RESEARCH MARKETING STANDARDS FOR CHICKEN EGG QUALITY PARAMETERS INTENDED FOR CONSUMPTION
Evaluating Quality Indicators and Market Expectations for Fresh Eggs in Kosovo
Mergim Mestani
a:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:44:"UBT College – Higher Education Institution";}Ibrahim Mehmeti
Medin Zeqiri
Abstract
The study revealed significant differences between market and fresh eggs across various parameters, as indicated by the calculated P-values. Market eggs exhibited a mean weight of 62.30 g, slightly lower than fresh eggs at 65.89 g (P=0.0001). Eggshell weight was lower in market eggs (7.35 g) compared to fresh eggs (7.97 g), with a significant difference (P=0.0186). However, eggshell thickness showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (market: 0.41 µm, fresh: 0.43 µm; P=0.1626). Yolk weight was significantly higher in fresh eggs (15.31 g) compared to market eggs (14.37 g; P=0.021), with a more intense yolk color in fresh eggs (RYCF: fresh 12.35, market 11.45; P=0.0259). Haugh unit values were substantially higher in fresh eggs (88.46) compared to market eggs (76.57; P=0.0006), accompanied by a smaller air cell size in fresh eggs (3.47 mm) compared to market eggs (4.78 mm; P=0.0044). Based on the findings, fresh eggs meet the criteria for superior quality, being classified as "L" class based on their weight and "extra" class due to their smaller air cell size. On the other hand, market eggs may fall into lower quality classes, such as "M" class, due to their lower weight and larger air cell size. Nevertheless, both types of eggs are deemed suitable for consumption according to established guidelines. Continuous research is crucial for refining egg quality standards and meeting consumer expectations.
Keywords:
Chicken eggs, Egg Quality Parameters, Fresh egg, Market egg, Physical parameters,, Market StandardsReferences
ADAMSKI M., KUZNIACKA J., CZARNECKI R., KUCHARSKA-GACA J., KOWALSKA E. 2017. Variation in egg quality traits depending on storage conditions. Pol. J. Natl. Sci., 32 (1): 39-47. Corpus ID: 202586642 Google Scholar
AHMED TAE, WU L, YOUNES M AND HINCKE M. 2021. Biotechnological applications of eggshell: Recent Advances. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9:675364. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.675364 Google Scholar
DILAWAR M.A., MUN H.S., RATHNAYAKE D., YANG E.J., SEO Y.S., PARK H.S., YANG, C.J. 2021. Egg quality parameters, production performance and immunity of laying hens supplemented with plant extracts. Animals, 11(4), 975; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040975 Google Scholar
FAO. 2022. World Food and Agriculture-Agricultural production statistics 2000–2022. FAOSTAT ANALYTICAL BRIEF 79. https://www.fao.org/3/cc9205en/cc9205en.pdf Google Scholar
GRASHORN, M., JUERGENS, A. and BESSEI, W. 2016. Effects of storage conditions on egg quality. Lohmann Information, 50 (1): 26-27. Google Scholar
HARNSOONGNOEN S., JAROENSUK N. 2021. The grades and freshness assessment of eggs based on density detection using machine vision and weighing sensor. Sci Rep. 11, 16640 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96140-x Google Scholar
INCA J.S., MARTINEZ D.A, VILCHEZ C. 2020. Phenotypic Correlation Between External and Internal Egg Quality Characteristics in 85-Week-Old Laying Hens. International Journal of Poultry Science, 19 (8): 346-355. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2020.346.355 Google Scholar
JANG E. 2022. Correlation between Internal and External Egg Quality Indicators in the Early Phase of Hy-Line Brown Laying Hens. Korean J. Poult. Sci. 2022; 49(2):53-60. https://doi.org/10.5536/kjps.2022.49.2.53 Google Scholar
JOUBRANE, K., MNAYER, D., HAMIEH, T., BARBOUR, G., TALHOUK, R. AND AWAD, E. 2019. Evaluation of quality parameters of white and brown eggs in Lebanon. American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 10 (10): 488-503. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2019.1010035 Google Scholar
KOCETKOVS V., RADENKOVS V., JUHNEVICA-RADENKOVA K., JAKOVLEVS D., MUIZNIECE-BRASAVA, S. 2022. The Impact of Eggshell Thickness on the Qualitative Characteristics of Stored Eggs Produced by Three Breeds of Laying Hens of the Cage and Cage-Free Housed Systems. Applied Sciences, 12(22): 11539. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211539 Google Scholar
KUANG H, YANG F, ZHANG Y, WANG T, CHEN G. 2018. The Impact of Egg Nutrient Composition and Its Consumption on Cholesterol Homeostasis. Cholesterol. 23:2018:6303810. doi: 10.1155/2018/6303810. PMID: 30210871; PMCID: PMC6126094. Google Scholar
MAFRD: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development of the Republic of Kosovo. Kosova Green Report, December-2021, Pristinë, Kosovo. https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/repository/docs/Green_Report_2021.pdf Google Scholar
MAFRD: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development of the Republic of Kosovo. Administrative Directive AD. No. 17/2008: For determining the quality of eggs. https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/repository/docs/737296_17.Udhezim_per_veze_Anglisht..doc Google Scholar
MIRANDA J.M., ANTON X., REDONDO-VALBUENA C., ROCA-SAAVEDRA P., RODRIGUEZ J.A., LAMAS A., FRANCO C.M., CEPEDA A. 2015. Egg and egg-derived foods: effects on human health and use as functional foods. Nutrients, 7(1): 706-729. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fnu7010706 Google Scholar
PAL M., MOLNÁR J. 2021. The role of eggs as an important source of nutrition in human health. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture, 5 (1): 180-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/ijfsa.2021.03.023 Google Scholar
PAPANIKOLAOU Y., FULGONI III, V.L. 2021. Increasing Egg Consumption at Breakfast Is Associated with Increased Usual Nutrient Intakes: A Modeling Analysis Using NHANES and the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program School Breakfast Guidelines. Nutrients, 13(4): 1379. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041379 Google Scholar
RAFEA M. T. K. 2019. Prediction of haugh unit by egg weight and albumen height. Mesopotamia J. of Agric. 47 (3): 37-43. https://doi.org/10.33899/magrj.2019.126220.1011 Google Scholar
RATH P.K., MISHRA P.K., MALLICK B.K., BEHURA, N.C. 2015. Evaluation of different egg quality traits and interpretation of their mode of inheritance in White Leghorns. Veterinary world. 8(4): 449–452. https://doi.org/10.14202%2Fvetworld.2015.449-452 Google Scholar
RODRÍGUEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, R., RONDÓN-BARRAGÁN, I.S. and OVIEDO-RONDÓN, E.O. 2024. Egg Quality, Yolk Fatty Acid Profiles from Laying Hens Housed in Conventional Cage and Cage-Free Production Systems in the Andean Tropics. Animals 14 (1): 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14010168 Google Scholar
RONDONI A., ASIOLI D., MILLAN, E. 2020. Consumer behaviour, perceptions, and preferences towards eggs: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 106: 391-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.038 Google Scholar
SENBETA, E.K., ZELEKE, N.A. AND MOLLA, Y.G. 2015. Chemical composition and microbial loads of chicken table eggs from retail markets in urban settings of Eastern Ethiopia. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 2(4): 404-409. doi: 10.5455/javar.2015.b108. Google Scholar
SOKOŁOWICZ Z., KRAWCZYK,J., DYKIEL M. 2018. Effect of alternative housing system and hen genotype on egg quality characteristics. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 30 (8): 695-703. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2018.v30.i8.1753 Google Scholar
USDA. 2020. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Agricultural Handbook. Number 75: Egg-Grading Manual. Independently Published, Aug 4, 2020 - Technology&Engineering. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/EggGradingManual.pdf Google Scholar
VAN HORNE P.L.M. 2018. International Egg Market. Annual Review. International Egg Commission (IEC). Global Egg Production Continues to Grow. https://www.internationalegg.com/resource/global-egg-production-continues-to-grow/ Google Scholar
ZAHEER, K. 2015. An Updated Review on Chicken Eggs: Production, Consumption, Management Aspects and Nutritional Benefits to Human Health. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 6 (13): 1208-1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2015.613127 Google Scholar
a:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:44:"UBT College – Higher Education Institution";}
