\l W MW 1.» MW fl x — I._ __———— — ”d— — ,_ ,——: — _____. ___’_—_ — — *4_ ’4 — ____—_ __THS THE EFFECTS OF WASHING EGGS ON HAYCHAB l L H"! Thesés For We Degree oé M. 5. MECHEGAN STATE UNEVERSYTY Raymond George Young 1957 autism LIBRARY Michigan State University THE EFFECTS OF WASHING EGGS ON HATCHABILITY By RAYMOND GEORGE YOUNG AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Poultry Husbandry Year 1957 Approved Raymond George Young 1 ABSTRACT The problem of how to handle dirty hatching eggs confronts all hatchery operators. This study attempted to learn the possible effects of washing and dry cleaning on the hatchability of eggs. Both chicken and turkey eggs were subjected to cleaning by either washing or dry abrasive cleaning. Controls included both naturally clean and dirty eggs. The washing and dry cleaning treatments did not show any deleterious effect on hatchability in either chicken or turkey eggs. In the preliminary test for the chicken eggs, there was no significant difference even though one of the treatments, the dry cleaner, showed a 5.15 percent difference in hatchability and a 3.39 percent difference was noted for the eggs washed in the Egg Queen cleaner. In the second trial, the eggs washed in the Egg Queen showed a 9.94 percent difference from the clean control which was statistically significant. This trial revealed no significance other than the forgone. In both the preliminary and the second tests involv- ing turkey eggs, no significant differences were noted. These results were comparable to those obtained with the chicken eggs. The washed eggs hatched slightly better than the control or unwashed and this difference was not significant. ii Raymond George Young 2 It can be concluded from this study that cleaning either chicken or turkey eggs does not interfere with hatchability under conditions maintained in these tests. 111 THE EFFECTS OF WASHING EGGS ON HATCHABILITY By RAYMOND GEORGE YOUNG A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Poultry Husbandry Year 1957 I»7*51r" 3.2.er ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Professor J. A. Davidson for his valuable assistance and guidance during the period this work was undertaken. He is also indebted to Dr. H. C. Zindel for allowing this study to be conducted in the department; and also to Dr. W. D. Baten for his valuable help with the statistical analysis. The writer also wishes to thank Mrs. Virginia Ross and Miss Anne Wiemeri who greatly assisted in the clerical part of this study. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 3 PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RESULTS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tables I. Preliminary Test . . . . . . 14 II. Second Test . . . . . . . . . 15 III. Preliminary Test . . . . . . 18 IV. Second Test . . . . . . . . . 19 V. Table of T-Values . . . . . . 20 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 vi INTRODUCTION The problem of dirty eggs is present to a greater or_ lesser extent on all poultry farms where eggs are produced. Winter, Burkart and Wettling (1952) estimate that ten to twenty-five percent of the eggs produced under average farm conditions are soiled at time of gathering. Consequently, many eggs produced require some degree of cleaning, primari— ly by the producer, prior to marketing. In practice, however. the upper range of twenty—five percent can be increased by such factors as wet litter, dirty nesting material, infre- quent gathering or not enough nests for the number of birds. These factors may be grouped under one heading — management. Many hatcherymen are confronted with this problem of dirty eggs; there is much indecision as to whether to market them, wash them and then set them, or set them as they are. Their hesitation arises from the belief that hatchability of the eggs will be adversely affected by washing. Some hatcherymen are washing eggs to help control their sani— tation and disease problems in the incubator, and others do it for the esthetic value. Marshall and Cruickshank (1938) provided a theoretical promise that washed eggs might hatch better than unwashed eggs. They reasoned that the removal of part of the cuticle by washing reduces the effective evaporation surface around the pores of egg shell, thereby reducing evaporation. For years, many producers thought the only way to clean eggs, and still maintain the quality, was to use some dry form of abrasive. Two outstanding abrasives, steel wool and sandpaper, were used and probably still are today. Washing has never been too popular. As far back as 1920, researchers of that time found that washing produced an inferior product. Jenkins (1920), Sharp and Bryant (1934) noted that washing eggs increases spoilage by increasing the size of the pores and allowing bacteria to enter. As a result, most eggs were hand cleaned. In the early forties, various types of egg cleaning machines came on the market. Included in these types were: the immersion or bubbler type, the rotating disks or brush type and the rotary spray type washer; all of which use water. For the dry cleaning, automatic machines using abrasive belts were developed. Most machines on the market today will fall into one of these classifications. Figures I, II, III, and IV show types of machines used in this study. Winter (1953) found that losses from soiled eggs are high, and egg cleaning so time consuming, that many manu— facturers,.investigators, and some poultrymen are developing fast, safe, and economical methods of washing eggs. The great strides made in detergent—sanitizers are aiding in the development of those methods. REVIEW OF LITERATURE There is much literature demonstrating both for and against washing eggs which are to be marketed or held in storage. Jenkins, Hepburn, Swan and Sherwood (1920) cleaned eggs by washing in water and dilute sulfuric acid. Spoilage ranged from 6.6 percent in the unwashed controls to 14.4 percent in eggs washed in water. The eggs were held in cold storage six to eleven months. Funk (1938) found that eggs cleaned in a 0.5 to 1.0 percent solution of sodium hydroxide could be held in storage with preservation of quality equal to naturally clean eggs. Gillespie, Scott and Vickery (1950) washed soiled eggs in water; high level chlorine solution (5000 p.p.m.); a 0.1 percent Fixanol (a cationic detergent); one percent formalin and sodium hydroxide and held the eggs six to eight weeks at room temperature. The high level chlorine solution, 0.1 percent Fixanol and one percent formalin reduced spoilage. Miller, Joukousky, and Kraught (1950), washed soiled eggs in a water solution Of black rot organisms. Part of them were dipped in sanitizers, one percent Roccal (quat— ernary ammonium compound) solution and 0.5 percent pentachlorophenol. The sanitizers reduced spoilage a little. The one percent Roccal reduced the bacteria from several million per ml. to zero. Pino (1950) submerged eggs momentarily in a one per— cent detergent-sanitizer solution (Nacconal N.R., an anionic detergent—sanitizer with organic sulfonete) at a temperature of 1400F. and then rinsed by spraying with tap water. They were air dried and stored at 60°F. for four weeks. The eggs maintained internal quality equal to that of untreated eggs when kept under the same storage conditions. Starr, Lorenz, and Ogasawara (1952) observed no difference in the keeping quality of eggs washed in warm water or an alkaline detergent, two percent trisodium phosphate, an anionic detergent or chlorox than in water alone. Miller (1954) washed dirty eggs in water, a detergent. or a combination of washing and treatment with sodium hydroxide, Roccal, lactic acid or sulfurous acid, and,found none of the treatments more effective in preventing penetra- tion and growth of spoilage bacteria at a given storage temperature, than storing the eggs which were stored dirty. Some eggs in this experiment were thermostabilized. These showed a lower percentage containing spoilage bacteria than any other eggs in this experiment. Winter, Burkart, Clements, and MacDonald (1955) found that detergent—sanitizers, detergents and water were most effective in the order named in reducing the number of bacteria on the egg shell surface. There have been very few investigations to determine the effect of washing eggs on hatchability. Funk (1938) found that eggs could be washed in a solution of one-half of one percent concentrated lye in water without injuring hatchability. In further studies on hatchability, Funk (1940, 1942) observed that washed eggs and eggs that had been soiled with poultry droppings and then washed, hatched as well as unwashed clean eggs. Pritsker (1941) noted that increasing the internal pressure by increasing egg temperature during washing, resulted in fewer infected eggs, thus increasing hatcha- bility. He used a 0.5 percent formalin solution. Funk and Forward (1949) found that soiled, cooled eggs washed in a ten percent Roccal solution at room temperature and held one to fourteen days hatched as well as clean, unwashed eggs held and incubated under similar conditions. Pino (1950) and Rhodes and Godfrey (1950) found no reduction in hatchability when eggs were properly washed and dried. Huston, Palmer and Carmen (1957) con- cluded that properly washed clean or dirty eggs hatch as well as unwashed eggs. A detergent was used throughout their study. The present study was designed to evaluate the effects on hatchability of cleaning soiled eggs with the aid of a detergent—sanitizer, using two different washing methods and dry cleaning chicken eggs. PROCEDURE The eggs used in this study were obtained from two different sources. In the preliminary test both chicken eggs and turkey eggs were obtained from the University Farms. The chicken eggs for the final test were obtained from a commercial poultry breeder—hatcheryman in the University city area. Eggs in all four Of the tests were handled in the same manner, except for the specific treat— ment procedures. The chicken eggs were divided into four groups on the preliminary test and five groups on the second test. The groups in the preliminary test were: Group 1 — Washer A., Group 2 - Washer B., Group 3 — Dirty Control, Group 4 - Clean Control, and Group 5 - Dry Cleaner. The first group of eggs was washed in a water solution of a commercial detergent sanitizerl. The second group was washed in a similar manner with a special commercial detergent—sanitizerz. A special detergent-sanitizer was developed for the particular egg washing machine because of the machine‘s water action_which caused other compounds to lH'aviland Egg detergent—sanitizer quaternary ammon- ium compound manufactured by Haviland Products, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2 A Special non—foaming detergent—sanitizer was used in the Egg Queen washing machine. It is distributed by Chore~Time Equipment, Inc., Milford, Indiana. foam excessively. Eggs in the third group were naturally dirty from fecal material, broken eggs and nest litter, the purpose of which, was to test the soiling effect on hatch— ability. A fourth group consisted of naturally clean eggs as gathered from the nests. The fifth group of eggs was dry cleaned on a commercial dry cleaner. The holding per— iod was three days for the chicken eggs and four days for the turkey eggs. All eggs were held at 60°F. until set. The number of eggs in each group is shown in the tables. Due to a lack of sufficient number of turkey eggs, the eggs were divided into three groups for treatment instead of five. Again, the first group of eggs was washed in a solution containing a commercial detergent-sanitizer. The second group was washed in a similar manner with a special commercial detergent. A third group consisted Of naturally clean eggs. Approximately 150 eggs were used in each group (Tables III and 1v). Two different types of egg—washing machines were used throughout the study. See Figures 1 and 2. A specific detergent—sanitizer was used in each machine. The egg-wash— ing machine was cleaned, filled with water and allowed to reach a maximum temperature of llOOF.; two ounces of the detergent—sanitizer were dissolved in eight gallons of water. A basket of eggs was placed into the solution; washed for five minutes, and removed to dry before a fan for fifteen minutes. Both chicken and turkey eggs were washed in the same manner and stored in 60°F. until trayed and placed in an incubator. All eggs were set in a commercial type incubator, electrically heated and controlled. 0n the eighteenth day of incubation the eggs were removed and candied for fertility. The fertile eggs were transferred to hatching trays. Eggs containing early and late dead embryos were removed at this time. All other infertile eggs, including rots or molds which developed from cracked eggs, were removed. At the time of hatching, the remaining dead embryos were recorded. Both the infertile eggs and the eggs containing dead embryos were broken out and held under the ultra—violet lamp (black light) to detect any sour eggs due to bacteria which fluoresce. The turkey eggs in this study came from Broad Breasted Bronze hens which were used on another University nutritional experiment. Therefore, the eggs were randomized to eliminate differences in hatchability due to diet. Air—Jet Action. 0 GURE I. m p m 0 C 0: n .1 r .. u ”a .t .Hu” 0 0 Jun 5 a u.. 7 f u.. u A e d M O M n l. r.% .. m K . g.Y ab "3"“ W "are". d "Haw.” _ . ”an v.. E... E u e . +os o c r ._ men . .. e m w . o e .. K a e . m N . A. , r e h S a Vineland FI w 10 FIGURE II. Egg Queen Washer - Air—Water Jet Action. washer B. Manufactured by Chore-Time Equipment, Incorporated, Milford, Indiana. Outside view. FIGURE III. Egg Queen Washer - Inside view. 11 FIGURE IV. Eg—O-Matic Dry Cleaner, Model DC—lA. Cleaning action is with abrasive belts. Manufactured by Otto Niederer & Sons, Incorporated, Titusville, New Jersey. 12 -5. RESULTS AND DISCUSS ION The Preliminary Test on both chicken and turkey eggs ‘Was conducted to determine procedures to be used. A larger number of eggs was used on the Second Test to satisfy :nequirements for statistical treatment of the results The percent hatchability, (Table I) shows Group 4 eggs highest with 84.76 percent, followed by Group 2, with 823.00 percent hatchability. Groups 1 and 3 were about etlual, 79.25 and 79.61 percent, respectively. Percent hintchability was figured as the number of chicks hatched erom the fertile eggs. NO significant differences were n<>ted between washing or dry cleaning Over the control. TlJe T-values (Table V), have been calculated for the four teests. There was a 3.39 percent difference in hatchability it) favor of Group 2 and a 5.15 percent difference in favor Cfif Group 4. There was a total of 450 eggs set and 340 chicks hatched, or a 75.55 percent hatch. When hatchability is considered in Table II it would appear that the washed eggs, Group 1 86.37 percent and GrI‘oup 2 87.02 percent, hatched better than Group 4, 77.08 Percent, Group 3 83.33 percent, or Group 5 82.57 percent. 'Iqle washed eggs showed a 9.29 percent difference in favor \ 3By conference with Dr. W. D. Baten, Agricultural Experiment Station Statistician. 13 14 TABLE I PRELIMINARY TEST 0N HATCHABILITY OF WHITE LEGHORN EGGS (}roup Treatment NO. of Infer— Fertile No. of Percent Eggs Set tile Eggs Chicks Hatchabi— lity l Keenco 116 10 106 84 79.25 2 Egg Queen 105 5 100 83 83.00 3 Clean Con— trol 110 7 103 82 79.61 4 Dry Cleaner 119 11 108 91 84.76 15 TABLE II SECOND TEST ON HATCHABILITY 0F WHITE LEGHORN EGGS Group Treatment No. of Infer- Fertile NO. of Percent Eggs Set tile Eggs Chicks Hatcha- bility l Keenco 322 43 279 241 86.37 2 Egg Queen 321 36 285 248 87.02 3 Dirty Con— trol 326 38 > 288 240 83.33 4 Clean Con— trol 322 34 288 222 77.08 5 Dry Clean— er 327 40 287 237 82.57 16 of Group 1 and a 9.94 percent difference in favor of Group 2 over Group 4. When compared to Group 3, differences of 3.04 percent and 3.69 percent respectively, were noted. Group 5 showed a favorable difference of 5.49 percent when compared to Group 4 and only .76 percent with the Group 3. Group 3 had a difference of 6.25 percent over Group 4. It was also noted that soiled eggs hatched satisfactorily under the conditions maintained in this test. Upon statistical analysis of these data, Group 2 was the only one that showed a significant difference in hatchability. There were 1,618 eggs set and 1,188 chicks hatched, or a 73.42 percent hatch. The results of the second test were quite similar to those of the preliminary test. However, the eggs washed in Group 1 show a 7.12 percent difference in hatchability, (Table II) and Group 4 shows a 2.53 percent decrease, (Table II) when compared to Table I. The dry-cleaned eggs remained about the same. These differences might be explained, in part, on the size of the replication — the Second Test being larger than the First Test. The data obtained from washing turkey eggs showed similar results to the chicken eggs. In Table III the hatchability of eggs washed in Group 2 showed a 6.6 percent difference when compared to those of Group 3, while Group 1 had a 0.33 percent difference, in favor of Group 3. Through— out the entire test, the eggs washed in the Egg Queen washer were generally higher in percent hatchability than either the Control or the Keenco. However, in Table IV it will be 17 noted that the data in Group 1 showed a 1.68 percent difference over Group 3; while the eggs washed in Group 2 showed 4.15 percent difference favoring Group 3. The total number of turkey eggs set was 921 with 359 poults hatched or 38.97 percent hatch. When the data in Tables III and IV were analyzed there was no significant difference in hatchability in either test. Again, as in the First Test for the chicken eggs, the number of eggs used might have some influence, although from a statistical point of view the total number Of eggs was sufficient. In Tables I through IV all of the unhatched eggs were broken out to more accurately determine infertile eggs and early or late embryonic mortality. NO attempt was made to correlate early or late embryonic mortality with any treatment. No sour eggs were found in either chicken or turkey eggs. TABLE III PRELIMINARY TEST ON HATCHABILITY OF BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEY EGGS 18 Group Treatment No. of Infer— Fertile No. of Percent Eggs Set tile Eggs Chicks Hatcha- bility l Keenco 154 29 125 57 37.01 2 Egg Queen 157 33 124 69 43.94 3 Clean Con- trol 158 25 133 59 37.34 TABLE IV SECOND TEST ON HATCHABILITY OF BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEY EGGS 19 Group Treatment No. of Infer— Fertile No. of Percent Eggs Set tile Eggs Chicks Hatcha— bility l Keenco 149 38 111 61 54.95 2 Egg Queen 151 37 114- 56 49.12 3 Clean Con— trol 152 45 107 57 53.27 (w 20 TABLE V T — VALUES FOR TREATMENTS Treatment Test I Test II Test 111 Test IV Control vs. Dirty 1.31 Control vs. Egg Queen 0.79 2.40* 1.19 0.07 Control vs. Keenco 0.36 1.63 0.01 0.604 Control vs. Sanded 0.35 1.00 Dirty vs. Egg Queen 1.09 Dirty vs. Keenco 0.35 Dirty vs. Sanded .34 Egg Queen vs. Keenco 1.16 .73 1.24 0.67 Egg Oueen vs. Sanded .46 1.32 Keenco vs. Sanded I 0.72 .67 * Significant difference. T - values of two or greater would be significant. SUMMARY Washing or dry cleaning either chicken or turkey eggs does not interfere with hatchability under conditions maintained in these tests. The detergent—sanitizer treatments did not affect hatchability in chicken eggs. However, the eggs washed in the Egg Queen washer showed a higher percent hatchability which was significant at the 5% level. The hatchability of the dry cleaned chicken eggs did not differ significantly from the washed eggs. Turkey hatching eggs washed in a similar manner as chicken eggs gave comparable results. The washed eggs hatched slightly better than the control group. This difference was not significant. 21 BIBLIOGRAPHY Botwright, W. E., 1953. Detergent-sanitizers for cleaning eggs. American Egg and Poultry Review 15:34/. Bryant, R. L. and P. R. Sharp, 1934. Effect of washing on the keeping quality of hen's eggs. Journal of Agricultural Research 48:67—89 Funk, E. M., 1938. Improving the keeping quality of eggs by cleaning with sodium hydroxide. Missouri Agricul- tural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 426. Funk, E. M., 1940. The effect of washing eggs on hatchability. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 413:88. Funk, E. M., 1942. Effect of washing eggs on hatchability. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 457:85. Funk, E. M., and J. Forward, 1949. Effect of washing soiled eggs on hatchability. Poultry Science, 28:155-57. Gillespie, J. M., W. J. Scott and J. R. Vickery. (1) Storage of machine washed eggs; (2) The incidence of bacterial rotting in unwashed and hand washed eggs; (3) Experi- ments in the mode of infection by bacteria. Australian Journal of Applied Science, (1) March, 1:313-29; (2) February, 1:215—23; (3) April 1:514-30, 1950. Huston, T. M., J. R. Palmer and J. L. Carmon, 1957. The effect of washing on the hatchability of hen eggs. Poultry Science 36:557—562. Jenkins, M. K., J. S. Hepburn, C. Swan and C. M. Sherwood, 1920. Effects of cold storage on shell eggs. Ice and Refrigeration, 58:140—147. Lorenz, F. W., B. B. Starr, and F. X. Ogasawara, 1952. Effect of sprayed vs. static water under different washing temperatures. Poultry Science 31:204-26. Marshall, W. and D. B. Cruickshank, 1938. The function of the cuticle in relation to porosity of eggs. Journal of Agricultural Science, 28:24-42. Miller, W. M., V. Joukousky and A. Kraght, 1950. Experi— ments relating to the spoilage of washed eggs. Poultry Science 29:27—33. 22 23 Miller, W. A., 1954. The microbiology of dirty eggs treated in various ways and stored at different temperatures and humidities. Poultry Science, 33:735/. McNally, E. H., 1952. Effects of drying after washing on the incidence of eggs infected by spoilage micro-organisms. Poultry Science 31:1102-04. Parson, C. H., and L. D. Mink, 1939. A review of some methods of cleaning eggs. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 45:400/. Pino, J. A., 1950. The effect of washing with a hot detergent solution on keeping quality and hatchability of eggs. Poultry Science, 29:888—94. Pritsker, I. Y., 1941. Researches on hatching quality Of eggs. Poultry Science, 20:102-103. Rhodes, W. F., and G. F. Godfrey, 1950. The effect of washing eggs on the cuticle as measured by moisture loss and hatchability. Poultry Science, 29:833-36. Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical methods. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Winter, A. R., B. Burkart, and C. Wettling, 1952. Cleaning eggs for market. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 710. Winter, A. R., 1953. Quality losses in market eggs. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 607. Winter, A. R., B. Burkart, P. Clements and L. MacDonald, 1955. Cleaning eggs with detergents and detergent-sanitizers. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 762. Demco-293 Date Due