| Literature DB >> 33248603 |
Nuo Heng1, Shan Gao1, Yong Guo1, Yu Chen2, Liang Wang2, Xihui Sheng1, Xiangguo Wang1, Kai Xing1, Longfei Xiao1, Hemin Ni1, Xiaolong Qi3.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different levels of dietary natural astaxanthin (ASTA) (from the microalga Haematococcus pluvialis) and storage at 4°C and 25°C on the quality of eggs from laying hens. Nongda No. 3 laying hens (n = 450) were randomly allocated to 1 of 5 dietary treatments. Each treatment had 6 replicates of 15 hens each. All birds were assigned to a corn-soybean meal-based diet containing 0, 20, 40, 80, or 160 mg/kg natural ASTA for 4 wk. A total of 540 eggs were collected at the end of the 4-week feeding trial. Sixty fresh eggs were collected and measured for egg quality within 24 h after collection. The other 480 eggs were used in a factorial arrangement with 5 dietary ASTA levels, 4 storage times, and 2 storage temperatures. During the 8-week storage period at 4°C and 25°C, egg quality measurements were performed every 2 wk on 12 eggs per treatment. No significant effects (P > 0.05) on yolk index, yolk pH, Haugh units, weight loss, or eggshell strength were observed with increasing concentrations of dietary ASTA. Yolk color darkened linearly with increasing dose of ASTA (P < 0.05). During storage of eggs, yolk index and Haugh units decreased significantly (P < 0.05), whereas yolk pH and weight loss increased (P < 0.05). An interaction was observed between dietary ASTA level and storage time on yolk index, yolk color, and Haugh units (P < 0.05). These results demonstrated that dietary ASTA from H. pluvialis delayed the decrease in yolk index and yolk color during storage at 4°C and 25°C. Therefore, we speculate that there may be a combined effect of dietary ASTA level and storage time on egg internal quality; this information may provide additional options by which to extend the storage time of eggs.Entities:
Keywords: chicken egg; egg quality; natural astaxanthin; storage temperature
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33248603 PMCID: PMC7704997 DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Poult Sci ISSN: 0032-5791 Impact factor: 3.352
The composition and nutritional level of the basal diet (air-dried basis) fed to laying hens.
| Ingredients | Content[%] | Nutrient level | Content[%] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn | 63.30 | ME [MJ/kg] | 10.96 |
| Soybean meal | 23.75 | CP [%] | 16.10 |
| Cottonseed meal | 1.00 | DL-Methionine [%] | 0.368 |
| DL-Methionine | 0.10 | L-Lysine [%] | 0.750 |
| Limestone | 8.70 | Total calcium [%] | 3.51 |
| CaHPO4 | 1.80 | Total phosphorus [%] | 0.62 |
| NaCl | 0.35 | Available phosphorus [%] | 0.44 |
| Premix | 1.00 | ||
| Total | 100.00 |
Premix provided per kg of diet: vitamin A, 13,000 IU; vitamin D3, 6,000 IU; vitamin E, 20 IU; vitamin K, 2 mg; vitamin B1, 1 mg; vitamin B2, 9 mg; vitamin B6, 6 mg; vitamin B12, 0.006 mg; folic acid, 0.3 mg; calcium pantothenate, 6 mg; niacin, 20 mg; biotin, 0.2 mg; Cu, 10.04 mg; Fe, 60 mg; Mn, 95.4 mg; Zn, 103.5 mg; I, 0.4 mg; Se, 0.3 mg.
Effect of dietary astaxanthin and storage time on quality of eggs stored at 4°C.1
| Storage time | Natural astaxanthin (mg/kg) | Yolk quality parameter | Weight loss(%) | Haugh unit | Eggshell strength (N/cm2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yolk index | Yolk color | Yolk pH | |||||
| 0 wk | 0 | 0.52a | 10.71h,i | 6.01 | 0.00 | 83.40a | 41.92 |
| 20 | 0.51a,b,c | 11.68g,h | 6.00 | 0.00 | 83.43a | 40.23 | |
| 40 | 0.51a,b,c | 12.84e,f,g | 5.99 | 0.00 | 82.88a,b | 41.92 | |
| 80 | 0.51a,b,c | 14.47a,b,c | 6.00 | 0.00 | 82.25a,b,c | 42.45 | |
| 160 | 0.51a,b,c | 14.89a,b | 6.00 | 0.00 | 83.34a | 43.17 | |
| 2 wk | 0 | 0.43g,h | 9.50i,j | 6.22 | 3.12 | 82.03a,b,c | 40.90 |
| 20 | 0.43g,h | 12.00f,g,h | 6.18 | 3.23 | 80.67a,b,c,d | 39.16 | |
| 40 | 0.43g,h | 13.17c,d,e,f | 6.25 | 2.95 | 81.98a,b,c | 41.47 | |
| 80 | 0.42h | 14.50a,b | 6.23 | 3.26 | 78.55a,b,c,d,e | 37.76 | |
| 160 | 0.44e,f,g,h | 15.00a | 6.18 | 3.19 | 83.25a,b | 41.91 | |
| 4 wk | 0 | 0.44f,g,h | 9.17j | 6.38 | 1.35 | 81.77a,b,c | 41.17 |
| 20 | 0.44f,g,h | 12.67e,f,g | 6.31 | 1.49 | 79.68a,b,c,d,e | 41.97 | |
| 40 | 0.43g,h | 13.67b,c,d,e | 6.25 | 1.48 | 77.52a,b,c,d,e | 40.56 | |
| 80 | 0.44f,g,h | 14.67a,b | 6.38 | 1.45 | 77.78a,b,c,d,e | 38.81 | |
| 160 | 0.44f,g,h | 15.00a | 6.36 | 1.44 | 75.98a,b,c,d,e | 41.94 | |
| 6 wk | 0 | 0.47b,c,d,e,f,g | 9.17j | 6.49 | 2.32 | 72.13d,e | 41.11 |
| 20 | 0.48a,b,c,d,e,f | 13.00d,e,f | 6.49 | 2.18 | 73.25c,d,e | 38.73 | |
| 40 | 0.50a,b,c,d | 13.67b,c,d,e | 6.56 | 2.18 | 78.68a,b,c,d,e | 42.57 | |
| 80 | 0.51a,b,c | 14.67a,b | 6.55 | 2.27 | 76.85a,b,c,d,e | 40.42 | |
| 160 | 0.51a,b | 15.00a | 6.39 | 2.26 | 82.00a,b,c | 40.71 | |
| 8 wk | 0 | 0.45d,e,f,g,h | 9.50i,j | 6.32 | 2.49 | 71.20e | 40.22 |
| 20 | 0.46c,d,e,f,g,h | 12.50e,f,g | 6.44 | 2.59 | 74.52a,b,c,d,e | 41.54 | |
| 40 | 0.47b,c,d,e,f,g | 14.17a,b,c,d | 6.38 | 2.56 | 74.08b,c,d,e | 42.36 | |
| 80 | 0.49a,b,c,d,e | 15.00a | 6.27 | 2.46 | 77.22a,b,c,d,e | 43.44 | |
| 160 | 0.51a,b,c | 15.00a | 6.47 | 2.44 | 80.47a,b,c,d | 41.58 | |
| Pooled SEM | 0.003 | 0.168 | 0.017 | 0.090 | 0.442 | 0.299 | |
| Source of variation | |||||||
| Dietary natural astaxanthin levels | 0.023 | <0.001 | 1.000 | 0.586 | 0.065 | 0.386 | |
| Storage time | <0.001 | 0.100 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.320 | |
| Dietary natural astaxanthin levels × time | 0.032 | <0.001 | 0.146 | 0.237 | 0.003 | 0.743 | |
a–jMean values within a column without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Data were analyzed by GLM as a 5 × 5 factorial arrangement of dietary ASTA level and storage time as the main effects. SEM = standard error of mean values (n = 150).
Effect of dietary natural astaxanthin level on quality of eggs stored at 4°C.1
| Item | Natural astaxanthin (mg/kg) | SEM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20 | 40 | 80 | 160 | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Yolk index | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.003 | 0.457 | 0.080 | 0.496 |
| Yolk color | 9.61d | 12.37c | 13.50b | 14.66a | 14.98a | 0.168 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Yolk pH | 6.28 | 6.29 | 6.29 | 6.28 | 6.28 | 0.017 | 1.000 | 0.958 | 0.925 |
| Weight loss (%) | 1.86 | 1.90 | 1.83 | 1.89 | 1.86 | 0.090 | 0.999 | 0.991 | 0.986 |
| Haugh unit | 78.11 | 78.31 | 79.03 | 78.53 | 81.01 | 0.442 | 0.226 | 0.054 | 0.366 |
| Eggshell strength (N/cm2) | 41.06 | 40.32 | 41.78 | 40.58 | 41.86 | 0.299 | 0.373 | 0.383 | 0.577 |
a–dMean values within a row without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with orthogonal linear and quadratic contrasts.
Effect of storage time on quality of eggs stored at 4°C.1
| Item | Storage time (wk) | SEM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Yolk index | 0.51a | 0.43c | 0.43c | 0.49a | 0.48b | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.745 | <0.001 |
| Yolk color | 12.92 | 12.83 | 13.03 | 13.10 | 13.23 | 0.168 | 0.954 | 0.456 | 0.834 |
| Yolk pH | 6.00d | 6.21c | 6.34b | 6.50a | 6.37b | 0.017 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Weight loss (%) | 0.00e | 3.15a | 1.44d | 2.24c | 2.51b | 0.090 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Haugh unit | 83.06a | 81.30a,b | 78.55b,c | 76.58c | 75.50c | 0.442 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.504 |
| Eggshell strength (N/cm2) | 41.94 | 40.24 | 40.89 | 40.71 | 41.83 | 0.299 | 0.305 | 0.906 | 0.056 |
a–eMean values within a row without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with orthogonal linear and quadratic contrasts.
Effect of dietary natural astaxanthin and storage time on quality of eggs stored at 25°C1.
| Storage time | Natural astaxanthin (mg/kg) | Yolk quality parameter | Weight loss (%) | Haugh unit | Eggshell strength (N/cm2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yolk index | Yolk color | Yolk pH | |||||
| 0 wk | 0 | 0.52a | 10.71f | 6.01 | 0.00 | 83.40 | 41.92 |
| 20 | 0.51a | 11.68e,f | 6.00 | 0.00 | 83.43 | 40.23 | |
| 40 | 0.51a | 12.84c,d | 5.99 | 0.00 | 82.88 | 41.92 | |
| 80 | 0.51a | 14.47a,b | 6.00 | 0.00 | 82.25 | 42.45 | |
| 160 | 0.51a | 14.89a | 6.00 | 0.00 | 83.34 | 43.17 | |
| 2 wk | 0 | 0.36b | 9.17g | 6.51 | 0.65 | 52.48 | 41.61 |
| 20 | 0.38b | 12.17d,e | 6.32 | 0.65 | 59.08 | 42.59 | |
| 40 | 0.38b | 13.67b,c | 6.33 | 0.58 | 54.93 | 42.08 | |
| 80 | 0.37b | 14.83a | 6.30 | 0.62 | 52.38 | 41.71 | |
| 160 | 0.36b | 15.00a | 6.23 | 0.65 | 58.10 | 41.35 | |
| 4 wk | 0 | 0.25c,d | 10.83f | 6.55 | 6.36 | 34.87 | 41.54 |
| 20 | 0.26c | 13.00c,d | 6.52 | 6.62 | 36.73 | 41.95 | |
| 40 | 0.24c,d,e | 14.50a,b | 6.48 | 6.61 | 33.68 | 43.39 | |
| 80 | 0.24c,d,e | 14.83a | -∗ | 6.89 | 40.07 | 42.13 | |
| 160 | 0.24c,d,e | 15.00a | -∗ | 6.72 | 37.05 | 40.48 | |
| 6 wk | 0 | 0.15g,h | -∗ | 6.69 | 11.93 | -∗ | 42.10 |
| 20 | 0.15g,h | -∗ | 6.82 | 11.50 | -∗ | 42.74 | |
| 40 | 0.18f,g | -∗ | 6.86 | 11.57 | -∗ | 41.95 | |
| 80 | 0.20e,f | -∗ | 6.52 | 10.83 | -∗ | 41.62 | |
| 160 | 0.21d,e,f | -∗ | 6.70 | 11.41 | -∗ | 42.74 | |
| 8 wk | 0 | 0.14g,h | -∗ | 6.93 | 15.66 | -∗ | 42.56 |
| 20 | 0.13h | -∗ | 6.76 | 15.12 | -∗ | 41.80 | |
| 40 | 0.15g,h | -∗ | 6.78 | 15.40 | -∗ | 42.05 | |
| 80 | 0.15g,h | -∗ | 6.63 | 15.26 | -∗ | 43.52 | |
| 160 | 0.17f,g,h | -∗ | 6.68 | 15.28 | -∗ | 41.88 | |
| Pooled SEM | 0.011 | 0.205 | 0.030 | 0.508 | 2.145 | 0.288 | |
| Source of variation | |||||||
| Dietary natural astaxanthin levels | 0.081 | <0.001 | 0.476 | 0.909 | 0.528 | 0.986 | |
| Storage time | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.981 | |
| Dietary natural astaxanthin levels × time | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.443 | 0.944 | 0.536 | 0.996 | |
a–hMean values within a column without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
∗Not determined because the Haugh unit was very low (<25) and yolk breakage.
Data were analyzed by GLM procedure as a 5 × 5 factorial arrangement with dietary ASTA level and storage time as the main effects. SEM = standard error of mean values (n = 150).
Effect of dietary natural astaxanthin levels on quality of eggs stored at 25°C.1
| Item | Natural astaxanthin (mg/kg) | SEM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20 | 40 | 80 | 160 | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Yolk index | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.011 | 0.990 | 0.606 | 0.990 |
| Yolk color | 10.24d | 12.28c | 13.56b | 14.71a | 15.96a | 0.205 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Yolk pH | 6.54 | 6.48 | 6.49 | -∗ | -∗ | 0.038 | 0.813 | 0.607 | 0.709 |
| Weight loss (%) | 6.92 | 6.78 | 6.85 | 6.72 | 6.82 | 0.508 | 1.000 | 0.944 | 0.950 |
| Haugh unit | 56.92 | 59.75 | 60.10 | 58.23 | 62.30 | 2.145 | 0.953 | 0.522 | 0.989 |
| Eggshell strength (N/cm2) | 41.95 | 41.86 | 42.20 | 42.29 | 42.03 | 0.288 | 0.990 | 0.776 | 0.809 |
a–dMean values within a row without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
∗Not determined because the Haugh unit was very low (<25) and yolk breakage.
Data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with orthogonal linear and quadratic contrasts.
Effect of storage time on quality of eggs stored at 25°C.1
| Item | Storage time (wk) | SEM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Yolk index | 0.51a | 0.37b | 0.25c | 0.18d | 0.15e | 0.011 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Yolk color | 12.92 | 12.97 | 13.46 | -∗ | -∗ | 0.205 | 0.511 | 0.290 | 0.609 |
| Yolk pH | 6.00d | 6.33c | 6.52b | 6.72a | 6.76a | 0.030 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Weight loss (%) | 0.00e | 0.63d | 6.63c | 11.45b | 15.35a | 0.508 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Haugh unit | 83.06a | 55.40b | 36.65c | -∗ | -∗ | 2.145 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| Eggshell strength (N/cm2) | 41.94 | 41.87 | 41.89 | 42.23 | 42.36 | 0.288 | 0.976 | 0.554 | 0.771 |
a–eMean values within a row without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
∗Not determined because the Haugh unit was very low (<25) and yolk breakage.
Data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with orthogonal linear and quadratic contrasts.
Effect of dietary natural astaxanthin levels on the concentrations of astaxanthin in yolk1.
| Item | Natural astaxanthin (mg/kg) | SEM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20 | 40 | 80 | 160 | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Astaxanthin concentration (mg/kg) | 0.47e | 5.47d | 15.67c | 34.30b | 48.31a | 3.400 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
a–eMean values within a row without common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA with orthogonal linear and quadratic contrasts.