International Journal of Food Properties

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ljfp20

Exploring the physical characteristics of eggs

for consumption and industrial use in Kosovo: a
comprehensive quality analysis

Mergim Mestani, Medin Zeqiri, Pajtim Bytyçi, Rozeta Hasalliu, Elena Kokthi,
Ibrahim Mehmeti, Waseem Khalid, Nasser A Al-Shabib, Muhammad Zubair
Khalid, Felix Kwashie Madilo & Emmanuel Letsyo

To cite this article: Mergim Mestani, Medin Zeqiri, Pajtim Bytyçi, Rozeta Hasalliu, Elena Kokthi,
Ibrahim Mehmeti, Waseem Khalid, Nasser A Al-Shabib, Muhammad Zubair Khalid, Felix
Kwashie Madilo & Emmanuel Letsyo (2024) Exploring the physical characteristics of eggs for
consumption and industrial use in Kosovo: a comprehensive quality analysis, International
Journal of Food Properties, 27:1, 341-351, DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2024.2317731

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2024.2317731

Published with license by Taylor & Francis

Group, LLC.© 2024 Mergim Mestani, Medin
Zeqiri, Pajtim Bytyçi, Rozeta Hasalliu, Elena
Kokthi, Ibrahim Mehmeti, Waseem Khalid,
Nasser A Al-Shabib, Muhammad Zubair
Khalid, Felix Kwashie Madilo and Emmanuel
Letsyo

Published online: 23 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljfp20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES
2024, VOL. 27, NO. 1, 341–351
https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2024.2317731

Exploring the physical characteristics of eggs for consumption and

industrial use in Kosovo: a comprehensive quality analysis
Mergim Mestania, Medin Zeqiria, Pajtim Bytyçia, Rozeta Hasalliub, Elena Kokthib,
Ibrahim Mehmetia, Waseem Khalidc,d, Nasser A Al-Shabibe, Muhammad Zubair Khalidf,
Felix Kwashie Madilog, and Emmanuel Letsyog
a
Faculty of Food Science and Biotechnology, UBT-Higher Education Institution, Kosovo; bFaculty of Biotechnology and
Food, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania; cUniversity Institute of Food Science and Technology, The
University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan; dDepartment of Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Sciences and
Technologies, University of Castilla La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain; eDepartment of Food Science and Nutrition, King
Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; fDepartment of Food Science, Government College University Faisalabad,
Faisalabad, Pakistan; gDepartment of Food Science and Technology, Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Kosovo, like the global trend, is experiencing a rising demand for Received 1 September 2023
eggs, emphasizing the necessity for stringent regulatory oversight to main­ Revised 25 January 2024
tain freshness and meet increasing consumer and industrials’ needs. The Accepted 7 February 2024
research aimed to evaluate the compliance of eggs in the local market with KEYWORDS
specified quality criteria outlined in the local Administrative Directive and EC Egg quality; internal
Regulation. Several quality parameters were scrutinized, including egg parameters; external
weight, length, width, specific gravity, air cell, Haugh units (HU), yolk and parameters; farmers;
egg white weights, yolk color intensity, shell weight, and shell thickness. Key Pearson’s correlation
parameters varied significantly among Fresh Eggs and farms F1 to F5. Most
groups displayed significantly lower egg weights, yolk, and egg white
weights compared to Fresh Eggs (p < 0.01). Among different groups, Fresh
Eggs have the highest Haugh unit and the lowest specific gravity, indicating
superior egg quality. Among groups, F4 has the lowest Haugh unit (p <
0.00001), and F3/F4 exhibited the largest air cell size (p < 0.0001), while F5/
Fresh Eggs were the smallest, with no significant differences between them­
selves (p > 0.05). Fresh eggs outshined in all groups in relation to size and
yolk color (p < 0.0001). The study found positive correlations (p < 0.01)
between egg weight and internal parameters, including yolk and white
weights. Eggshell weight also correlated positively with yolk and white
weights (p < 0.05). Conversely, Haugh unit and air cell exhibited negative
correlations (p < 0.01), indicating their influence on egg dimensions.
Classification based on regulation revealed distinct categories for consump­
tion and industrial use. These findings contribute valuable insights to
Kosovo’s egg market, impacting standards and promoting fair competition.

Introduction
Eggs are among the most nutritional and widely consumed foods. They are known as a “miracle food”
because of their high protein content, different amino acids, and the perfect balance of unsaturated
and saturated fatty acids, while being low in carbohydrates and trans fats.[1] They are utilized

CONTACT Medin Zeqiri medin.zeqiri@ubt-uni.net Faculty of Food Science and Biotechnology, UBT-Higher Education
Institution, Kalabria, str. Rexhep Krasniqi Nr. 56, Prishtina 10000, Kosovo; Muhammad Zubair Khalid zubairkhalid730@gmail.com
Department of Food Science, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan; Felix Kwashie Madilo
fmadilo@htu.edu.gh Department of Food Science and Technology, Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana
© 2024 Mergim Mestani, Medin Zeqiri, Pajtim Bytyçi, Rozeta Hasalliu, Elena Kokthi, Ibrahim Mehmeti, Waseem Khalid, Nasser A Al-Shabib, Muhammad
Zubair Khalid, Felix Kwashie Madilo and Emmanuel Letsyo Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this
article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
342 F. K. MADILO ET AL.

extensively in the food industry because of their high nutritional value and useful functional qualities,
including coagulation, gelling, and emulsification.[2] In the baking, confectionery, culinary and other
industries, eggs are commonly utilized as primary or secondary components.[3,4]
In most countries worldwide, especially in the last decade, due to the high demand for eggs for
human consumption and the industry,[5,6] as well as because the eggs of chickens have high nutritional
values and are considered as a complete nutritious product, their production and trade are constantly
increasing and in satisfactory parameters.[1,7–12]
Food and Agriculture Organization shows that worldwide egg production has increased by 29.2%,
from 67.0 million metric tons in 2012 to 86.6 million in 2020.[7] Of the total production of eggs,
approximately 30% are used in the second transformation industry producing liquid products from
eggs and several solid wastes of eggshells.[13] In Kosovo, poultry farming is one of the most developed
industries. Commercial egg production in Kosovo is mainly oriented toward the production of eggs
for consumption and their use in industry.[14]
The Green Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development,[14] shows that
in 2020, the total number of poultries in Kosovo has increased by 4.4% compared to the previous year,
thus meeting the needs for egg consumption with about 99%. As for the poultry production industry
in Kosovo, 73.5% are laying hens, and egg production in 2020 in commercial farms and family farms is
estimated to have been around 366 million eggs, compared to 350 million eggs produced in 2016.[14]
While the average consumption per capita in Kosovo is calculated to be 206 eggs/per year. The EU
average is 210 eggs per year per capita. However, even among EU nations, there were differences in egg
intake: Poland (145 eggs) and Portugal (146 eggs) had lower levels of egg consumption than Spain (273
eggs) and Denmark (248 eggs).[15] Beyond its nutritional content, studies have indicated that the
physical characteristics of an egg (external and internal), hold crucial significance for both consumers,
food industry as well as producers.[12] Additionally, consumer preferences are influenced by socio-
cultural factors in addition to the external and internal qualities,[16]
One of the most important factors in determining the quality of an egg is its freshness, especially
when evaluating the yolk and white contents. This is because the nutritional value, processing, by-
products, marketing, and selling price of eggs are all influenced by their freshness.[2,17–24]
Furthermore, freshness is the most important index used in the transport and marketing of eggs,
and it has been reported that consumers often use this parameter to evaluate the quality of eggs and
their nutritional value.[19,23,25] The freshness attribute of the products is a highly evaluated attribute for
other food products in Kosovo.[26] It has been reported that in addition to environmental,[23,24] and
genetic factors,[27] egg quality, is also affected by other factors such as diet, chicken age, stress,
temperature, lighting, medications used, diseases, management and growth system etc.[2,28–30]
The primary purpose of this study was to perform a complete and comprehensive analysis of the
physical characteristics of eggs in Kosovo, with a special focus on their suitability for both consumer
consumption and industrial use in accordance with local and European regulations. Parameters
related to egg quality were also compared between farms. A variety of external and internal quality
parameters were included in the physical characteristics assessment, including egg weight, egg length,
egg width, specific gravity, air cell, Haugh units (HU), egg yolk weight, egg white weight, yolk color
intensity, shell weight and yolk thickness of eggs from various sources in Kosovo. The findings of this
study will contribute to a deeper understanding of the physical characteristics of eggs in Kosovo,
facilitating informed decisions for both consumers and industrial stakeholders. Additionally, the
insights gained from this research can be valuable for policymakers in refining regulations and
standards related to egg production and quality in the Kosovo.

Materials and methods

Five larger egg producers situated in distinct municipalities across Kosovo, namely Rahovec, Gjakovë,
Podujevë, Lipjan, and Ferizaj, with Prishtina serving as the reference group, have been included in the
experiment. The reference samples included day-old eggs. The eggs were evaluated based on the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 343

Table 1. Number of laying hens and egg production in farms.

Fresh
Characteristics Eggs F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Laying Hens Breeds ISA Brown ISA ISA Lohmann Lohmann ISA Brown
Brown Brown Brown Brown
The number of hens 10,000 15,000 30,000 11,140 25,000 46,816
The number of eggs produced per year/ 2,750.00 4,050,000 8,250,000 3,063,500 6,625,000 12,640,320
farm

quality criteria in the local Administrative Directive (AD No. 17/2008),[31] and European Commission
Regulation (EC No 589/2008). A total of 360 eggs from each producer were sampled from food
supermarkets, and an additional 100 fresh eggs (one day old) were sourced from a poultry farm in the
Prishtina region. In total, 1,900 eggs underwent analysis over the period from February to
October 2022. This sampling strategy allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of egg quality across
different producers and regions within Kosovo. The inclusion of a reference group and adherence to
regulatory criteria ensure that the study provides a robust assessment of the eggs available in the
market. Table 1 provides an overview of different characteristics for six groups of egg producers,
including groups Fresh Eggs, F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5. The characteristics include the laying hens’ breeds,
the number of hens, and the annual egg production per farm.
Weighting the egg, the shell, the yolk, and the egg white, the standard analytical scale (model
Analytical Balance, Series BA-W2104, China) was utilized. While, the official egg air cell gauge, FORM
PY-35 (5-1-74) was used to measure the air cell size in accordance with US standards and grades for
eggs.[32]
The specific gravity (SW) was estimated by immersing the eggs in saline solutions until they
reached their floating point. Various NaCl solutions with specific weights ranging from 1.050 to
1.100 in increments of 0.005 g/cm3 were created in order to ascertain the specific weight of the eggs
(Hydrometer precision, 1.000 to 1.100 g/cm3, Greiner-Glasinstrumente, Germany). A Haugh meter
(Haugh unit micrometer, B C Ames Co, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) was used to determine Haugh
Units (HU), according to USDA.[32]
The yolk of each egg was weighed and their color density was visually assessed using DSM Yolk
Color Fan with 16 scales (formerly Roche Yolk Color Fan) described according to Beardsworth &
Hernandez.[33] While for the evaluation of the thickness of the eggshell, the length and width of the
egg, an Electronic Digital Caliper Micrometer, Adoric 0–6,” with Inch and Millimeter Conversion
(150/6) was used.

Statistical analyses
In the analysis of egg quality parameters, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed using IBM
SPSS (Version 24.0, Armonk, NY). The investigation included a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to assess the inter-group differences across all recorded parameters. Statistical significance
was established at a probability threshold of less than 0.05 for all analyses. Post hoc testing was
conducted using the Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) or Tukey Kramer test to discern
statistically significant variations between the means of individual groups.

Results and discussions

Table 2 contains key data on statistically significant differences between the means of all independent
groups, with significance levels indicated (p-values). Additionally, standard error mean values are
provided. Significant variations are evident in key attributes such as egg weight, shell weight, yolk
weight, egg white weight, specific gravity, Haugh unit, air cell size, Roche Yolk Color, eggshell
344 F. K. MADILO ET AL.

Table 2. Egg characteristics variation across different experimental groups (various farms).
Parameters FreshEggs F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 SEM p-value
Egg weight g 66.95 62.06 64.33 60.21 56.98 63.43 0.8102 <0.00001
Eggshell weight g 7.98 7.40 7.39 6.61 7.03 7.94 0.1778 <0.01
Egg yolk weight g 15.32 14.60 14.80 13.93 13.40 14.40 0.3459 <0.01
Egg white weight g 43.63 40.20 42.02 39.45 36.82 41.35 0.7238 <0.0001
Specific Gravity g/cm3 1.086 1.068 1.075 1.065 1.062 1.076 0.0014 <0.00001
Haugh unit (HU) 91.20 75.13 77.61 71.74 62.90 80.94 1.2391 <0.00001
Air cell mm 3.44 4.52 4.47 5.83 6.21 4.22 0.2703 <0.0001
Roche Yolk Color 12.71 9.44 12.13 11.75 10.44 12.31 0.2334 <0.00001
Egg Shell Thickness µm 0.44 0.41 0.45 0.39 0.38 0.42 0.0079 <0.0001
Egg length mm 57.43 53.80 56.05 52.82 49.14 54.72 0.6164 <0.0001
Egg width mm 44.81 42.40 43.8 40.52 38.13 42.35 0.5813 <0.00001
Note: 1F1, F2, F3, F4, F5: Chicken Eggs Farm; SEM: Standard error mean (%); p < 0.01-Fairly significant;
p < 0.0001-Very highly statistically significant; p < 0.00001-Profoundly significant

thickness, egg length, and egg width. The accompanying standard error of the mean (SEM) and
p-values indicate the statistical significance of these differences (Table 2).
Table 3 presents comprehensive measurements of various physical parameters related to eggs
across different egg samples. The data is organized for individual egg pairs (FreshEggs, F1, F2, F3,
F4, F5) and their combinations (e.g., F1-F2). The parameters evaluated and compared between pairs
include egg weight, eggshell weight, egg yolk weight, egg white weight, specific gravity, Haugh unit
(HU), air cell size, Roche Yolk Color, egg shell thickness, egg length, and egg width.”
All groups (F1 to F5) exhibit significantly lower mean egg weights than FreshEggs. The lowest mean
egg weight is observed in group F4 (56.98 g), while the highest is found in group of FreshEggs (66.95
g). The p-values (<0.00001) indicate a highly significant difference in egg weight mean across the
groups (Table 2). Comparing fresh eggs to other groups reveals statistically significant differences in
average egg weight. The FreshEggs-F4 pair demonstrates the most substantial difference (p < 0.00001),
suggesting a profoundly significant result. However, pairs such as FreshEggs-F2, F1-F2, F2-F3, F1-F5,
F2-F5, F3-F4, and F3-F5 have p-values greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05), indicating no significant difference
between their means (Table 3).
In summary, the analysis suggests that there are significant differences in eggs weight means for
some pairs, while others do not show statistically significant distinctions. The mean egg weight in the
research follows the standard egg weight (58 to 62 g) reported by other studies (Eke et al.,[18]
Hartmann et al.,[34] Rath et al.[23]). Also, the higher and lower values for egg weight, egg weight loss
and the factors affecting them have been reported by previous studies (Eke et al.,[18] Harnsoongnoen
and Jaroensuk,[19] Kocetkovs et al.,[8] Nonga et al.,[35] Rath et al.,[23] Samli et al.,[24] Sreenivas et al.[36]).
The factors influencing the weight of hens’ eggs, such as food, hen weight, genetic and environmental
factors, temperature and storage time, sanitary conditions in farms and their relationship with egg
weight have been reported by different studies (Ahmadi and Rahimi,[28] Ledvinka et al.,[37] Peebles
et al.,[38] Rath et al..[23]
Evaluating mean weight of the eggshell, group F3 has the lowest eggshell weight (6.61 g), while F5
has the highest (7.94 g), but all are lower than Fresh Eggs (7.98 g) (p < 0.01) (Table 1). The Egg shells
weight of the compared groups does not exhibit a statistically significant difference, as indicated by the
p-values for all pairs being generally over p > 0.05 (Table 2). The pair FreshEggs-F4 and F4-F5 has the
lowest p-value (p < 0.01), indicating a fairly significant result compared to the other pairs. In contrast,
most other pairs, such as FreshEggs-F1, FreshEggs-F2, FreshEggs-F3, etc., do not show statistically
significant distinctions between their means (p > 0.05) (Table 3). As for the evaluating of eggshell
mean thickness in micrometers (µm), it is evident that F2 has the thickest eggshell (0.45 µm), while F4
displays the thinnest (0.38 µm). The p-values, which are less than 0.0001, strongly suggest a highly
significant difference in eggshell thickness among the different groups (Table 2). The analysis reveals
highly significant variations in eggshell thickness means among specific pairs, notably EggsFresh-F3
and EggsFresh-F4 (p < 0.0001), indicating a very strong statistical significance. Additionally, pairs F2-
Table 3. Pairwise comparison analysis of egg characteristics with significance levels.
Specific
Eggshell Egg yolk Egg white Gravity Haugh unit Roche Yolk Egg Shell Thickness
Pair Egg weight g weight g weight g weight g g/cm3 (HU) Air cell mm Color µm Egg length mm Egg width mm
FEgg-F1 p < 0.001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p < 0.01 p > 0.05
FEgg-F2 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
FEgg-F3 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.01 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001
FEgg-F4 p < 0.00001 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001
FEgg-F5 p < 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
F1-F2 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p < 0.01 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
F1-F3 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
F1-F4 p < 0.001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.00001 p < 0.001 p < 0.05 p > 0.05 <0.0001 p < 0.0001
F1-F5 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.01 p < 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
F2-F3 p < 0.01 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05 p < 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05 p < 0.01
F2-F4 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.0001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.01 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001
F2-F5 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.01 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
F3-F4 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p > 0.05 p < 0.01 p > 0.05 p < 0.01 p > 0.05
F3-F5 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.01 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05 p > 0.05
F4-F5 p < 0.00001 p < 0.01 p > 0.05 p < 0.001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.00001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p > 0.05 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001
Note: FEgg (FreshEggs), 1F1, F2, F3, F4, F5: Chicken Eggs Farm; p > 0.05-Not significant; p < 0.05-Significant; p < 0.01-Fairly significant;
p < 0.001-Highly significant; p < 0.0001-Very highly statistically significant; p < 0.00001-Profoundly significant
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES
345
346 F. K. MADILO ET AL.

F3 and F2-F4 exhibit even more profound significance, with p-values below 0.00001. Conversely, other
pairs do not show statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) (Table 3). The results of our research
are in line with other studies, who have reported on the evaluation of external and internal parameters
of egg quality and the factors that influence these parameters.[8,23,24,37,39–41]
Exploring egg yolk weights across diverse groups (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, and Fresh Eggs) reveals that F4
exhibits the lowest mean yolk weight (13.40 g), with F2 presenting the highest (14.80 g), although all
values remain below that of Fresh Eggs (15.32 g) (p < 0.01) (Table 2). Statistical analysis indicates no
significant difference in the mean egg yolk weight among the compared groups, as evidenced by
p-values predominantly exceeding 0.05. Notably, a fairly significant difference in means is observed
for the FreshEggs-F4 pair (p < 0.01), while the remaining pairs do not display statistically significant
distinctions (Table 3). Regarding yolk color (Roche Yolk Color-RYC), Fresh Eggs and F5 exhibit the
highest values (12.71 RYC and 12.31 RYC, respectively). The p-values, which are less than 0.00001,
indicate an exceedingly significant difference in yolk color among the groups. (Table 2). Examining
the data further, profound variations in the mean of egg yolk color are observed for specific pairs:
EggsFresh-F1, EggsFresh-F4, F1-F2, F1-F3, F1-F5, F2-F4, and F4-F5 (p < 0.00001). Conversely, no
statistically significant differences are detected in the pairs EggsFresh-F2, EggsFresh-F3, EggsFresh-F5,
F2-F3, F2-F5, and F3-F5 (p > 0.05) (Table 3). Higher values of egg yolk weight, colour index and
factors that influence losses in weight and colour index have also been reported by previous research
(Dilawar et al.,[1] Gultemirian et al.,[42] Stadelman and Cotterill,[29] Sokołowicz et al..[43]
Evaluating Egg White Weight reveals consistently lower values across all groups compared to Fresh
Eggs (p < 0.0001) (Table 2). Significant and fairly differences in the mean weight of the egg white are
observed for the pairs FreshEggs-F1 (p < 0.05) and FreshEggs-F3 (p < 0.01). Notably, the pair
FreshEggs-F4 stands out with a Profoundly significant difference (p < 0.00001). While other pairs
did not show statistically significant differences in means (p > 0.05) (Table 3). Similar results on egg
white weight and HU and the factors influencing these egg quality parameters were also reported by
Nolte et al.,[44] Rath et al.,[23] Samli et al.,[24] Sokołowicz et al.,[43] Scott et al.,[45] Stademan and
Cotterill.[29]
In terms of Specific Gravity, F5 demonstrates the highest value (1.076 g/cm3), yet all groups exhibit
values which are lower than of FreshEggs (1.086 g/cm3) (p < 0.00001) (Table 2). The analysis results
indicate significant differences in the means for all pairs, each exhibiting varying degrees of signifi­
cance (p < 0.05). Notably, the FreshEggs-F3 and FreshEgss-F4 pairs attains the highest significance
levels (p < 0.00001), signifying a profoundly significant difference (Table 3). Similar results about the
specific weight and the factors affecting its loss (especially the influence of temperature and storage
time) have been reported by other studies.[23,24]
Commencing with Haugh Unit (HU), it is noteworthy that FreshEggs exhibit the highest Haugh
unit, indicating superior egg quality (91.20 HU). F5 follows with the second-highest Haugh unit (80.94
HU), as reflected by a highly significant p-value (<0.00001) (Table 2). Profoundly significant differ­
ences in means for the Haugh unit values (HU) are observed for all pairs. The analysis showed that
most pairs exhibit statistically significant differences in means (p < 0.00001). Some pairs, such as
FreshEggs-F1, FreshEggs-F2, FreshEggs-F3, FreshEggs-F4 and FreshEggs-F5, showed highly signifi­
cant variations (p < 0.00001). Whereas, the pairs F1-F2, F1-F3, and F2-F5 did not exhibit statistically
significant differences in means (p > 0.05). (Table 3). Factors influencing this egg quality parameter
(HU) were also reported by Rath et al.,[23] Samli et al.[24] Previous researchers have reported that the
Haugh units (HU) of eggs range from 72–110 (Eke et al.,[18] Stademan and Cotterill[29]).
Embarking on the analysis of air cell size reveals noticeable variations. Notably, F4 showcases the
largest air cell (6.21 mm), contrasting with F5, which presents the smallest (4.22 mm). It is noteworthy
that all groups display air cells larger than those found in FreshEggs (3.44 mm) (p < 0.0001) (Table 2).
Also, he results of the study showed statistically significant differences regarding Air cells between the
mean of some different pairs, while others do not, based on the chosen level of significance (more than
p < 0.01) (Table 3). The pair FreshEggs-F3 and FreshEggs-F4 show profoundly significant differences
(p < 0.00001). The pair F1-F4 has a particularly low p-value (p < 0.001), indicating a highly significant
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 347

Table 4. Pearson correlation matrix (r) for key egg quality parameters.
Egg Specific Haugh Roche Egg Shell
Egg Eggshell Egg yolk white Gravity unit Yolk Thickness Egg Egg
Parameters weight g weight g weight g weight g g/cm3 (HU) Air cell Color µm length mm width mm
Egg weight g 1 .935** .972** .997** .951** .969** −.957** .626 .954** .990** .984**
Eggshell weight g 1 .870* .917* .972** .938** −.977** .576 .905* .885* .891*
Egg yolk weight g 1 .962** .890* .923** −.932** .482 .938** .964** .984**
Egg white weight g 1 .941** .965** −.936** .662 .945** .995** .980**
Specific Gravity g/cm3 1 .984** −.952** .672 .875* .904* .888*
Haugh unit (HU) 1 −.947** .645 .863* .940** .920**
Air cell mm 1 −.460 −.915* −.919** −.941**
Roche Yolk Color 1 .581 .626 .518
Egg Shell Thickness µm 1 .944** .961**
Egg length mm 1 .988**
Egg width mm 1
Note; **Correlation is significant at the p < 0.01 level.
*Correlation is significant at the p < 0.05 level.

difference between their means. Conversely, several pairs, including FreshEggs-F1, FreshEggs-F2, and
FreshEggs-F5, have p-values greater than > 0.05, indicating no significant difference between their
means. Lower and higher values of Air cell in eggs and the factors that affect the deterioration of this
important parameter for determining the quality of eggs for consumption and use in the food industry
have been reported by previous findings (Eke et. al,[18] Harnsoongnoen and Jaroensuk,[19] Rath
et. al.,[23] Samli et. al.,[24] Stadelman and Cotterill[29]).
In terms of Egg Length (mm) and Egg Width (mm), it’s evident that FreshEggs surpass other
groups with the largest measurements in both length and width (57.43 mm length and 44.81 mm
width) (Table 2). The analysis reveals significant differences in the mean length of eggs for specific
pairs, while noting nonsignificant differences for others. (Table 3). Pairs FreshEggs-F4 and F2-F4 show
profoundly significant distinctions (p < 0.00001). Whereas pairs like FreshEggs-F2, FreshEggs-F5, F1-
F2, F1-F3, F1-F5, F2-F5 and F3-F5 exhibit no significant mean differences (p > 0.05). As for the width
of the eggs, the analysis indicates significant differences in means for some pairs, while others do not
show statistically significant distinctions. The pair FreshEggs-F4 has the largest difference, with
a p-value of p < 0.00001, suggesting a profoundly significant result. The pairs FreshEggs-F1,
FreshEggs-F2, FreshEggs-F5, F1-F2, F3-F5, F1-F5, F2-F5, F3-F4 and F3-F5 do not show statistically
significant differences (p > 0.05). Our research’s findings are consistent with those of other studies that
have examined the assessment of internal and external egg quality measures as well as the factors
influencing these parameters (Rath et al.,[23] Kocetkovs et al.,[8] Sokołowicz et al.[43]). In general, the
data suggests significant differences in various egg parameters among groups, with FreshEggs gen­
erally exhibiting superior characteristics.
Table 4 presents Pearson correlation coefficients between various external and internal quality
parameters of eggs. Each cell in the table represents the correlation coefficient between two specific
parameters, such as egg weight, eggshell weight, egg yolk weight, egg white weight, specific gravity,
Haugh unit (HU), air cell size, Roche Yolk Color, eggshell thickness, egg length, and egg width. The
significance levels (P-values) are also provided, and some of the main findings are interpreted below.
Egg weight demonstrates exceptionally strong positive correlations (p < 0.01) with eggshell weight
(r = 0.935), egg yolk weight (r = 0.972), and egg white weight (r = 0.997). This suggests that heavier
eggs tend to have proportionally heavier eggshells, yolks, and egg whites. This highlights a remarkable
synchrony in the growth of these components within the egg. Our findings of a positive correlation
between egg weight and other parameters and no significant correlation between egg weight and
Specific Gravity, Haugh unit and Egg Shell Thickness are consistent with the findings of other
findings.[46,47]
Eggshell weight exhibits a robust positive correlation (p < 0.01) with egg weight (r = 0.935) and
a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05) with egg white weight (r = 0.917), indicating a proportional
348 F. K. MADILO ET AL.

relationship between these parameters. This implies a structural interdependence, where the overall
weight of the egg, particularly the egg white, is mirrored in the eggshell. A strong positive correlation
between Egg yolk weight and Egg weight and Eggshell weight has been found in previous studies
reported by Inca et. al.[47]
Egg yolk weight displays strong positive correlations with egg weight (r = 0.972) and egg white
weight (r = 0.962), emphasizing a coordinated development of the yolk alongside the overall egg and
its albumen content (p < 0.01). Results from earlier research showed a significant positive association
between egg yolk weight and egg weight.[47]
Strong positive correlations (p < 0.01) have been found between specific gravity and many para­
meters, including egg white weight (r = 0.941) and the Haugh unit (r = 0.984). These correlations
imply that eggs with greater specific gravities have superior quality and denser albumen, as indicated
by the Haugh unit. Our findings confirm the considerable positive link previously seen between
albumin, specific weight, and other measures.[47–50] Nonetheless, it was stated that the Haugh unit was
dependent on albumen height but independent of egg weight.[46,48]
The air cell demonstrates strong negative correlations (p < 0.01) with various parameters, notably
with egg weight (r = −0.957) and eggshell weight (r = −0.977). This suggests that lighter eggs and
thinner shells are linked to larger air cells. Our findings are in harmony with the findings reported by
other authors.[51,52] Egg Shell Thickness reveals a robust positive correlation (p < 0.01) with egg weight
(r = 0.954) and egg yolk weight (r = 0.938), underscoring a concurrent strengthening of the eggshell
structure as eggs increase in size. An important and strong association between egg shell thickness and
eggshell weight, egg yolk weight, and specific gravity was found in the earlier study conducted by Inca
and associates.[47]
Egg length and egg width demonstrate a strong positive correlation (r = 0.988) with each other and
with most other parameters (p < 0.01), suggesting a consistent growth pattern where larger eggs tend
to be elongated while maintaining proportionality in structure. Significant positive correlations
between egg length, breadth, and weight have also been found in earlier studies.[46,47] It has also
been found and reported that there is a substantial negative association between specific gravity and
egg length.[46] The study did not discover any meaningful relationships between the color of the yolk
and the other assessed parameters of egg quality.

Conclusion
The increase in egg production in Kosovo is crucial as it contributes to the development of the
poultry industry and enhances the country’s economy. Simultaneously, heightened dedication
from regulatory bodies is essential to consistently oversee egg production and marketing for
human consumption and utilization in the food industry, ensuring adherence to farm hygiene
standards. The investigation examined multiple quality indicators to assess egg quality for con­
sumption and industrial use. Results revealed significant variations among farms, indicating
potential implications for hen management and feed practices. The study results classified egg
quality into two categories, aligning with local Administrative Directive (AD No. 17/2008) and
European regulations (EC No. 589/200) for determining egg quality. The majority of egg groups
from different farms met the freshness criteria outlined for Class “A” under regulations. However,
a specific group of eggs (F4) was classified as Class “B,” reserved for industrial processing. This
classification resulted from the primary criterion of air cell quality, as outlined in the regulations,
surpassing the specified limit of 6 mm. According to regulations, the air cell of Class “A” eggs
should not exceed 6 mm, and for eggs categorized as “extra” class, the air cell should not be over 4
mm. Fresh eggs and eggs from groups F1, F2, F3, and F5 adhered to the standards and legal
requirements for egg quality. On the flip side, eggs from group F4 surpassed the mean values
specified for air cells, as per regulations. The comprehensive offers valuable insights for consu­
mers, producers, and regulatory bodies, aiding in enhancing quality standards and promoting fair
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 349

competition in Kosovo’s egg market. Further research and collaboration with farms may uncover
contributing factors to these variations.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Acknowledgments
The authors express gratitude to Mrs. Flutra Mestani for her assistance in technical and analytical aspects, including the
formatting of statistical results and grammar. The authors are thankful to the Researchers Supporting Project number
(RSPD2024R923), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

References
[1] Dilawar, M. A.; Mun, H. S.; Rathnayake, D.; Yang, E. J.; Seo, Y. S.; Park, H. S.; Yang, C. J. Egg Quality Parameters,
Production Performance and Immunity of Laying Hens Supplemented with Plant Extracts. Animals. 2021, 11(4),
975. DOI: 10.3390/ani11040975.
[2] Caner, C.; Coşkun, B. M.; Yüceer, M. Chitosan Coatings and Chitosan Nanocomposite to Enhance the Storage
Stability of Fresh Eggs During Storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46(7), e16642. DOI: 10.1111/jfpp.16642.
[3] Belyavin, C. G. Eggs: Use in the Food Industry. Encyc. Food & Health. 2016, 476–479. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-
384947-2.00245-2.
[4] Filipiak–Florkiewicz, A.; Dereń, K.; Florkiewicz, A.; Topolska, K.; Juszczak, L.; Cieślik, E. The Quality of Eggs
(Organic and Nutraceutical Vs. Conventional) and Their Technological Properties. Poultr. Sci. 2017, 96(7),
2480–2490. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pew488.
[5] Papanikolaou, Y.; Fulgoni, V. L., III. Increasing Egg Consumption at Breakfast is Associated with Increased Usual
Nutrient Intakes: A Modeling Analysis Using NHANES and the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program
School Breakfast Guidelines. Nutrients. 2021, 13(4), 1379. DOI: 10.3390/nu13041379.
[6] FAO/WHO/UNU, (2007). Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint FAO/
WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. WHO technical report series; no. 935, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.fao.
org/statistics/en/
[7] FAO. (2022). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Database. Crops And
Livestock Products. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
[8] Kocetkovs, V.; Radenkovs, V.; Juhnevica-Radenkova, K.; Jakovlevs, D.; Muizniece-Brasava, S. The Impact of
Eggshell Thickness on the Qualitative Characteristics of Stored Eggs Produced by Three Breeds of Laying Hens of
the Cage and Cage-Free Housed Systems. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11539. DOI: 10.3390/app122211539.
[9] Kuang, H.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Chen, G. The Impact of Egg Nutrient Composition and Its
Consumption on Cholesterol Homeostasis. Cholesterol. 2018, 2018, 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/
6303810.
[10] Miranda, J. M.; Anton, X.; Redondo-Valbuena, C.; Roca-Saavedra, P.; Rodriguez, J. A.; Lamas, A.; Franco, C. M.;
Cepeda, A. Egg and Egg-Derived Foods: Effects on Human Health and Use as Functional Foods. Nutrients. 2015,
7(1), 706–729. DOI: 10.3390/nu7010706.
[11] Pal, M.; Molnár, J. The Role of Eggs as an Important Source of Nutrition in Human Health. Int. J. Food Sci Agri.
2021, 5(1), 180–182. DOI: 10.26855/ijfsa.2021.03.023.
[12] Yenice, G.; Kaynar, O.; Ileriturk, M.; Hira, F.; Hayirli, A. Quality of Eggs in Different Production Systems. Czech
J. Food Sci. 2016, 34(4), 370–376. DOI: 10.17221/33/2016-CJFS.
[13] Ahmed, T. A.; Wu, L.; Younes, M.; Hincke, M. Biotechnological Applications of Eggshell: Recent Advances.
Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 548. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.675364.
[14] MAFRD. (2021). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development. Kosova Green Report, December
2021. Pristinë, Kosovë https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/en/reports-and-publications
[15] Van Horne, P. L. (2018). International Egg Market Annual Review International Egg Commission (IEC). Global
Egg Production Continues To Grow - International Egg Commission. https://www.internationalegg.com/resource/
global-egg-production-continues-to-grow/
350 F. K. MADILO ET AL.

[16] Rondoni, A.; Asioli, D.; Millan, E. Consumer Behaviour, Perceptions, and Preferences Towards Eggs: A Review of
the Literature and Discussion of Industry Implications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 391–401. DOI: 10.
1016/j.tifs.2020.10.038.
[17] Ahn, D. U.; Kim, S. M.; Shu, H. Effect of Egg Size and Strain and Age of Hens on the Solids Content of Chicken
Eggs. Poultr. Sci. 1997, 76(6), 914–919. DOI: 10.1093/ps/76.6.914.
[18] Eke, M. O.; Olaitan, N. I.; Ochefu, J. H. Effect of Storage Conditions on the Quality Attributes of Shell (Table)
Eggs. Niger. Food J. 2013, 31(2), 18–24. DOI: 10.1016/S0189-7241(15)30072-2.
[19] Harnsoongnoen, S.; Jaroensuk, N. The Grades and Freshness Assessment of Eggs Based on Density Detection
Using Machine Vision and Weighing Sensor. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11(1), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
021-96140-x.
[20] Lokaewmanee, K.; Yamauchi, K. E.; Komori, T.; Saito, K. Effects on Egg Yolk Colour of Paprika or Paprika
Combined with Marigold Flower Extracts. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 9(4), e67. DOI: 10.4081/ijas.2010.e67.
[21] Proudfoot, F. G. The Decline of Internal Egg Quality During Storage 0°F. and 70°F. Among Six Strains of
Leghorns Reared in Confinement and on Range. Poultr. Sci. 1962, 41(1), 98–103. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0410098.
[22] Roberts, J. R. Factors Affecting Egg Internal Quality and Egg Shell Quality in Laying Hens. J. Poultr. Sci. 2004, 41
(3), 161–177. DOI: 10.2141/jpsa.41.161.
[23] Rath, P. K.; Mishra, P. K.; Mallick, B. K.; Behura, N. C. Evaluation of Different Egg Quality Traits and
Interpretation of Their Mode of Inheritance in White Leghorns. Vet. World. 2015, 8(4), 449. DOI: 10.14202/
vetworld.2015.449-452.
[24] Samli, H. E.; Agma, A.; Senkoylu, N. Effects of Storage Time and Temperature on Egg Quality in Old Laying
Hens. J. Appl. Poultr. Res. 2005, 14(3), 548–553. DOI: 10.1093/japr/14.3.548.
[25] Hernandez, J. M. (2005). European Consumer Surveys About Egg Quality: How to Improve the Nutritional
Value. In XIth European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg Products Doorwerth, The Netherlands, (CD
Symposium Proceedings). https://www.cabi.org/Uploads/animal-science/worlds-poultry-science-association
/WPSA-the-netherlands-2005/65.pdf
[26] Hasani, A.; Kokthi, E.; Zoto, O.; Berisha, K.; Miftari, I. Analyzing Consumer Perception on Quality and Safety of
Frozen Foods in Emerging Economies: Evidence from Albania and Kosovo. Foods. 2022, 11(9), 1247. DOI: 10.
3390/foods11091247.
[27] Johnson, A. S.; Merritt, E. S. Heritability of Albumen Height and Specific Gravity of Eggs from White Leghorns
and Barred Rocks and the Correlations of These Traits with Egg Production. Poultr. Sci. 1955, 34(3), 578–587.
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0340578.
[28] Ahmadi, F.; Rahimi, F. Factors Affecting Quality and Quantity of Egg Production in Laying Hens: A Review.
World Appl. Sci. J. 2011, 12(3), 372–384. http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj12(3)/21.pdf.
[29] Stadelman, W. J.; Cotterill, O. J. Egg Science and Technology, 4th ed.; Haworth Press Inc: New York, 2007.
[30] Yuceer, M.; Caner, C. Antimicrobial Lysozyme–Chitosan Coatings Affect Functional Properties and Shelf Life of
Chicken Eggs During Storage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94(1), 153–162. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.6322.
[31] MAFRD. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development Administrative Directive AD. No. 17/2008:
For Determining the Quality of Eggs. The Republic Of Kosova. 2008. https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/en/adminis
trative-instructions/?dy=2008.
[32] USDA. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Agricultural Handbook.
Number 75: Egg-Grading Manual. Egg Grad. Manual/layout-F (Usda.Gov). 2000.
[33] Beardsworth, P. M.; Hernandez, J. M. Yolk colour–an important egg quality attribute. Int. Poultry Prod. 2004, 12
(5), 17–18.
[34] Hartmann, C.; Johansson, K.; Strandberg, E.; Wilhelmson, M. One-Generation Divergent Selection on Large and
Small Yolk Proportions in a White Leghorn Line. British Poul. Sci. 2000, 41(3), 280–286. DOI: 10.1080/713654930
.
[35] Nonga, H. E.; Kajuna, F. F.; Ngowi, H. A.; Karimuribo, E. D. Physical Egg Quality Characteristics of Free-Range
Local Chickens in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 2010, 22(12), 1–19. https://www.
lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd22/12/nong22218.htm.
[36] Sreenivas, D.; Prakash, M. G.; Mahender, M.; Chatterjee, R. N. Genetic Analysis of Egg Quality Traits in White
Leghorn Chicken. Vet. World. 2013, 6(5), 263. DOI: 10.5455/vetworld.2013.263-266.
[37] Ledvinka, Z.; Zita, L.; Klesalová, L. Egg Quality and Some Factors Influencing It: A Review. Sci. agri. bohemica.
2012, 43(1), 46–52. *Supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Project
No. MSM 6046070901.
[38] Peebles, E. D.; Zumwalt, C. D.; Doyle, S. M.; Gerard, P. D.; Boyle, C. R.; Smith, T. W.; Latour, M. A. Effects of
Breeder Age and Dietary Fat Source and Level on Broiler Hatching Egg Characteristics. Poultr. Sci. 2000, 79(5),
698–704. DOI: 10.1093/ps/79.5.698.
[39] Hamilton, R. M. J.; Hollands, K. G.; Voisey, P. W.; Grunder, A. A. Relationship Between Egg Shell Quality and
Shell Breakage and Factors That Affect Shell Breakage in the Field–A Review1. World’s Poultr. Sci. J. 1979, 35(3),
177–190. DOI: 10.1079/WPS19790014.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 351

[40] Silversides, F. G.; Villeneuve, P. Is the Haugh Unit Correction for Egg Weight Valid for Eggs Stored at Room
Temperature? Poult. Sci. 1994, 73(1), 50–55. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0730050.
[41] Walsh, T. J.; Rizk, R. E.; Brake, J. Effects of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide on Albumen Characteristics,
Weight Loss, and Early Embryonic Mortality of Long Stored Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 1995, 74(9), 1403–1410.
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0741403.
[42] Gultemirian, M. D. L.; Van Nieuwenhove, C. P.; Perez Chaia, A. B.; Apella, M. C. Physical and Chemical
Characterization of Eggs from Araucana Hens of Free Range Fed in Argentina. J. Argent. Chem. Soc. 2009, 97(2),
19–30. https://www.aqa.org.ar/images/anales/pdf9702/9702art3.pdf.
[43] Sokołowicz, Z.; Krawczyk, J.; Dykiel, M. Effect of Alternative Housing System and Hen Genotype on Egg Quality
Characteristics. Emirates J. Food & Agriculture. 2018, 695–703. DOI: 10.9755/ejfa.2018.v30.i8.1753.
[44] Nolte, T.; Jansen, S.; Weigend, S.; Moerlein, D.; Halle, I.; Simianer, H.; Sharifi, A. R. Genotypic and Dietary Effects
on Egg Quality of Local Chicken Breeds and Their Crosses Fed with Faba Beans. Animals. 2021, 11(7), 1947. DOI:
10.3390/ani11071947.
[45] Scott, T. A.; Silversides, F. G. The Effect of Storage and Strain of Hen on Egg Quality. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79(12),
1725–1729. DOI: 10.1093/ps/79.12.1725.
[46] Jang, E. Correlation Between Internal and External Egg Quality Indicators in the Early Phase of Hy-Line Brown
Laying Hens. J. The Korean Poultry Soc. 2022, 49(2), 53–60. DOI: 10.5536/KJPS.2022.49.2.53.
[47] Inca, J. S.; Martinez, D. A.; Vilchez, C. Phenotypic Correlation Between External and Internal Egg Quality
Characteristics in 85-Week-Old Laying Hens. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01821. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.
01821.
[48] Rafea, M. T. Prediction of Haugh Unit Through Albumen Height and Egg Weight. Nutrition. 2019, 47(3), 37–43.
MT Rafea - nutrition, 2019 - iasj.net. DOI: 10.33899/magrj.2019.126220.1011.
[49] Sinha, B.; Mandal, K. G.; Singh, R. K.; Kumari, R.; Kumar, P. Phenotypic Correlation Among Egg Quality
Traits-A Review. Int. J. Pure & Appl. Biosci. 2018, 6(3), 666–673. DOI: 10.18782/2320-7051.6330.
[50] Zhang, L. C.; Ning, Z. H.; Xu, G. Y.; Hou, Z. C.; Yang, A. N. Heritabilities and Genetic and Phenotypic
Correlations of Egg Quality Traits in Brown-Egg Dwarf Layers. Poultr. Sci. 2005, 84(8), 1209–1213. DOI: 10.
1093/ps/84.8.1209.
[51] Sun, J.; Wang, J.; Lin, W.; Li, B.; Ma, R.; Huang, Y.; Obadi, M. Predict the Gelling Properties of Alkali-Induced
Egg White Gel Based on the Freshness of Duck Eggs. Foods. 2023, 12(21), 4028. DOI: 10.3390/foods12214028.
[52] Wengerska, K.; Batkowska, J.; Drabik, K. The Eggshell Defect as a Factor Affecting the Egg Quality After Storage.
Poultr. Sci. 2023, 102(7), 102749. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102749.