Yayın:
EFFECTS OF WASHING DIRTY EGGS OF GEESE WITH BORIC ACID AND VINEGAR ON HATCHABILITY AND MICROBIAL LOADS

dc.contributor.authorEroglu, M
dc.contributor.authorErisir, Z
dc.contributor.authorSimsek, U.G.
dc.contributor.authorMutlu, S.Iflazoglu
dc.contributor.authorBaykalir, Y
dc.contributor.authorGungoren, A
dc.contributor.authorMutlu, M
dc.contributor.authorKarakus, G.Adiyaman
dc.contributor.authorAkarsu, S
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-04T21:45:58Z
dc.date.issued2025-02-22
dc.description.abstractThis study aimed to evaluate whether washing dirty goose eggs with tap water, vinegar, and boric acid solutions could improve hatching performance and reduce microbial load. A total of 3,360 eggs were used for hatching performance assessments, while 84 eggs were analyzed for microbiological parameters. The study consisted of seven treatment groups: physically clean eggs (PC), unwashed dirty eggs (NC), eggs washed in tap water (TW), eggs washed with a vinegar solution containing 2% acetic acid (S2), eggs washed with a vinegar solution containing 4% acetic acid (S4), eggs washed with a 2% boric acid solution (B2), and eggs washed with a 4% boric acid solution (B4). Hatchability of set eggs and hatch of fertile eggs improved significantly in the PC, S2, and B2 groups (P<0.01). Embryonic mortality was significantly low in the PC and B2 groups (P<0.05). Significant differences were observed between the groups for total mesophilic aerobic bacteria (TMAB) (P<0.001), total coliforms (TCN) (P<0.01), and Escherichia coli (P<0.01). The lowest TMAB counts were recorded in the S2 and B4 groups, while the lowest TCN counts were observed in the B4 group. Bacterial analysis of egg contents showed that all bacterial groups were below detectable limits. In conclusion, washing dirty goose eggs with tap water, vinegar, or boric acid solutions (2% and 4%) effectively reduced the microbial load on the eggshell for all examined microorganisms and significantly improved hatching parameters compared to dirty eggs. Keywords: Egg, Microbial Load, Vinegar, Boric Acid, Washing.
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029
dc.description.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12604/8666
dc.identifier.doi10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029
dc.identifier.eissn2309-8694
dc.identifier.endpage363
dc.identifier.issn1018-7081
dc.identifier.openairedoi_dedup___::e2c14613a6687f3d736aad75680b4f12
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5271-2558
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105007012663
dc.identifier.startpage354
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12597/42517
dc.publisherPakistan Agricultural Scientists Forum
dc.relation.ispartofThe Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
dc.rightsOPEN
dc.subjectVinegar
dc.subjectWashing
dc.subjectEgg
dc.subjectBoric Acid
dc.subjectMicrobial Load
dc.titleEFFECTS OF WASHING DIRTY EGGS OF GEESE WITH BORIC ACID AND VINEGAR ON HATCHABILITY AND MICROBIAL LOADS
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.api.response{"authors":[{"fullName":"M Eroglu","name":"M","surname":"Eroglu","rank":1,"pid":null},{"fullName":"Z Erisir","name":"Z","surname":"Erisir","rank":2,"pid":null},{"fullName":"U.G. Simsek","name":"U.G.","surname":"Simsek","rank":3,"pid":null},{"fullName":"S.Iflazoglu Mutlu","name":"S.Iflazoglu","surname":"Mutlu","rank":4,"pid":null},{"fullName":"Y Baykalir","name":"Y","surname":"Baykalir","rank":5,"pid":null},{"fullName":"A Gungoren","name":"A","surname":"Gungoren","rank":6,"pid":null},{"fullName":"M Mutlu","name":"M","surname":"Mutlu","rank":7,"pid":null},{"fullName":"G.Adiyaman Karakus","name":"G.Adiyaman","surname":"Karakus","rank":8,"pid":null},{"fullName":"S Akarsu","name":"S","surname":"Akarsu","rank":9,"pid":{"id":{"scheme":"orcid","value":"0000-0002-5271-2558"},"provenance":null}}],"openAccessColor":"gold","publiclyFunded":false,"type":"publication","language":{"code":"und","label":"Undetermined"},"countries":null,"subjects":[{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"Vinegar"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"Washing"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"Egg"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"Boric Acid"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"Microbial Load"},"provenance":null}],"mainTitle":"EFFECTS OF WASHING DIRTY EGGS OF GEESE WITH BORIC ACID AND VINEGAR ON HATCHABILITY AND MICROBIAL LOADS","subTitle":null,"descriptions":["<jats:p>This study aimed to evaluate whether washing dirty goose eggs with tap water, vinegar, and boric acid solutions could improve hatching performance and reduce microbial load. A total of 3,360 eggs were used for hatching performance assessments, while 84 eggs were analyzed for microbiological parameters. The study consisted of seven treatment groups: physically clean eggs (PC), unwashed dirty eggs (NC), eggs washed in tap water (TW), eggs washed with a vinegar solution containing 2% acetic acid (S2), eggs washed with a vinegar solution containing 4% acetic acid (S4), eggs washed with a 2% boric acid solution (B2), and eggs washed with a 4% boric acid solution (B4). Hatchability of set eggs and hatch of fertile eggs improved significantly in the PC, S2, and B2 groups (P&lt;0.01). Embryonic mortality was significantly low in the PC and B2 groups (P&lt;0.05). Significant differences were observed between the groups for total mesophilic aerobic bacteria (TMAB) (P&lt;0.001), total coliforms (TCN) (P&lt;0.01), and Escherichia coli (P&lt;0.01). The lowest TMAB counts were recorded in the S2 and B4 groups, while the lowest TCN counts were observed in the B4 group. Bacterial analysis of egg contents showed that all bacterial groups were below detectable limits. In conclusion, washing dirty goose eggs with tap water, vinegar, or boric acid solutions (2% and 4%) effectively reduced the microbial load on the eggshell for all examined microorganisms and significantly improved hatching parameters compared to dirty eggs. Keywords: Egg, Microbial Load, Vinegar, Boric Acid, Washing.</jats:p>"],"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publisher":"Pakistan Agricultural Scientists Forum","embargoEndDate":null,"sources":["Crossref"],"formats":["application/pdf"],"contributors":null,"coverages":null,"bestAccessRight":{"code":"c_abf2","label":"OPEN","scheme":"http://vocabularies.coar-repositories.org/documentation/access_rights/"},"container":{"name":"The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences","issnPrinted":"1018-7081","issnOnline":"2309-8694","issnLinking":null,"ep":"363","iss":null,"sp":"354","vol":null,"edition":null,"conferencePlace":null,"conferenceDate":null},"documentationUrls":null,"codeRepositoryUrl":null,"programmingLanguage":null,"contactPeople":null,"contactGroups":null,"tools":null,"size":null,"version":null,"geoLocations":null,"id":"doi_dedup___::e2c14613a6687f3d736aad75680b4f12","originalIds":["10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029","50|doiboost____|e2c14613a6687f3d736aad75680b4f12","oai:acikerisim.siirt.edu.tr:20.500.12604/8666","50|od______9478::fab9d9235c9e3c90416b2cfe7f7adc4e"],"pids":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029"}],"dateOfCollection":null,"lastUpdateTimeStamp":null,"indicators":{"citationImpact":{"citationCount":3,"influence":2.6830784e-9,"popularity":5.199176e-9,"impulse":3,"citationClass":"C5","influenceClass":"C5","impulseClass":"C5","popularityClass":"C4"}},"instances":[{"pids":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029"}],"type":"Article","urls":["https://doi.org/10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029"],"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","refereed":"peerReviewed"},{"alternateIdentifiers":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.36899/japs.2025.2.0029"}],"type":"Article","urls":["https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12604/8666"],"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","refereed":"nonPeerReviewed"}],"isGreen":true,"isInDiamondJournal":false}
local.import.sourceOpenAire
local.indexed.atScopus

Dosyalar

Koleksiyonlar