View of Egg Quality and Chemical Components of Arabic and Commercial Chicken Enriched with Omega 3 During Storage

(1)

EGG QUALITY AND CHEMICAL COMPONENTS OF ARABIC AND COMMERCIAL CHICKEN ENRICHED WITH OMEGA 3 DURING

STORAGE

Zakiah Wulandari¹⁾, Iman Rahayu Hidayati¹⁾, Risha Andriani²⁾

1) Department of Animal Production and Technology, Bogor Agricultural University,Jl. Agatis, Babakan, Kec.

Dramaga, Kabupaten Bogor, Jawa Barat 16680

2) Alumni of Department of Animal Production and Technology, Bogor Agricultural University,Jl. Agatis, Babakan, Kec. Dramaga, Kabupaten Bogor, Jawa Barat 16680

*Corresponding email: [email protected] Submitted 28 February 2022; Accepted 21 March 2022

ABSTRACT

The aim of this research was to study the effect of storage periode and egg types on quality and chemical components of DHA enriched egg. One hundred and twenty six each control and DHA enriched eggs used in this research. The research had been implemented using the general linier models procedure included the storage period and eggs treathment and interaction between these factors, comparison test is calculated based on Tukey Test. Internal egg quality was observed, eq,: weight of egg, yolk color and water activity. Internal quality were influenced by egg type. Albumen height and haugh unit value were influenced by both type of chicken and storage periods. Fat and cholesterol levels of egg DHA-rich Arabic and commercial were lower than those of control. However, the percentage of omega-3 fatty acids components were higher in DHA-rich Arabic and commercial than in control eggs.

Keywords: Arabic chicken; docosa hexanoic acid; egg quality; commercial chicken

(2)

INTRODUCTION

Egg has an important role for Indonesian people due to it has role as a source of animal protein that is most often consumed by Indonesian people, which is fulfilled from chicken eggs and local breeds.

Local chicken egg production was 250 970.76 tons in 2020 according to the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health (2020). Arabic chicken is included in the category of local chicken.

Egg contains complete nutrition and are easy to digest, besides that the price is cheap compared to other animal protein sources such as meat and milk. Various innovations on chicken eggs are currently developing in the community, one of which is eggs rich in DHA (Docosa Hexanoic Acid). These eggs are produced from laying hens that are reared by feeding them with 5% omega-3 supplements to produce eggs with 10 times the DHA content (Patent ID P0023652). One of the disadvantages of unsaturated fatty acids is that they are easily oxidized during storage.

Egg with the content of DHA are food ingredients that have good nutritional content and contain omega-3 fatty acids that are easily oxidized, so it is necessary to know the shelf life so that the quality is maintained (Iman Rahayu 2013). Generally, traders still store chicken eggs at room temperature. At temperatures above 20^oC, eggs are easy to evaporate with longer storage time which causes a decrease in egg quality.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the interior and chemical quality of Arabic and commercial chicken eggs and contains og DHA during the storage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ingredients used were 126 control

eggs (63 arabic chicken eggs and 63 commercial chicken eggs) and 126 DHA-

rich eggs (63 arabic chicken eggs and 63 commercial chicken eggs) which were

fed with omega-3 supplementation with a content of 5%, which was obtained from the maintenance of 32 adult Arabic chickens

aged 20 weeks and 32 chickens aged 45 weeks.

Procedure

Egg collection was carried out in the afternoon in the poultry coop and then brought using an egg tray to the Poultry Laboratory of the Faculty of Animal Science, IPB. Eggs are stored at room temperature, each time of storage 3 Arabic

chicken eggs rich with DHA (AO), 3 commercial chicken eggs rich with DHA

(RO), 3 eggs from control Arabic chicken (ANO), and 3 commercial chicken eggs (RNO) were taken.

Observed Variables

The variables observed in this study were egg weight, egg white height, egg yolk color, shell thickness, aw value, HU value, water content, fat, protein, colesterol, egg yolk fatty acid measurement.

Design and Data Analysis

The experimental design used in this study was a completely randomized design

with a 3x4 factorial pattern with 2 replications. Shelf life (3,6,9,12,15.18 and

21 d) as the first factor and egg type (ANO, AO, RNO, and RO) as the second factor.

The data obtained were analyzed using

*Corresponding author:

Zakiah Wulandari

Email: [email protected]

Department of Animal Production and Technology, Bogor Agricultural University, Jl. Agatis, Babakan, Kec. Dramaga, Kabupaten Bogor, Jawa Barat 16680

How to cite:

Wulandari, Z., Hidayati, I. R., & Andriani, R.

(2022). Egg Quality and Chemical Components of Arabic and Commercial Chicken Enriched with Omega 3 During Storage. Jurnal Ilmu dan Teknologi Hasil Ternak (JITEK), 17 (1), 10-18

(3)

analysis of variance (ANOVA). The influential treatments were then tested using the Tukey test to find out the differences between the significantly different treatments (Steel and Torrie 1993).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Storage of Egg

The quality of eggs with DHA (Docosa Hexanoic Acid) can be seen based on interior factors and chemical quality. The

interior factors are egg white height, HU value, egg yolk weight, egg weight, egg yolk color, shell thickness, and egg Aw value, while chemical quality can be seen in accordance with water content, fat, protein and omega-3 fatty acid content.

Egg Weight

Egg weight is a factor used to determine the Haugh Unit value. The average egg weight value is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Average weight of chicken eggs during storage.

Shelf Life (d)

Type of eggs

ANO AO RNO RO Average ±SD

---g---

3 39.97±3.97 39.17±0.31 63.43±0.86 64.64±0.52 51.80 ± 1.42 6 43.59±1.84 41.95±0.23 59.13±2.86 60.17±1.60 51.21 ±1.63 9 41.96±0.74 41.16±1.93 62.71±1.21 60.41±3.08 51.56 ±1.74 12 41.79±0.25 39.97±2.11 63.14±4.53 58.34±5.42 50.81 ±3.08 15 41.18±2.27 39.62±0.86 57.54±0.30 58.97±6.96 49.33 ±2.60 18 38.89±0.75 36.90±3.27 62.22±5.69 57.65±3.48 48.92 ±3.30 21 37.01±2.07 40.19±2.45 60.63±2.92 59.89±0.90 48.93 ± 2.09 Average±SD 40.63±2.59a 9.85±2.09a 61.25±3.19b 60.01±3.57b

Description: 1. a,b Different letters in the numbers in the same row show a very significant difference (P<0.01)

2. ANO = control arabic chicken eggs; AO= Arabic chicken eggs rich in DHA;

RNO= control commercial chicken eggs; RO = commercial chicken eggs rich with DHA; SD= standard deviation.

Dealing with results of the analysis of variance, there was no interaction between shelf life and egg type on egg weight, but egg type had a very significant effect (P<0.01) on egg weight. This is due to the different types of chickens, namely ANO and AO are Arabic chicken eggs, while RNO and RO are Lohman strain chicken eggs which have different egg weight ranges. Based on the research of Yumna et al., (2014) the average egg weight of Arab Silver and Gold chickens is 42.75±2.22 g and 46.81±2.41 g, respectively. Based on the research of Iriyanti et al., (2011) the range of egg weight of arab chicken is 39.24-47.36 g.

Based on research by Dirgahayu et al., (2016) the average egg weight of the isa brown strain was 64.08 ± 6.03 g while the lohmann brown strain was 60.82 ± 5.19 g.

The average weight of Lohman Brown strain eggs is 63 g (Widyantara et al. 2017).

Weight of the eggs in the sample ranged from 41.14 g to 80.99 g having a mean value of 59.96 g (Jayasena et al. 2012). Brand D cage-free, organic eggs (Brown eggs) had the largest average egg at 62.4 + 0.323 g and were significantly larger than the enriched

cage-free brand C eggs Brown eggs) at 59.6 + 0.344 g (Hisasaga et al., 2020).

The average weight of arabic chicken eggs (39.85 and 40.63 g) was much lower than the average weight of commercial chicken eggs. In theory, storage will reduce egg weight based on research by Khatun et al. (2016). The results obtained are contrary to the theory, this is due to the results obtained by the average storage time of two different types of eggs.

(4)

Egg White Height

Egg white height is a factor that affects the Haugh Unit value. The results of the analysis of variance pointed out that there was no interaction between egg type and

storage time on egg white height. Egg type and storage time had a very significant effect (P<0.01) on egg white height. The results obtained were lower ANO values than AO, RNO, and RO treatments (Table 2).

Table 2. Average egg white heigh during storage (cm) Shelf Life

(d)

Type of eggs

---cm--- 3 0.35±0.01 0.44±0.02 0.59±0.10 0.75±0.13 0.53±0.18a 6 0.38±0.08 0.43±0.06 0.54±0.09 0.47±0.27 0.45±0.13ab 9 0.32±0.04 0.42±0.08 0.52±0.08 0.30±0.15 0.39±0.12abc 12 0.24±0.05 0.42±0.16 0.43±0.01 0.35±0.02 0.36±0.10bc 15 0.22±0.10 0.29±0.04 0.30±0.01 0.27±0.06 0.27±0.06c 18 0.16±0.06 0.41±0.02 0.29±0.04 0.19±0.00 0.26±0.11c 21 0.23±0.15 0.33±0.07 0.32±0.12 0.18±0.07 0.26±0.11c Average±SD 0.28±0.12y 0.42±0.10x 0.45±0.17x 0.41±0.21x

The lowest egg white height is the control Arabic chicken egg. This is because on the 18th day of storage there is a decrease in egg white heigh which is sharp enough that it will lower the average heigh of the egg whites in control Arabic chicken egg.

According to Wulandari (2004) the decline in egg white quality is caused by evaporation of water and the release of gases, such as CO2, NH3, H2 dan H2S as a result of the degradation of organic materials. Khatun et. al., (2016), who reported a significant decreased from 6.76 to 4.12 mm in albumen height (P<0.05) in stored eggs at 7 d. The difference in the Shuvra, Isa brown and Bob White strains does not affect the egg white height value.

Jayasena et. al., (2012), who reported a significant decreased from 4.93 to 2.94 mm in albumen height (P<0.05) in stored eggs at 5 d.

The Haugh Unit Value

The Haugh Unit (HU) value is a measure of the quality of the inner egg obtained from the relationship between egg

white height and egg weight. The average value of HU is presented in Table 3. The results of the analysis of variance showed that it did not undergo interaction between egg type and storage time on the HU value.

Egg type and storage time had a very significant effect on the HU value (P<0.01).

The HU value decreased with the longer storage time, this can be seen in Table 3. The average HU value shows that storage time can reduce egg quality, namely from AA quality at 3 d old, A quality at 6 d old to B quality at 9-21 d ( USDA 2000). This decrease in HU is due to the dilution of egg whites and yolks (Jayasena et al. 2012).

Research by Al Obaidi et al., (2011) showed that the HU value of locally produced chicken eggs had a lower HU value, namely 85.5 + 1.84 compared to imported eggs, which was 89.70 + 1.78. The HU values are higher than the HU values obtained in this study. This is due to the well maintained egg production and handling system in accordance with Good Farming Practices (GMP) and Good Handling Practices (GHP).

(5)

Mean Haugh unit values significantly decreased (p<0.05) with the storage period at 30℃ from 67.03 to 43.2 (1 and 5 d storage) (Jayasena et al., 2012).

The Haugh Unit in Oravka (71.46 ± 1.64) was lower than in Rhode

Island Red (74.45 ± 1.53) (Hanusová et al., 2015). Research by Wijedasa et. al., (2020)

showed haugh unit values have shown a decreasing trend with increasing storage time. However, there was no significant difference found between two types of chicken eggs with increasing storage time.

During 0 and 1^st week, HU values of Shaver brown eggs were significantly higher than that of village chicken eggs.

Table 3. The average value of HU value during storage

Shelf Life (d) Type of eggs

3 64.03± 1.73 72.53± 1.89 74.26± 8.07 84.92± 7.66 73.93±9.04a 6 64.58± 6.57 70.13± 5.37 71.60± 6.51 61.65±26.58 66.99±11.66a 9 59.50± 4.38 69.88± 8.36 68.34± 7.49 41.52±21.88 59.81±15.31ab 12 49.65± 6.63 69.13±15.37 59.51± 3.09 52.55± 6.15 57.71±10.54ab 15 46.80±16.47 58.31± 4.20 46.32± 1.28 41.28± 3.86 48.18±9.38b 18 40.59±10.40 71.29± 0.00 40.63±10.49 26.67± 4.00 44.80±18.38b 21 49.87±21.84 62.17± 5.77 44.75±20.40 19.54±20.57 48.49±15.18b Average±SD 53.57±12.35y 67.63± 7.47x 57.92±15.31xy 49.39±21.07y

Egg Yolk Color

Egg yolk color is often used as a consumer indicator of egg quality. The average value of egg yolk color is presented in Table 4.

The results of the analysis of variance showed that there was no interaction

between shelf life and egg type on egg yolk color, but egg type had a very significant effect on egg yolk color (P<0.01). The average color of the yolk differs based on the type of egg treatment. Egg yolk color rich in DHA showed a lower yolk score than control eggs (Table 4).

Table 4. Average egg yolk color during storage.

Shelf life (d) Type of eggs

3 8.50±0.71 6.50±0.71 6.50±0.71 6.00±0.00 6.88± 0.53 6 9.00±0.00 7.50±0.71 6.00±0.00 5.50±0.71 7.00± 0.36 9 8.50±0.71 7.00±0.00 6.00±0.00 6.00±1.41 6.88± 0.53 12 7.50±0.00 6.50±0.71 7.50±0.71 5.00±0.00 6.63± 0.36 15 8.00±0.71 7.00±0.00 6.50±0.71 7.00±1.41 7.13± 0.71 18 7.00±0.00 6.50±2.12 7.00±0.00 5.50±0.71 6.50± 0.71 21 8.50±0.71 6.50±0.71 6.50±0.71 5.50±0.71 6.75± 0.71 Average ±SD 8.29±0.73a 6.79±0.80b 6.57±0.65b 5.79±0.89c

(6)

This could be due to the factor of giving omega-3 supplements which caused the yolk color of DHA-rich eggs to be paler than control eggs. According to Ismawati (2011) feeding with omega-3 supplements to quail also produces eggs with a paler yolk color. According to Iman Rahayu and Komari (2005) eggs rich in DHA have a paler yolk color characteristic, because the bright yolk color (yellow to orange) is obtained from laying hens cultivated with modified feed containing egg yolk pigment, while omega- 3 is not modified with egg yolk pigment content.

The intensity of yolk pigmentation decreased over time under different temperatures. However, this reduction was

significant (P < 0.05) only from the 28th storage day in unrefrigerated eggs then decreasing until the 35th day (Barbosa et al, 2011).

The Value of Water Activity (Aw)

Aw value is often used as an indicator of product shelf life. The results of the analysis of variance indicated that there was no interaction between shelf life and egg type on the Aw value, however the type of egg affected the Aw value (P<0.05). Based on the type of egg AO had a lower Aw value than the treatment of egg types ANO, RNO, and RO (Table 5). This is due to arabic chicken eggs with the addition of DHA higher fat content than others (Table 6).

Table 5. Average Aw value of eggs during storage.

Shelf life (weeks)

Type of eggs

1 0.90±0.00 0.89±0.00 0.91±0.01 0.89±0.00 0,90± 0.00 2 0.90±0.00 0.89±0.00 0.91±0.00 0.90±0.00 0,90 ± 0.00 3 0.90±0.00 0.89±0.00 0.90±0.01 0.90±0.01 0,90 ± 0.01 Average ±SD 0.90±0.00a 0.89±0.00b 0.90±0.00a 0.90±0.00ab

Description: 1. a, b, Different letters in the numbers in the same row show significant differences (P<0.05)

2. ANO = control arabic chicken eggs; AO= Arabic chicken eggs rich with DHA;

RNO= control commercial chicken eggs; RO = commercial chicken eggs rich in DHA; SD = standard deviation; Aw = Activity Water.

Table 6. Chemical Quality of Eggs

No Variable AO ANO RO RNO

1. Mositure Content 49.20 49.67 50.52 50.19

2. Lipid Content 25 28.50 27.15 26.13

3. Cholesterol 14.4 14.74 14.57 15.30

Description: ANO = control arabic chicken eggs; AO= Arabic chicken eggs rich with DHA;

RNO= control commercial chicken eggs; RO = commercial chicken eggs rich with DHA;

Chemical Quality

Chemical quality measured in this study only water content, fat content and cholesterol. Measurements were carried out in a composite manner and compared descriptively. The results of measuring the chemical quality of eggs can be seen in Table 6. Based on Table 6, the water content of eggs is in the range of 49.20 to 50.52%.

The fat and cholesterol levels of AO and RO

were lower than ANO and RNO. This is similar to the research conducted by Suripta and Astuti (2006) increasing feed containing omega-3 reduces cholesterol levels of quail egg yolks.

Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content

The results of the measurement of fatty acids in egg yolks can be seen in Table 7. The fatty acids detected were saturated

(7)

fatty acids and unsaturated fatty acids. Three omega-3 fatty acids were detected, namely linolenic acid (c18:3), Cis-5,8,11,14,17- Eicosapentanoic Acid, C20:5n3, Cis-4,7,10, 13, 16, 19- Docosahexaenoic Acid, C22:6n3. The percentage of omega-3 fatty acids AO and RO is higher than ANO and

RNO. In the fatty acid Cis-5,8,11,14,17- Eicosapentanoic Acid, C20:5n3 no omega-3 fatty acids were detected. These results indicated that the sample of eggs containing omega-3 in both Arabic and commercial chickens significantly increased the percentage of omega-3 fatty acids.

Table 7. Fatty Acid Content of Eggs (% fatty acids)

No Fatty Acid AO ANO RO RNO

1. Myristic Acid C14:0 0.68 0.30 0.68 0.41

2. Myristoleic Acid, C14:1 0.16 0.06 0.17 0.08

3. Pentadecanoic Acid C15:0 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.06

4. Palmitic Acid C16:0 18.55 18.47 18.09 18.07

5. Palmitooelic Acid C16:1 3.28 2.02 3.15 2.34

6. Heptadecanoid Acid C17:0 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.14

7. Cis-10-Heptadecanoid Acid, C17:1 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.12

8. Stearic Acid, C18:0 4.14 5.34 4.37 4.23

9. Elaidic Acid, C18:0 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.16

10. Oleic Acid C18:1n9c 28.46 32.45 26.82 32.49

11. Linoleic Acid C18:2n6c 9.96 9.82 10.72 11.69

12. Arachidonic Acid C20:0 n.d 0.02 0.02 0.02

13. Linoleic Acid C18:2n6c 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.09

14. Cis-11-Eikosaenoic Acid C20:1 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.19

15. Linoleic Acid C18:3n3 0.36 0.19 0.46 0.31 16. Cis-11, 14- Eikosaenoic Acid C20:2 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.13

17. Behenic Acid, C22:0 n.d 0.01 0.10 n.d

18. Cis-8,11,14- Eikosaenoic Acid, C20:3n6 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.12

19. Araki, C20:4n6 0.54 1.27 0.62 0.74

20. Lignoceric Acid, C24:0 n.d n.d 0.02 n.d

21. Cis-5,8,11,14,17-eikoenoic Acid, C20:5n3 0.29 n.d 0.38 0.04

22. Nervonic Acid, C24:1 n.d 0.02 0.02 n.d

23. Cis-4,7,10, 13, 16, 19- Dekosaenoic Acid, C22:6n3

2.64 0.40 2.77 0.63

24. Fatty Acid Total 70.01 71.31 69.32 72.05

ANO = control arabic chicken eggs

AO = Arabic chicken eggs rich with DHA RNO = control commercial chicken eggs RO = commercial chicken eggs rich in DHA

These results are in accordance with the research of Ceylan et.al., (2011), differences in omega-3 sources of feed in laying hens produce fatty acids with different concentrations.

Based on research by Al-Nasser et al (2011), increasing the concentration of flaxseed in feed increased the concentration of omega 3 and omega 6 at 4, 8 and 22 weeks of rearing laying hens.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of egg, namely egg weight, egg yolk color and egg weight were affected by the type of egg. Egg white height and HU value were influenced by egg type and storage time. Based on the HU value, eggs are still worth consuming until the 21st day. The fat and cholesterol levels of DHA- rich Arabic chicken eggs and chicken eggs

(8)

with the rich of DHA and those were lower than those of control Arabic chicken eggs and control chicken eggs. The percentage of omega-3 fatty acids Arabic chicken eggs rich in DHA and DHA-rich chicken eggs was higher than that of control Arabic chicken eggs and control chicken eggs.

REFERENCES

Al-Nasser, A. Y., E. Al-Saff, A., K. Abdulla, F., E. Al-Baho, M., Ragheb, G., & M.

Mashaly, M. (2011). Effect of adding flaxseed in the diet of laying hens on both production of omega-3 enriched eggs and on production performance.

International Journal of Poultry Science, 10(10), 825–831. https://doi.

org/10.3923/ijps.2011.825.831

Al-Obaidi, F. A., Al-Shadeed, S. M. J., &

Al-Dalawi, R. H. (2011). Quality, chemical and microbial characteristics of table eggs at retail stores in Baghdad.

International Journal of Poultry Science, 10(5), 381–385. https://doi.

org/10.3923/ijps.2011.381.385

Barbosa, V. C., Gaspar, A., Calixto, L. F. L.,

& Agostinho, T. S. P. (2011). Stability of the pigmentation of egg yolks enriched with omega-3 and carophyll stored at room temperature and under refrigeration. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 40(7), 1540–1544. https://

doi.org/10.1590/S1516-359820110007 00020

Ceylan, N., Ciftçi, I., Mızrak, C., Kahraman, Z., & Efil, H. (2011). Influence of different dietary oil sources on performance and fatty acid profile of egg yolk in laying hens. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 20(1), 71–

83. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66159 /2011

Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan. (2018). Statistika Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan 2018. Departemen Pertanian.

Dirgahayu, F. I., Septinova, D., & Nova, K.

(2016). Perbandingan kualitas eksternal telur ayam ras strain isa

brown dan lohmann brown. Jurnal Ilmiah Peternakan Terpadu, 4(1), 1–5.

Hanusova, E., Hrnčár, C., Hanus, A., &

Oravcova, M. (2015). Effect of breed on some parameters of egg quality in laying hens. Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica, 18(01), 12–24. https://doi .org/10.15414/afz.2015.18.01.12-24 Hisasaga, C., Griffin, S. E., & Tarrant, K. J.

(2020). Survey of egg quality in commercially available table eggs.

Poultry Science, 99(12), 7202–7206.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.049 Iman, R. H. ., & Komari. (2005). Introduksi

suplemen omega-3 pada pakan untuk produksi daging ayam rendah kolesterol. Prosiding Seminar Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Iman, R. H., & Komari. (2013). Inovasi paten suplemen omega-3 berbahan baku ramah lingkungan untuk produksi telur kaya DHA serta prospek bisnisnya. In Inovasi dan Technopreneurship. Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Iriyanti, N., Sumarmono, J., Setyawati, &

Rahayu, S. (2011). Kualitas telur ayam lokal-arab dengan berbagai imbangan minyak ikan lemuru dan minyak kelapa sawit dalam ransum. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Prospek Dan Potensi Sumberdaya Ternak Lokal Dalam Menunjang Ketahanan Pangan Hewani.

Ismawati, B. (2011). Bobot, komposisi fisik, dan kualitas interior telur puyuh (Coturnix-coturnix japonica) yang diberi suplemen Omega-3. Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Khatun, H., Rashid, M. A., Faruque, S., Islam, M. N., & Ali, M. Y. (2016).

Study on egg quality characteristics of three commercial layer strains under different storage conditions.

International Journal of Animal Resources, 63(1), 63 – 70.

Steel, R. G. ., & Torrie, J. H. (n.d.). Prinsip dan Prosedur Statistika (2nd ed.). PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Suripta, H., & Astuti. (2006). Pengaruh penggunaan minyak lemuru dan

(9)

minyak sawit dalam ransum terhadap rasio asam lemak omega-3 dan omega- 6 dalam telur burung puyuh (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture, 32(1), 22–27.

United States Departement of Agriculture.

(2000). Egg Grading Manual (75th ed.). Quorn. Foods Inc.

Widyantara, P. R. A., Kristina Dewi, G. A.

M., & Ariana, I. N. T. (2017). Pengaruh lama penyimpanan terhadap kualitas telur konsumsi ayam kampung dan ayam lohman brown. Majalah Ilmiah Peternakan, 20(1), 5. https://doi.org/

10.24843/MIP.2017.v20.i01.p02 Wijedasa, W. M. R. M., Wickramasinghe,

Y. H. S. T., Vidanarachchi, J. K., &

Himali, S. M. C. (2020). Comparison of egg quality characteristics of different poultry species. Journal of Agricultural Science, 12(11), 331–342.

https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v12n11p331 Wulandari, Z. (2004). Sifat fisikokimia dan

total mikroba telur itik asin hasil teknik penggaraman dan lama penyimpanan yang berbeda. Media Peternakan, 38–45.

Yumna, M. H., Zakaria, A., &

Nurgiartiningsih, V. M. A. (2014).

Kuantitas dan kualitas telur ayam arab (Gallus turcicus) silver dan gold.

Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Peternakan (Indonesian Journal of Animal Science), 23(2), 19–22.