RESTRICTED FEEDING
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Mr. P. J. McGann for his technical assistance with this
experiment.
REFERENCES
Gowe, R. S., A. S. Johnson, R. D. Crawford, J. H.
Downs, A. T. Hill, W. F. Mountain, J. R.
Peletier and J. H. Strain, 1960. Restricted versus
full-feeding during the growing period for egg
production stock. Brit. Poultry Sci. 1: 37-56.
Maclntyre, T. M., and J. R. Aitken, 1959. The
performance of laying hens reared on restricted
and full feeding programs. Can. J. Animal Sci.
39: 217-225.
Ringrose, R. C , 1958. Restricted feeding of growing pullets. New Hampshire Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui.
456.
Sherwood, D. H., and T. T. Milby, 1954. Restricted
versus full-feeding for growing pullets. Poultry
Sci. 33: 1080.
Sunde, M. L., W. W. Cravens, H. R. Bird and
J. G. Halpin, 1954. The effect of complete and
incomplete growing diets on subsequent performance of the laying hen. Poultry Sci. 33:
779-784.
Tomhave, A E., 1958. The effect of restricted feeding of pullets during the growing period on subsequent laying house performance. Delaware
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. (Tech.) 326.
Walter, E. D., and J. R. Aitken, 1961. The performance of laying hens subjected to restricted
feeding during the rearing and laying periods.
Poultry Sci. 40: 345-354.
Effects of Oil Treating on Shell Egg Quality
During Short Term Refrigerated Storage
D. V. SCHWALL, F. A. GARDNER AND E. D. PARNELL
Texas A. and M. College, College Station, Texas
(Received for publication June 23, 1960)
INTRODUCTION
/^VPTIMUM short term holding temper^S atures for retaining tin interior ouality of shell eggs have been studied by many
workers, Dawson and Hall (1954), Fry and
Newell (1957), Parnell and Jaska (1958).
The temperature usually recommended for
short term storage periods has been around
45° to 55°F.
The process of oiling shell eggs for long
term storage has been used extensively for
many years, Spamer (1931), and has been
receiving renewed attention recently as a
method of retaining quality during short
holding periods, Swanson et al. (1958),
Stadelman and Wilson (1958). These recent studies have considered the merits of
various methods of applying the oil to the
shell.
This study was conducted to determine
whether oiling shell eggs for subsequent
short storage periods of one to 21 days
would be of significant value if the eggs are
to be held under the recommended refrigerated conditions.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 12, 2016
stricted-fed birds laid more eggs in the first
production year (to 500 days). Following
a forced-moult the restricted birds came
into production more quickly and again
laid at a higher rate throughout the second
production year.
In one of two experiments the egg size
of the restricted-fed birds was less than in
the full-fed birds during the first production year and in the other experiment no
differences occurred. The egg mass laid by
the restricted birds was larger for both experiments once the birds had come into full
egg production. Restricted-fed birds in
their second production year laid larger
eggs than full-fed birds.
The mortality in the restricted groups
was higher during the period the feed was
restricted but it was lower throughout both
the first and second production years.
583
584
D. V. SCHWALL, F. A. GARDNER AND E. D. PARNELL
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Haugh Units. An overall average of 81.0
Haugh units was obtained from an initial
20 egg sample taken from each of the six
tests on the day the eggs were laid. There
was no significant difference at the one percent level of probability between the initial
Haugh unit averages.
Untreated eggs lost interior quality faster
than the oil treated eggs (Table 1). After
TABLE 1.—Average Haugh units observed in six tests during 21 days of storage under four refrigerated
conditions when eggs wsre untreated or shell treated with oil
Storage conditions
Treatment
Temp.
Relative
Degrees F. humidity
Days of storage 1
1
3
7
14
21
None
45
45
55
55
Low
High
Low
High
Average:
74.1
71.0
71.3
72.7
72.3**
73.0
70.0
66.5
69.8
69.8**
70.2
67.5
61.9
66.4
66.5**
68.0
66.0
56.3
65.3
63.9**
65.4
65.1
52.7
60.4
60.9**
Oil Spray
45
45
55
55
Low
High
Low
High
Average:
80.1
79.6
78.3
78.4
79.1
80.8
81.4
77.6
79.0
79.7
79.8
77.1
75.8
75.7
77.1
79.8
77.0
74.8
74.2
76.4
73.9
73.8
71.7
73'. 8
73.3
Oil Dip
45
45
55
55
Low
High
Low
Nigh
Average:
79.2
80.2
78.0
78.5
79.0
79.8
78.6
78.2
79.4
79.0
78.1
76.8
76.5
77.4
77.2
77.5
76.1
76.6
76.3
76.6
75.0
74.1
73.4
74.4
74.2
** Significantly lower than the oil treated groups at the .01 level.
Initial Haugh unit average was 81.0.
1
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 12, 2016
Six tests were conducted during June and
July, 1959, using a total of 3360 eggs from
incross pullets. The hens were housed in
individual wire cages and fed the basal laying ration of the Texas A. and M. poultry
farm. The eggs were gathered in wire baskets twice daily and placed in a walk-in
cooler at an average temperature of 55°F.
All eggs were candled daily to remove
cracked or misshapen eggs and were then
randomly placed into treatment groups.
One group was kept as an untreated control. The oil dipped eggs were completely
immersed in a clear mineral oil at room
temperature and then placed on filler flats.
The oil spray was applied with a commercially available aerosol applicator from a
constant height of 12 inches above the eggs.
The eggs were then individually weighed
to the nearest 0.001 gram and each group
randomly divided into four storage conditions. The conditions used were: (1) 45°F.
and a low relative humidity; (2) 45°F. and
a high relative humidity; (3) 55°F. and a
low relative humidity; (4) 55°F. and a
high relative humidity.
Nine eggs from each treatment group
were removed from each storage condition,
after 1, 3, 7, 14 and 21 days of storage.
Weight loss, albumen pH and Haugh unit
determinations were made. Haugh units
were measured by the procedure outlined
by Brant et al. (1951). The yolk and white
were then separated and the albumen of
each nine egg treatment group mixed
thoroughly and the pH measured with a
Beckman model G pH meter.
OIL TREATMENT AND EGG QUALITY
585
USDA
Grade
Haugh
Units
45°
55°
Untreated
•
Oil sprayed
O
Oil dipped
A
FIG. 1. Average Haugh units observed during 21 days of storage when eggs were
untreated or oil treated and held at 45 °F. and 55 °F.
one day of storage, the difference observed
in Haugh units was significant at the one
percent level of probability and remained
significant throughout the 21 day storage
period. The difference in the rate of Haugh
unit decrease between the two oil treatments was not significant. The difference
between 45°F. and 55°F. affected the rate
of Haugh unit loss in the untreated eggs,
but the oil treated eggs were not signifi-
cantly affected (Figure 1). The difference
in humidity had little effect on the Haugh
units observed.
The results of this test substantiate the
observations of Cotterill et al. (1958) that
low temperatures alone are not adequate in
preventing a decline in albumen quality.
This study is in agreement with results obtained by many workers who have shown
that oil coating is beneficial in retaining
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 12, 2016
Days of Storage
586
D. V. SCHWALL, F. A. GARDNER AND E. D. PARNELL
groups. The rate of weight loss was not significantly different between the oil treating
methods. Low humidity significantly increased the loss in weight of untreated eggs
after one week of storage.
Albumen pH. The pH of the albumen
was measured to determine the extent of
C0 2 loss through the shell. The average
initial albumen pH observed was 7.90. Figure 2 illustrates the average rate of change
in albumen pH observed in this study. During storage the main pH difference occurred
between the untreated and the oil treated
groups (significant at the one percent level
of probability) but there was also a significant difference at the five percent level between the oil spray and the oil dipped treatments. The pH difference between oiling
methods was probably due to the application procedure in that dipping afforded a
more complete coating on each egg.
The temperature or humidity of the storage conditions did not significantly affect
the albumen pH. Even though temperature
will effect the albumen pH (Cotterill and
Gardner, 1957) the refrigerated tempera-
TABLE 2.—Average individual egg weight loss in grams observed in six tests during 21 days of storage
under four refrigerated conditions when eggs were untreated or treated with oil
Storage conditions
Treatment
Days of storage
Relative
Temp.
Degrees F . humidity
1
3
7
14
21
1.032
.746
1.690
.497
991**
1.565
1.003
2.331
.715
1.403**
None
45
45
55
55
Low
High
Low
High
Average:
.177
.178
.236
.124
.179**
.298
.266
.442
.180
.340**
.546
.445
.836
.284
.528**
Oil Spray
45
45
55
55
Low
High
Low
High
Average:
.068
.061
.066
.053
.062
.108
.080
.108
.072
.092
.108
.122
.147
.081
.114
.134
.122
.187
.094
.134
.193
.166
.287
.121
,192
Oil Dip
45
45
55
55
Low
High
Low
High
Average:
.054
.051
.056
.040
.050
.074
.059
.081
.047
.065
.098
.087
.111
.065
.090
.124
.097
.145
.084
.113
.165
.130
.210
.099
.153
** Significantly greater than the oil treated groups at the 1 percent level of probability.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 12, 2016
C0 2 which retards the loss of Haugh units
and further shows that either the spray or
dip method of application is of significant
value when eggs are held under refrigerated
conditions.
U.S.D.A. Grades. Since many egg handlers will soon be using the Fresh Fancy
or AA Grade quality based on provisions
printed in the Federal Register (19S9),
this study was carried out in a manner conforming to the Fresh Fancy program. The
findings of this study show that oil treated
eggs maintained Fresh Fancy or AA Grade
quality for 21 days while most of the untreated eggs declined to Grade A after only
three days of storage (Figure 1).
Weight Loss. Shell treating by either the
oil spray or oil dip method significantly reduced the weight loss in eggs held under
all of the storage conditions as compared
to eggs not oiled. The difference became
significant after one day of storage and continued throughout the entire period (Table
2). Temperature and humidity had a
greater effect on weight loss in the untreated eggs than in either of the oil treated
OIL TREATMENT AND EGG QUALITY
587
Oil Dip
FIG. 2. Average albumen pH observed during 21 days of storage when eggs were
untreated or oil treated and held at 4S°F. to SS°F.
ture ranges used in this study were not
sufficient to produce a significant difference.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Thirty-three hundred and sixty eggs were
selected at random from one age of incross
hens to determine whether shell treating
eggs with oil would be beneficial when eggs
are held under refrigeration for short periods. Some eggs were oil sprayed or oil dipped on the day of lay and then stored
under four holding conditions ranging from
4S°F. to 55°F. and relative humidities of
45 to 78 percent for periods up to 21 days
of storage and compared with similar eggs
that were untreated. Observations made
during the study were as follows:
(1) Untreated eggs lost significantly
more interior quality and weight than eggs
treated by either method of oiling under all
of the refrigerated conditions. This significan difference became apparent after one
day of storage.
(2) There was no significant difference
between the oil spray or oil dip method of
shell treating eggs as a means for preserving
Haugh units or avoiding weight loss.
(3) Oil treating maintained Fresh Fancy
or Grade AA interior quality for 21 days
or longer under the refrigerated conditions
of this study while untreated eggs dropped
to Grade A in most cases after three days
of storage.
(4) The pH of untreated eggs increased
significantly faster than the oil treated
eggs. The rate of pH change between the
two oiling methods was also significant at
the five percent level of probability.
(5) Low humidity increased the weight
loss in untreated eggs, but did not significantly affect eggs that were oil treated.
This study indicates that oil treating
shell eggs during short term refrigerated
storage has a significant value, especially
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 12, 2016
Untreated
Oil Spray
588
D. V. SCHWALL, F. A. GARDNER AND E. D. PARNEIX
if eggs are marketed under a quality control program. The difference in rate of quality deterioration was probably due to the
retention of C0 2 and moisture by the oil
treated eggs.
REFERENCES
The Effect of Unidentified Growth Factor Sources and
Restricted Feeding on the Performance of
Egg Strain Chickens
W. F. PEPPER, S. J. SLINGER AND G. C. ASHTON
Departments of Poultry Science and Physics (Statistics),
Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
(Received for publication June 27, 1960)
A
GOOD deal of evidence has accumulated in the literature to indicate the
need by growing chicks of unidentified
growth factors (UGF) found in certain
natural feedingstuffs including fish meals,
meat meals and dried whey. In previous
studies conducted in our laboratory (Summers et al., 1959a, b) it was found that fish
meals and meat meals are not reliable
sources of UGF for the chick. Dried whey
gave a fairly consistent UGF response but
did not supply UGF activity not present in
fish solubles.
Variable results have been reported concerning the need for UGF by mature hens.
Couch et al. (1950) reported that liver
fraction "L" contained an unidentified factor necessary for maximum hatchability.
Dieckert and Couch (1951) found a hatchability response using whole liver, various
fractions of liver "L" and Difco yeast as
inclusions in a purified diet. Stephenson and
Clower (1952) and Arscott and Combs
(1953) presented evidence for an unidentified hatchability factor in fish solubles.
In contrast to these reports Grau and
Zweigart (1952) found that suplementing
a purified diet with liver "L" did not improve hatchability while Patterson (1955)
found that neither dried whey, liver meal,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 12, 2016
Brant, A. W., A. W. Otte and K. H. Norris, 1951.
Recommended standards for scoring and measuring opened egg quality. Food Technology, 5:
356-361.
Cotterill, O. J., and F. A. Gardner, 1957. Retarding
thick white deterioration by holding eggs in
sealed containers. Poultry Sci. 36: 196-206.
Cotterill, O. J., F. A. Gardner, E. M. Funk and
F. E. Cunningham, 1958. Relationship between
temperature and carbon dioxide loss from shell
eggs. Poultry Sci. 37: 479-483.
Dawson, L. E., and C. W. Hall, 1954. Relationship
between rate of cooling, holding container and
egg albumen quality of eggs. Poultry Sci. 33:
624-628.
Federal Register, 1959. Amendments. U.S.D.A.,
A.M.S., Poultry Division, Regulations and
standards for grading and inspection of shell
eggs under the farm products inspection act.,
Aug. 15, 1959.
Fry, J. L., and G. W. Newell, 1957. Management
and holding conditions as they affect the interior
quality of eggs. Poultry Sci. 36: 240—246.
Parnell, E. D., and R. C. Jaska, 1958. Temperature and relative humidity effects on market
egg quality. Texas Ag. Exp. Sta. Bui. MP 296,
p. 4.
Stadelman, W. J., and M. L. Wilson, 1958. An oil
dispensing aerosol for quality preservation of
shell eggs. Poultry Sci. 37: 731-733.
Spamer, C. O., 1931. Historic methods and present
practices of preserving eggs in Holland. U.S.
Egg Poultry Magazine, 37 ( 2 ) : 48-51.
Swanson, M. H., G. W. Froning and D. N. Hendrickson, 1958. Effectiveness of shell treating
eggs on day of lay as influenced by quality of
sealer and method of application. Poultry Sci.
37: 1246.