlations between egg characteristics about shell quality. J. Lalahan Livest. Res. Inst. 29:66–79.
Scott, T. A., and F. G. Silversides. 2000. The effect of storage and strain of hen on egg quality. Poult. Sci. 79:1725–1729.
Shanawany, M. M. 1987. Hatching weight in relation to egg weight in domestic birds. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 43:107–115.[ISI]
Song, K. T., S. H. Choi, and H. R. Oh. 2000. A comparison of egg quality of pheasant, chukar, quail and guinea fowl. Asian-australas. J. Anim. Sci. 7:986–990.
Tserveni-Gousi, A. S., and A. L. Yannakopoulos. 1990. Quality characteristics of pheasant eggs and effect of egg weight and shell quality on chick weight. Arch. Geflügelk. 2:54–56.
Woodard, A. E., H. Abplanalp, and L. Snyder. 1982. Inbreeding depression in the red-legged partridge. Poult. Sci. 61:1579–1584.[ISI]
Yannakopoulos, A. L. 1992. 1992. Greek experiences with game-birds. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 60:3375. (Abstr.)
Yannakopoulos, A. L., and A. S. Tserveni-Gousi. 1986. Quality characteristics of quail eggs. Br. Poult. Sci. 27:171–176.[ISI]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
