DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Egg Testing Devices for Internal Egg Quality Measurements

계란 할란검사장비의 성능 비교

  • Kim, Dong Jun (Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation) ;
  • Jeon, Seung Yob (Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation) ;
  • Kim, Hee Won (Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation) ;
  • Won, Jea Sun (Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation) ;
  • Lee, Jae Cheong (Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Woo (Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Animal Bioscience and Technology, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2016.10.18
  • Accepted : 2016.11.16
  • Published : 2016.12.31

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare three commercially available egg testing devices for measuring egg quality. The devices used were a Laser-type (automatic), a Ultrasonic-type (automatic), and a Probe-type (manual). Fresh eggs weighing 60~68 grams were obtained from a commercial hen farm. Three trials were conducted. In Trial 1, a total of 50 eggs were successively analyzed by the three egg testing devices. In Trial 2, fresh eggs were successively analyzed by a combination of two egg testing devices. In Trial 3, a total of 600 eggs (weighing 60~68 grams) laid by same flock were selected, further divided into three sub-groups with a total of 200 eggs, and analyzed by an egg testing device. In Trials 1 and 2, no apparent difference was observed in egg weight between egg testing devices. However, albumin height was scored highest in the Ultrasonic-type egg tester followed by the Probe-type and Laser-type (Trials 1 and 2). Consequently, the Haugh unit was similarly altered. Yolk color was highest in the Laser-type egg tester followed by the Ultrasonic-type and Probe-type (Trials 1 and 2). When fresh eggs laid by a single flock were independently analyzed by three devices, egg weight did not differ, but albumin height and Haugh unit were higher (p<0.05) in the Ultrasonic-type egg tester than in the Probe-type or Laser-type testers. However, Laser-type testers produced higher (p<0.05) yolk color values than the Ultrasonic-type or Probe-type egg testers. In conclusion, the commercially available egg testing devices exhibited performance differences in measuring egg qualities, which warrants further consideration as to whether the magnitude of bias and precision between the devices could be acceptable in the egg grading system, especially when assessing eggs stored for certain durations.

본 실험은 국내 외에서 시판 중인 계란검사장비 3종인 레이저형, 탕침형 그리고 초음파형의 성능을 평가하고자 실시하였다. 실험에 사용한 신선란은 단일 계군에서 산란한 특란을 선발하여 사용하였다. 실험 1에서는 동일한 계란을 순차적으로 3종의 장비를 이용하여 분석하였다. 실험 2에서는 동일한 계란을 순차적으로 2종의 장비를 이용하여 분석하였으며, 실험 3에서는 동일한 계군에서 산란한 계란 200씩을 각각의 할란검사장비를 이용하여 난질을 분석하였다. 분석항목으로는 난중, 농후난백높이, 호우유닛 그리고 난황색을 측정하였다. 실험 1과 2에서는 장비에 따른 난중의 차이는 발견되지 않았지만, 농후난백 높이와 호우유닛의 수치가 초음파형에서 가장 높았으며, 그 다음으로 탕침형, 레이저형순으로 조사되었다. 동일한 계군에서 산란한 계란을 각각 할란검사장비를 이용하여 분석한 결과, 난중에서는 차이가 없었지만, 초음파형에서 가장 높은 난백고와 호우유닛을 나타내었다. 하지만 난황색은 레이저형에서 가장 높은 결과를 나타내었다. 결론적으로 신선란을 대상으로 조사한 할란검사장비의 난질평가 결과는 장비에 따른 차이가 있는 것으로 조사되었다. 비록 장비간의 상관계수는 높게 계산되었지만, 동일 계란에 따른 호우유닛 결과는 장비에 따른 편의(bias)와 넓은 신뢰한계를 나타내었다. 이러한 결과는 호우유닛이 높은 신선란을 대상으로 품질을 평가한다면 어떤 장비를 사용하더라도 계란의 품질 등급에는 차이가 없겠지만, 일정기간 저장되어 호우유닛이 떨어진 계란을 대상으로 품질을 평가한다면 장비에 따라서 계란 등급에 차이가 날 수 있는 것을 의미한다. 하지만 본 연구에서는 동일한 계란을 할란 후 순차적으로 측정하여, 난황과 난백 시료 이동에 따른 기계적인 오차를 고려할 수 없기 때문에 향후 이러한 방법을 보완하여 할란검사장비의 성능을 평가할 수 있는 기법의 개발이 필요하겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdel-Nour N, Ngadi M, Prasher S, Karimi Y 2011 Prediction of egg freshness and albumen quality using visible/near infrared spectroscopy. Food and Bioprocess Technology 4:731-736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-009-0265-0
  2. Chung SH, Lee KW 2014 Effect of hen age, storage duration and temperature on egg quality in laying hens. Int J Poultry Sci 13:634-636. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2014.634.636
  3. Giavarina D 2015. Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 25:141-151. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.015
  4. Hanneman SK 2008 Design, analysis and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care 19:223-234.
  5. Keener KM, McAvoy KC, Foegeding JB, Curtis PA, Anderson KE, Osborne JA 2006 Effect of testing temperature on internal egg quality measurements. Poultry Sci 85:550-555. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.3.550
  6. Silversides FG, Twizeyimana F, Villeneuve P 1993 A study relating to the validity of the Haugh unit correction for egg weight in fresh eggs. Poultry Sci 72:760-764. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0720760
  7. Silversides FG, Villeneuve P 1994 Is the Haugh unit correction for egg weight valid for eggs stored at room temperature. Poultry Sci 73:50-55. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0730050