PRODUCTION, MODELING, AND EDUCATION

Effects of hen production cycle and egg weight on egg quality

and composition, hatchability, duckling quality, and first-week
body weight in Pekin ducks

E. E. Onbalar,*1 E. Erdem, . Poyraz,* and S. Yaln

*Department of Animal Science, Ankara University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,

Department of Animal Science, 06110 Turkey; Department of Animal Science, Krkkale University,
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, Krkkale, 71450 Turkey;
and Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Seluk University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Konya, 42250 Turkey

ABSTRACT This study was conducted to determine weight and quality. After quality scoring, 20 ducklings
the effect of hen production cycle (HPC) and the effect (10 male and 10 female) from each group were weighed,
of egg weight (EW) at the same egg production level and reared to 1 wk of age in a brooder machine to
on egg quality, egg composition, hatchability, duckling determine relative growth (RG). The results showed

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2014

quality, and first-week BW in Pekin ducks. For HPC,
hatching eggs were obtained from different Pekin-duck
breeder flocks, aged 31 wk for the first production cy-
cle (HPC1) and 78 wk for the second production cycle
(HPC2). For EW, there were 3 categories: heavy (H),
medium (M), and light (L). Ten eggs from each HPC
and EW group were analyzed for the determination of
egg quality, and albumen and yolk compositions. Nine-
ty eggs from each HPC and EW group were incubat-
ed for the determination of hatchability, and duckling
Key words: duck, production cycle, egg weight, egg composition, hatchability, relative growth
that the albumen index; Haugh unit; shell percentage;
yolk moisture, ash, protein, lipids, and triglycerides;
albumen moisture, ash, and protein; yolk fatty acid
contents; hatching weight; duckling weights at 1 wk of
age; and RG were significantly affected by HPC. Egg
weight affected shell thickness, yolk and albumen indi-
ces, Haugh unit, yolk and albumen percentages, yolk to
albumen ratio, shell percentage, yolk fatty acid content,
hatching weight, duckling weight at 1 wk of age, and
RG.
2011 Poultry Science 90:26422647
doi:10.3382/ps.2011-01359

INTRODUCTION duckling quality. There is a lack of research evaluating

Several factors can affect poultry egg characteristics,
including hen age, production cycle, environment, nu-
trition, and genetics. It is well known that egg weight
(EW) increases with hen age, reaching a plateau by the
end of the laying cycle (Weatherup and Foster, 1980).
Applegate and Lilburn (1996, 1998) reported that tur-
key hens deposited proportionately more yolk into an
egg with increasing hen production age. It is hypoth-
esized that increased yolk deposition leads to increased
yolk availability for a higher growth rate during the last
week of incubation.
The hen production cycle (HPC) is important be-
cause of ovary and oviduct histophysiological changes
during molting (Decuypere and Verheyen, 1986). It
may also affect egg characteristics, hatchability, and
2011 Poultry Science Association Inc.
Received January 13, 2011.
Accepted July 24, 2011.
1 Corresponding author: onbasilar@ankara.edu.tr
the separate effects of HPC and EW on egg quality and
bird production at the same production level. There-
fore, the objective of the current study was to deter-
mine the effects of HPC and EW independently of each
other, and to determine the effect of these factors to-
gether on egg quality, albumen and yolk characteristics,
hatchability, duckling quality, and BW at 1 wk of age.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Design
Two different Pekin-duck breeder flocks (Star 53-Gri-
maud Freres), aged 31 wk (first production cycle;
HPC1) and 78 wk (second production cycle; HPC2),
were reared in different houses in accordance with the
management guide of the duck breeders. At these ages,
the total egg production level was 50% in both groups.
In total, 600 freshly laid eggs were obtained from both
HPC1 and HPC2. Eggs were collected at the farm be-
tween 1000 and 1100 h each day during the collection

2642
 HEN PRODUCTION CYCLE AND EGG WEIGHT
period. Eggs were weighed and numbered, then divided
into 3 groups according to EW: Heavy (H; 9086 g),
medium (M; 8581 g), and light (L; 8075 g). Ten eggs
from each HPC and EW group (total of 60 eggs) were
used to determine egg quality, and albumen and yolk
characteristics. Shape index was calculated as a per-
centage according to the formula: [(egg width (cm)/
egg length (cm) 100]. Eggshell breaking strength
was measured using a quasistatic compression de-
vice (Prftechnik, Berlin, Germany). The egg content
was broken onto a glass-top table and the shells were
washed and dried. Eggshell thickness was measured in
3 different areas of the shell (upper end, lower end, and
middle) with a micrometer. The heights of the thick
albumen and egg yolk were measured with a tripod
micrometer. The length and width of the albumen, and
the yolk diameter was measured using a digital caliper.
Albumen index, yolk index, and Haugh units were cal-
culated using the formula by Card and Nesheim (1972):
Albumen index (%): [(albumen height (mm)/
average of albumen length (mm) and albumen
width (mm)] 100,
Yolk index (%): [(yolk height (mm)/
yolk diameter (mm)] 100, and
Haugh units (%): 100 log
(Ht + 7.57 1.7 EW0.37),
where Ht is the height of the albumen (mm) and EW is
the weight of the egg (g). Egg internal and shell quality
analyses were completed within 24 h of the eggs being
collected.
The albumen and yolk were separated for each sam-
ple, and the pH for each was determined using a digital
pH-meter (Selecta, pH-2004, Barcelona, Spain). Then,
the percentages of albumen and yolk weights, along
with the ratio of yolk to albumen were determined.
The basic chemical composition of egg albumen (mois-
ture and protein contents) and yolk (moisture, protein,
and lipid contents) was analyzed by standard methods
(AOAC, 2000). The cholesterol content of the yolk ex-
tract was determined according to the enzymatic meth-
od of TECO (2001), calculated, and expressed in mg/g
of yolk. Yolk lipids were extracted using the method of
Folch et al. (1957) in order to determine the fatty acid
composition. After alkaline hydrolysis of the yolk lip-
ids, the fatty acids were methylated with boron trifluo-
ride (AOCS, 1997). Then, the fatty-acid methyl esters
(FAME) were analyzed by gas chromatography (HP
6890, Agilent, Morristown, NJ) using an HP-88 column
for FAME (100 m 250 m 0.25 m; Agilent). The
gas chromatography conditions were as follows: injector
temperature, 250C; detector temperature, 280C; car-
rier gas, H2; split ratio, 1/50 to 1/25. The temperature
program for the gas chromatograph started at 120C for
2643
1 min, followed by an increase of 10C/min to 175C,
where it remained for 10 min. Then the temperature
increased by 5C/min to 210C, where it remained for
15 min. Finally, the temperature increased by 5C/min
to 230C, where it remained for 5 min. The resulting
data peaks were identified by comparison of retention
times with those of the corresponding standards for
FAMEmix-37 (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA) and FAME-
mix-C8-C24 (Supelco). Fatty acid peaks were identified
between 4:0 and 24:0. The amounts of fatty acids were
expressed as a weight percentage of the total FAME.
The egg samples used for the determination of hatch-
ability and duckling quality were stored for 3 d at 17C
and 75% RH. Eggs were incubated in the same incuba-
tor at 37.5C and 62% RH, and were turned (24 turns/
day) from 1 to 25 d of incubation. Egg samples were
sprayed with water daily, starting from the eighth day
of incubation until their transfer to the hatcher (Peter-
sime, Olsene, Belgium) on d 25. The hatcher operated
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2014
at 37.0C and 72% RH. On the d 28 of incubation,
the healthy ducklings were removed and recorded. Eggs
that failed to hatch were counted, opened, and visu-
ally evaluated to determine fertility as well as the stage
of the embryonic dead. As a result, the percentage of
embryonic mortality could be categorized as early, mid-
dle, or late. The hatchability of fertile and total eggs
were calculated. All ducklings were examined macro-
scopically to identify the different characteristics that
can be associated with good, average, and poor quality
ducklings (adapted from Tona et al., 2003). These char-
acteristics were scored according to their importance
within a total scale of 100 (Table 1). After the qual-
ity scoring, 20 good-quality ducklings (10 male and 10
female) from each group were weighed and reared to 1
wk of age in the brooder machine. During the 1 wk of
rearing, a standard duck starter diet (2,900 kcal of ME/
kg and 22% CP) was provided ad libitum along with a
photoperiod of 24L:0D. Each duckling was weighed at
1 wk of age. Weights of 1-d-old and 1-wk-old ducklings
were used to calculate the relative growth (RG) as [100
(BW at 1 wk initial BW)/initial BW].
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using the soft-
ware package SPSS for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL). Data were tested for distribution normality and
homogeneity of variance. A 2-way ANOVA was used
to determine the differences between HPC and EW as
well as their interactions with respect to the studied
parameters. Significance of differences in proportions
was determined using the Chi-squared test (Dawson
and Trapp, 2001).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Egg quality is an important factor in the poultry in-
dustry because of its reproductive and economic im-
2644 Onbalar et al.
Table 1. Pekin duckling scores1
Parameter Characteristic Score

Activity Good 16
Weak 0
Down and appearance Clean and dry 14
Wet 8
Eyes Opened and bright 16
Opened and not bright 8
Closed 0
Legs Normal legs 16
One infected leg 8
Two infected legs 0
Navel Completely closed and clean 12
Not completely closed 0
Remaining membrane No membrane 12
Small membrane 8
Large membrane 4
Retracted yolk Body with normal swallowed yolk 14
Body with swallowed large yolk and rather hard to touch 0
1Adapted from Tona et al. (2003).

plications. The results of this study showed that HPC unit than the M and L groups. But the yolk index for

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2014

had an effect on the albumen index and the Haugh unit
of the egg samples (Table 2). Shell breaking strength,
shell thickness, and yolk index did not differ between
HPC1 and HPC2. The albumen index ranged from 6.3
to 8.2% and was higher in HPC1 compared with HPC2
(P < 0.01) owing to a higher albumen height (data not
shown). Also, the Haugh unit, ranging from 63.1 to
74.0%, was significantly higher in HPC1 compared with
HPC2 (P < 0.05). However, Kokoszyski et al. (2007)
reported a higher Haugh unit result (81.2%). This dif-
ference may be partially attributable to differences in
strain and laying period, which are also related to egg
quality.
The EW groups affected all of the egg quality param-
eters, except for shell breaking strength. The H group
had a lower shell thickness, albumen index, and Haugh
the H group was higher than in the M and L groups
(Table 2). This is likely because of a higher yolk height
in the H group (data not shown). Eggshell thickness
ranged from 377 to 396 m. Yolk and albumen pH did
not differ between EW and HPC groups.
The composition of egg samples was 53.0 to 55.6% al-
bumen, 29.8 to 33.9% yolk, and 12.2 to 14.3% shell and
membranes among the different groups (Table 3). Egg
weight affected the yolk, albumen, and shell percent-
ages, whereas HPC only affected the shell percentage.
As EW increased, the percentage of egg yolk gradually
increased and the percentage of egg albumen decreased.
Similarly, Reidy et al. (1994) reported that the EW
of commercial turkey breeders increased approximately
11% between the onset of lay and 24 wk of production.
During that time, yolk weight increased by 21%, but

Table 2. Effects of hen production cycle (HPC) and egg weight (EW) on egg characteristics1
Shell breaking Shell Albumen Haugh
strength thickness Yolk index index unit Yolk Albumen
HPC EW2 (kg/cm2) (m) (%) (%) (%) pH pH

1 L 3.4 391 40.6 8.2 74.0 6.1 8.2

M 3.4 391 41.2 7.9 71.4 6.1 8.2
H 2.9 377 44.1 7.3 65.9 6.1 8.5
2 L 3.3 396 41.4 7.6 71.8 6.0 8.4
M 3.1 386 41.1 7.0 68.3 6.1 8.3
H 2.8 381 42.8 6.3 63.1 6.1 8.3
1 3.2 386 41.9 7.8x 70.4x 6.1 8.3
2 3.0 388 41.8 7.0y 67.7y 6.1 8.3
L 3.3 393a 41.0b 7.9a 72.9a 6.1 8.3
M 3.2 388ab 41.1b 7.4a 69.8a 6.1 8.2
H 2.9 379b 43.4a 6.8b 64.5b 6.1 8.4

Pooled SEM 0.09 2.03 0.25 0.12 0.66 0.02 0.04

Significance
HPC 0.248 0.681 0.732 0.001 0.047 0.360 0.626
EW 0.070 0.025 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.835 0.077
HPC EW 0.902 0.613 0.247 0.796 0.957 0.093 0.023
a,b;x,yMeans within columns with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Letters a and b are for EW groups and letters x and y are
for HPC groups.
1Values are mean SEM.
2H = heavy eggs (9086 g); M = medium eggs (8581 g); and L = light eggs (8075 g).
Table 3. Effects of hen production cycle (HPC) and egg weight (EW) on egg composition1
Yolk Albumen Shell Yolk Yolk Yolk Yolk Albumen Albumen Albumen
weight weight Yolk/ weight moisture ash protein Lipid moisture ash protein
HPC EW2 (%) (%) albumen (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1 L 29.8 55.6 0.54 14.3 44.13 2.55 17.65 35.55 87.50 1.00 11.42
M 31.9 54.7 0.59 13.3 43.38 2.74 17.84 36.11 88.06 0.94 10.91
H 33.9 53.0 0.64 13.1 43.66 2.72 17.60 35.96 87.11 0.99 11.83
2 L 31.3 55.2 0.57 13.5 42.80 2.44 17.34 37.54 87.22 1.01 11.71
M 33.1 54.7 0.61 12.2 41.72 2.51 17.34 38.39 85.70 1.11 13.12
H 33.8 54.0 0.63 12.3 42.43 2.57 17.30 37.69 86.13 1.08 12.72
1 31.9 54.4 0.59 13.6x 43.73x 2.67x 17.70x 35.87x 87.56y 0.97y 11.39y
2 32.7 54.6 0.60 12.6y 42.32y 2.51y 17.33y 37.87y 86.35x 1.07x 12.51x
L 30.6c 55.4a 0.55c 13.9a 43.47 2.50 17.50 36.54 87.36 1.01 11.56
M 32.5b 54.7ab 0.60b 12.7b 42.55 2.62 17.60 37.25 86.88 1.02 12.02
H 33.8a 53.5b 0.63a 12.7b 43.05 2.65 17.45 36.83 86.62 1.03 12.27
Pooled SEM 0.25 0.27 0.01 0.16 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.20
Significance
HPC 0.099 0.712 0.379 0.004 <0.001 0.034 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 0.001 0.007
EW <0.001 0.022 <0.001 0.004 0.138 0.209 0.337 0.339 0.352 0.716 0.347
HPC EW 0.413 0.605 0.471 0.826 0.879 0.800 0.512 0.847 0.132 0.083 0.146
ac;x,yMeans
within columns with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Letters a, b, and c are for EW groups and letters x and y are for HPC groups.
1Valuesare mean SEM.
2H = heavy eggs (9086 g); M = medium eggs (8581 g); and L = light eggs (8075 g).

Table 4. Effects of hen production cycle (HPC) and egg weight (EW) on yolk characteristics1
Fatty acids (% of total methyl esters)3
Cholesterol Triglycerides
HPC EW2 (mg/g of yolk) (mg/ g of yolk) C14:0 C16:0 C16:1 C18:0 C18:n-1 C18:n-2 SFA MUFA PUFA

1 L 15.9 227.0 0.29 20.2 2.8 7.1 44.3 19.6 28.4 48.0 23.6
M 16.5 224.0 0.19 19.7 2.5 5.1 46.1 21.1 25.9 49.2 24.9
H 16.1 226.6 0.22 19.2 2.6 5.5 47.3 20.5 25.8 50.5 23.8
2 L 16.3 237.2 0.40 21.2 2.7 6.3 47.2 18.0 28.7 50.3 21.0
M 16.1 244.5 0.43 26.0 2.5 7.9 40.8 17.7 35.3 43.8 20.9
HEN PRODUCTION CYCLE AND EGG WEIGHT

H 17.2 245.9 0.31 25.3 2.8 6.3 42.0 19.3 32.9 45.1 22.0
1 16.2 225.9y 0.23y 19.7y 2.6 5.9y 45.9x 20.4x 26.7y 49.2x 24.1x
2 16.5 242.5x 0.38x 24.2x 2.7 6.8x 43.3y 18.3y 32.3x 46.4y 21.3y
L 16.1 232.1 0.34 20.7b 2.7a 6.7a 45.7a 18.8 28.6b 49.2a 22.3
M 16.3 234.3 0.31 22.9a 2.5b 6.5a 43.4b 19.4 30.6a 46.5c 22.9
H 16.6 236.2 0.27 22.2a 2.7a 5.9b 44.7a 19.9 29.3b 47.8b 22.9
Pooled SEM 0.27 1.91 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.11 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.22
Significance
HPC 0.516 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.797 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
EW 0.708 0.675 0.176 <0.001 0.035 0.009 0.001 0.102 0.001 <0.001 0.423
HPC EW 0.523 0.488 0.145 <0.001 0.231 <0.001 <0.001 0.065 <0.001 <0.001 0.104
ac;x,yMeans within columns with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Letters a, b, and c are for EW groups and letters x and y are for HPC groups.
1Values are mean SEM.
2H = heavy eggs (9086 g); M = medium eggs (8581 g); and L = light eggs (8075 g).
3C14:0 = myristic acid; C16:0 = palmitic acid; C16:1 = palmitoleic acid; C18:0 = stearic acid; C18:n-1 = oleic acid; C18:n-2 = linoleic acid; SFA = saturated fatty acid; MUFA = monounsaturated
2645

fatty acid; PUFA = polyunsaturated fatty acid.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2014

2646 Onbalar et al.
Table 5. Effects of hen production cycle (HPC) and egg weight (EW) on percentage of fertility, dead, and hatchability
Early Middle Late Hatchability Hatchability
HPC EW1 Fertility dead dead dead of fertile eggs of total eggs

1 L 90.0 4.4 1.1 2.2 91.4 82.2

M 92.2 3.4 1.1 2.2 92.8 85.4
H 92.2 4.4 1.1 2.2 91.6 84.4
2 L 94.4 4.4 0.0 2.2 92.9 87.8
M 94.4 4.4 1.1 1.1 92.9 87.8
H 95.6 3.4 1.1 3.3 91.9 87.8
1 95.0 4.1 1.1 2.2 42.6 59.3
2 94.8 4.1 0.7 2.2 57.4 54.4
L 92.2 3.9 0.6 2.2 92.7 85.0
M 93.3 4.4 1.1 1.7 92.9 86.7
H 93.9 3.9 1.1 2.8 91.7 86.1
1H = heavy eggs (9086 g); M = medium eggs (8581 g); and L = light eggs (8075 g).

albumen weight only increased by 7%. The magnitude
of those results slightly depended on genotype.
We found that in H eggs during HPC2 the percentage
of shell was lower. Kokoszyski et al. (2007) reported
the percentage of shell ranged from 9.6 to 10.1%, with
tant parameter in determining the solids content in the
whole egg, was significantly affected by EW. The major
constituents of yolk are proteins and lipids. Therefore,
eggs with larger yolks have higher total solid content
than those with smaller yolks. Applegate and Lilburn

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2014

the greatest percentage found at the beginning of the
laying period. This result was lower than our findings,
likely because it was a different strain and laying period
compared with our study.
In our study, the yolk to albumen ratio (0.550.63)
was highest in H eggs (P < 0.001). Applegate et al.
(1998) reported a disproportionate change in yolk de-
position with advancing hen age and EW, with the yolk
to albumen ratio increasing from 0.52 to 0.61 from 31
to 42 wk of age. The ratio of yolk to albumen varies
widely with the size of eggs. The proportion of yolk was
reported by Kaminska and Skaraba (1991) to be lower
in light eggs than in larger ones. However, the ratio did
not differ between HPC groups at the same production
level. Both the yolk percentage and the yolk:albumen
ratio tended to be higher in HPC2, but these were not
statistically significant. Yolk:albumen ratio, an impor-
(1996) found that eggs from older breeders contained a
greater amount of yolk and, therefore, lipids, providing
an advantage compared with the eggs of young breed-
ers. In our study, yolk moisture, ash, and protein, and
albumen moisture contents in eggs from HPC2 were
lower compared with those in HPC1, whereas yolk
lipid, yolk triglycerides, and albumen ash and protein
contents were higher in HPC2 compared with HPC1.
Oleic acid content was found to be greater than the
other fatty acids in all examined groups of eggs (Table
4). Myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, and total
saturated fatty acids were higher in HPC2 compared
with HPC1, whereas oleic and linoleic acids were lower.
It is known that egg fatty acid content is affected by
many factors (age, genotype, ration, season, and so on),
and we found that HPC affects egg fatty-acid content
as well. Fatty acids have an important role in embry-

Table 6. Effects of hen production cycle (HPC) and egg weight (EW) on hatching and 1 wk weights,
relative growth (RG), and duckling quality1
Hatching 1 wk Relative Duckling
HPC EW2 weight (g) weight (g) growth quality

1 L 47.28 167.35 253 94

M 50.50 185.35 267 95
H 53.15 209.35 294 96
2 L 48.25 185.85 285 95
M 51.09 195.65 282 95
H 54.17 211.70 290 97
1 50.31y 187.52y 271y 95
2 51.17x 197.73x 286x 96
L 47.76a 176.60a 269a 95
M 50.80b 190.50b 274a 95
H 53.66c 210.78c 292b 97
Pooled SEM 0.18 1.86 2.56 0.56
Significance
HPC 0.017 0.007 0.006 0.590
EW <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.271
HPC EW 0.867 0.191 0.016 0.828
ac;x,y Means within columns with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Letters a, b, and c are
for EW groups and letters x and y are for HPC groups.
1Values are mean SEM.
2H = heavy eggs (9086 g); M = medium eggs (8581 g); and L = light eggs (8075 g).
 HEN PRODUCTION CYCLE AND EGG WEIGHT
onic and subsequent periods of life (Dikmen and ahan,
2009). Our results also indicated that EW had a sig-
nificant effect on egg fatty acids, except for myristic,
linoleic, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Monounsatu-
rated fatty acids were higher in L eggs, whereas satu-
rated fatty acids were higher in M eggs.
Fertility, embryonic dead, hatchability of all eggs, and
hatchability of fertile eggs were not different among
EW and HPC groups (Table 5). This result is in dis-
agreement with the findings of Nestor and Noble (1995)
and Hartmann et al. (2002) who found a positive corre-
lation between egg-yolk ratio and hatchability of fertile
eggs in turkeys and in a White Leghorn populations.
This difference may be because we used a different spe-
cies.
In HPC2, both hatching and 1-wk weights of duck-
lings were higher than from eggs of similar weights in
HPC1 (Table 6). This result was probably because of
the greater yolk percentages and total yolk lipids. Yolk
content influences chick body composition and viabil-
ity (Donaldson, 1964; Noble and Tullett, 1989). Dur-
ing the incubation period, the main nutrient source for
the developing embryo is the yolk, which is a complex
source of nutrients, including all of the fat-soluble nu-
trients in the egg. According to Decuypere (1979) and
McLoughlin and Gous (1999), chick BW at 1 wk of age
is linearly related to the BW at slaughtering age. In
this study, weight at 1 wk of age and RG were higher
in HPC2 compared with that in HPC1. Applegate and
Lilburn (1996, 1998) reported that turkey hens deposit
proportionately more yolk into the egg with increas-
ing hen production age. They theorized that increased
yolk deposition would lead to a subsequent increased
yolk availability for a higher growth rate during the
last week of incubation. Similarly, in this study, higher
duckling weight resulted from higher EW. Milisits et al.
(2010) theorized that larger eggs may be advantageous
for 2 reasons: 1) they can provide more space for the
chicks development; and 2) they can produce chicks
with larger nutrient reserves, such as yolk lipid and
fatty acids, at hatch. In this study, duckling quality did
not differ among HPC and EW groups.
In conclusion, HPC and EW both significantly af-
fected certain egg traits and traits of ducklings at the
same production level. In HPC2, the albumen index
and the Haugh unit were lower, and shell percentages,
yolk lipids and triglycerides, albumen ash and protein,
saturated fatty acids, duckling weight, and RG were
higher compared with those in HPC1. The H eggs had a
higher yolk index, yolk:albumen ratio, duckling weight,
and RG than M and L eggs. Egg weight significantly
affected fatty acid content, except myristic and linoleic
acid, and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
REFERENCES
AOAC. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. Assoc. Off.
Anal. Chem., Gaithersburg, MD.
2647
AOCS. 1997. Preparation of methyl esters of long-chain fatty acids
from sampling and analysis of commercial fats and oils. Official
Methods and Recommended Practices. Method Ce266. Ameri-
can Oil Chemists Society, Champaign, IL.
Applegate, T. J., D. Harper, and M. S. Lilburn. 1998. Effect of hen
production age on egg composition and embryo development in
commercial Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 77:16081612.
Applegate, T. J., and M. S. Lilburn. 1996. Independent effects of
hen age and egg size on incubation and poult characteristics in
commercial turkeys. Poult. Sci. 75:12101216.
Applegate, T. J., and M. S. Lilburn. 1998. Effect of hen age, body
weight, and age at photostimulation. 1. Egg, incubation, and
poult characteristics of commercial turkeys. Poult. Sci. 77:433
438.
Card, L. E., and M. C. Nesheim. 1972. Poultry Production. 11th ed.
Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, PA.
Dawson, B., and R. G. Trapp. 2001. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics.
3rd ed. Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing
Division, New York, NY.
Decuypere, E. 1979. Effect of incubation temperature patterns on
morphological, physiological, and reproduction criteria in Rhode
Island Red birds. Agricultura 27:216230.
Decuypere, E., and G. Verheyen. 1986. Physiological basis of in-
duced moulting and tissue regeneration in fowls. Worlds Poult.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2014
Sci. J. 42:5668.
Yilmaz-Dikmen, B., and U. ahan. 2009. The relationship among
age, yolk fatty acids content, and incubation results of broiler
breeders. Poult. Sci. 88:185190.
Donaldson, W. E. 1964. Fatty acid composition of chick embryo and
egg yolk at various stages of incubation. Poult. Sci. 43:784785.
Folch, J., M. Lees, and G. H. S. Sloane-Stanley. 1957. A simple
method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from ani-
mal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226:497509.
Hartmann, C., E. Strandberg, L. Rydhmer, and K. Johansson. 2002.
Genetic relations between reproduction, chick weight, and mater-
nal egg composition in a White Leghorn line. Acta Agric. Scand.
A 52:91101.
Kaminska, B. Z., and B. Skaraba. 1991. Analysis of hen types con-
sidering albumen: Yolk ratio and its changes during the laying
cycle. Proc. 4th European Symposium on the Quality of Poultry
Products. II. Eggs and Egg Products, Doorwerth, the Nether-
lands.
Kokoszyski, D., Z. Bernacki, and H. Korytkowska. 2007. Eggshell
and egg content traits in Peking duck eggs from the P44 reserve
flock raised in Poland. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 8:916.
McLoughlin, L., and R. M. Gous. 1999. The effect of egg size on
pre- and post-natal growth of broiler chickens. Worlds Poult.
Sci. J. 15:3438.
Milisits, G., E. Kovcs, O. Pcze, J. Ujvri, Z. Taraszenk, G. Jek-
kel, L. Locsmndi, G. Bzr, A. Szab, R. Romvri, and Z. St.
2010. Effect of egg composition on hatchability and on growth
and slaughter characteristics of meat-type chicks. Br. Poult. Sci.
51:289295.
Nestor, K. E., and D. O. Noble. 1995. Inuence of selection for in-
creased egg production, body weight, and shank width of turkeys
on egg composition and relationship of the egg traits to hatch-
ability. Poult. Sci. 74:427433.
Noble, R. C., and S. G. Tullett. 1989. How valuable is yolk fat to the
chick embryo? World Poult. Misset. 4:45.
Reidy, T. R., J. L. Atkinson, and S. Leeson. 1994. Strain compari-
sons of turkey egg components. Poult. Sci. 73:388395.
TECO. 2001. Cholesterol (Liquid) Reagent. C507. Teco Diagnostics,
Anaheim, CA.
Tona, K., F. Bamelis, B. De Ketelaere, V. Bruggeman, V. M. B.
Moraes, J. Buyse, O. Onagbesan, and E. Decuypere. 2003. Ef-
fects of egg storage time on spread of hatch, chick quality, and
chick juvenile growth. Poult. Sci. 82:736741.
Weatherup, S. T. C., and W. H. Foster. 1980. Description of the
curve relating egg weight and age of hen. Br. Poult. Sci. 21:511
519.