Submitted:
03 January 2024
Posted:
04 January 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Location of the study
2.2. Experimental procedure
2.3. Collection of eggs for hatching
2.4. Reproductive assessment
2.5. Egg quality assessment
2.6. Statistical analysis
3. Results
3.1. Reproductive performance
3.2. Egg quality parameters
3.3. Relationships between egg quality traits
3.4. Variables’ contributions to variation and loadings on the principal components
3.5. Principal component factor score coefficients
3.6. Egg weight prediction using stepwise multiple linear models
3.7. Egg weight prediction using ridge regression
3.8. Egg weight prediction using CHAID model
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Molnár, S.; Szőllősi, L. Sustainability and quality aspects of different table egg production systems: A literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yotona Tunsisa, L.; Berihun Reda, K. Evaluation of fertility, hatchability and egg quality of indigenous chickens in different agro-ecologies of the Sidama Region, Ethiopia. Veterinary Integrative Sciences 2023, 21, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abacı, S.H.; Tunc, T.; Onder, H.; Erensoy, K.; Sarica, M. Turkish Journal of Agriculture -Food Science and Technology 2023, 11, 2446–2451. [CrossRef]
- Yu, A.; She, H.; Cao, J. Evolution of the spatial patterns of global egg trading networks in the 21 Century. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoyombo, A.J.; Yakubu, A.; Adebambo, A.O.; Popoola, M.A.; Olafadehan, O.A.; Wheto, M.; et al. Characterization of indigenous helmeted guinea fowls in Nigeria for meat and egg production. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2021, 77, 1037–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zvakare, P.; Mugabe, H.P.; Mutibvu, T. Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) production by small-holder farmers in Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soara, A.E.; Talaki, E.; Dayo, G-K.; Oke, O.E.; Belem, A.M.G.; Tona, K.; Indigenous Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) production in West Africa: Inventory, performances and constraints– A review. Europ. Poult. Sci. 2020, 84. [CrossRef]
- Rayan, G.N.; Mansour, A.; Fathi, M.M. Comparative Study of Egg and Meat Quality of Guinea Fowl under Different tropical regions: A Review. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2022, 24, eRBCA-2022-1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dharani, P.; Ushakumary, S.; Sundaram, V.; Joseph, C.; Ramesh, G. Morphological analysis of testis of the Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) under Tropical Savannah Climate of India. Int. J. Morphol. 2018, 36, 909–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molnár, M.; Lázár, B.; Sztán, N.; Végi, B.; Drobnyák, A.; Tóth, R.; et al. Investigation of the Guinea fowl and domestic fowl hybrids as potential surrogate hosts for avian cryopreservation programmes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damaziak, K.; Marzec, A.; Riedel, J.; Wójcik, W.; Pstrokoński, P.; Szudrowicz, H.; et al. Effect of pearl guinea fowl eggshell ultrastructure and microstructure on keets hatchability. Poult Sci. 2023, 102, 102733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamak, U.S.; Boz, M.A.; Ucar, A.; Sarica, M.; Onder, H. The Effect of eggshell thickness on the hatchability of guinea fowl and pheasants. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 2016, 18, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeleke, G.; Urge, M.; Animut, G.; Esatu, W.; Dessie, T. Comparative Laying Performance, Egg Quality, Fertility and Hatchability of Guinea Fowl with Tilili, Horro and Potchefstroom Koekoek Chicken Breeds. Open Journal of Animal Sciences 2020, 10, 665–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idowu, O.P.A.; Egbeyale, L.T.; Odutayo, O.J.; Idowu, K.R.; Iyanda, A.I.; Sogunle, O.M. Effects of source of hatchable egg on egg external characteristics, fertility, embryo characteristics, mortality, and hatchability of guinea fowl keets. Nig. J. Anim. Prod. 2022, 49, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krunt, O.; Zita, L.; Kraus, A.; Okrouhlá, M.; Chodová, D.; Stupka, R. Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) eggs and free-range housing: a convenient alternative to laying hens' eggs in terms of food safety? Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Portillo-Salgado, R., Cigarroa-Vázquez, F.A., Ruiz-Sesma, B., Mendoza-Nazar, P., Hernández-Marín, A., Esponda-Hernández, W. et al. Prediction of egg weight from external egg traits of guinea fowl using multiple linear regression and regression tree methods. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2021, 23, eRBCA-2020-1350. [CrossRef]
- Kumar, M.; Dahiya, S.P.; Ratwan, P.; Sheoran, N.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, N. Assessment of egg quality and biochemical parameters of Aseel and Kadaknath indigenous chicken breeds of India under backyard poultry farming. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yakubu, A. Yakubu, A., Jegede, P., Wheto, M., Shoyombo, A.J., Adebambo, A.O., Popoola, M.A. et al. Multivariate Characterisation of Morpho-biometric Traits of Indigenous Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) in Nigeria. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Atawalna, J.; Agbehadzi, R.K.; Essel, D.C.J.; Mensah, P. The Effect of mating ratio on guinea fowl reproductive performance. SVU-IJVS 2022, 5, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yalcin, S.; Özkan, S.; Shah, T. Incubation temperature and lighting: effect on embryonic development, post-hatch growth, and adaptive response. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 899977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanova, R.; Nikolova, M.; Veleva, P. Study on Egg Productivity of Guinea-Fowls (Numida meleagris). Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 2020, 10, 727–734. [Google Scholar]
- Duman, M.; Şekeroğlu, A.; Yıldırım, A.; Eleroğlu, H.; Camc, Ö. Relation between egg shape index and egg quality characteristics. Europ. Poult. Sci. 2016, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, K.E.; Tharrington, J.B.; Curtis, P.A.; Jones, F.T. Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb white leghorn chickens and relationship of egg shape to shell strength. International Journal of Poultry Science 2004, 3, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Vekic, M’; Jotanovic, S.; Savic, Ð. Certain egg quality parameters of gray Guinea fowl in extensive rearing. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2018, 34, 207–215. [CrossRef]
- Almeida, G.R. de.; Mendonça, M. de O.; Weitzel, L.C. de C.; Bittencourt, T.M.; Matos, A.S. de.; Valentim, J.K. et al. Physical quality of eggs of four strains of poultry. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences 2021, 43, e52738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirri, F.; Zampiga, M.; Berardinelli, A.; Meluzzi, A. Variability and interaction of some egg physical and eggshell quality attributes during the entire laying hen cycle. Poultry Science 2018, 97, 1818–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernacki, Z.; Kokoszynski, D.; Bawej, M. Laying performance, egg quality and hatching results in two guinea fowl genotypes. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde 2013, 77, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
- Khaleel, R.M.T. Prediction of haugh unit through albumen height and egg weight. Mesopotamia J. of Agric. 2019, 47, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzec, A.; Damaziac, K.; Kowalska, H.; Riedel, J.; Michalczuk, M., Koczywas, E. et al. Effect of hens age and storage time on functional and physiochemical properties of eggs. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2019, 28, 290–300. [CrossRef]
- Çiftsüren, M.N.; Akkol, S. Prediction of internal egg quality characteristics and variable selection using regularization methods: ridge, LASSO and elastic net. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2018, 61, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kebede, K.; Getachew, A.; Mengistu, U.M. Principal components regression of internal egg quality traits in two exotic chicken breeds in Haramaya. J. Food Chem. Nanotechnol. 2022, 8, 102–107. [Google Scholar]
- Orhan, H., Eyduran, E., Tatliyer, A. and Saygici, H. (2016). Prediction of egg weight from egg quality characteristics via ridge regression and regression tree methods. R. Bras. Zootec., 45(7):380-385, 2016. [CrossRef]
- IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020.
- Obike, O.M.; Nwachukwu, E.N.; Ukewulonu, I.E. Effect of strain and associations of some fertility and hatchability traits of indigenous guinea fowls raised in the rain-forest zone of South-East Nigeria. Glob. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 2014, 2, 98–102. [Google Scholar]
- Yakubu, K.; Ibrahim, T.; Egbo, M.L.; Shuaibu, A.; Umar, H.A. Some factors affecting incubation parameters of guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) Eggs. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science and Technology 2019, 2, 97–106. Retrieved from https://njast.com.ng/index.php/home/article/view/12.
- Atawalna, J.; Agbehadzi, R.K.; Essel, D.C.J.; Amponsah, P. Guinea fowl fertility, hatchability and embryonic mortality in an intensively managed farm in Ashanti Region of Ghana. Animal Research International 2020, 17, 3863–3868. [Google Scholar]
- Adu-Aboagy,e G.; Nyameasem, J.K.; Ahiagbe, K.M.J.; Ansah, K.O.; Zagbede, G.A. Agbe, K.K. Reproductive traits of the indigenous Guinea fowl under tropical humid conditions; the effect of egg size. Livestock Research for Rural Development 2020, 32, Article #55. Retrieved December 27, 2023, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd32/4/gadua32055.html.
- Moreki, J.C. Guinea Fowl Production. Reach Publishers, Wandsbeck, South Africa, 3631, 2009. pp 7-31.
- Agbolosu, A.A. , Teye, G.A., Adjetey, A.N.A., Addah, W., and Naandam, J. Performance characteristics of growing indigenous guinea fowls from Upper West and Northern regions of Ghana. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 2012, 3, 336–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naandam, J.; Issah, G.B. Hatchability of guinea fowl eggs and performance of keets under the traditional extensive system in Tolon– Kumbungu district of Ghana. Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research 2012, 2, 253–257. [Google Scholar]
- Ahaotu, E.O.; Umoh, G.; Onweagba, A.E.; Chukwu, A.O.; Iwuanyanwu, U.P. Guinea fowl keets performance under improved and extensive conditions in Anthony Patience farms, Atta-Ikeduru, Imo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences 2013, 2, 82–86. [Google Scholar]
- Hudson, G.H.; Omprakash, A.V.; Premavalli, K.; Dhinakar Raj, G. Quantifying sperm egg interaction to assess the breeding efficiency through artificial insemination in guinea fowls. British Poultry Science 2017, 58, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González Ariza, A.; Arando Arbulu, A.; Navas González, F.J.; León Jurado, J.M.; Delgado Bermejo, J.V.; Camacho Vallejo, M.E. Data mining-based discriminant analysis as a tool for the study of egg quality in native hen breeds. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 15873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Wang, Q.; Ma, M.; Zhu, Z.; Lin, W.; Liu, S.; Fan, W. Single-view measurement method for egg size based on small-batch images. Foods 2023, 12, 936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dzungwe, J.T.; Gwaza, D.S.; Egahi, J.O. Egg weight, fertility, embryonic mortality, hatchability and keets survival rate after brooding of the French broiler guinea fowl raised in the humid tropics of Nigeria. Poultry, Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences 2018, 6, 1000192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kouame, Y.A.E.; Voemesse, K.; Lin, H.; Onagbesan, O.M.; Tona, K. Effects of egg storage duration on egg quality, metabolic rate, hematological parameters during embryonic and post-hatch development of guinea fowl broilers. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oke, U.K.; Herbert, U.; Nwachukwu, E.N. Association between body weight and some egg production traits in the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris galeata. Pallas). Livestock Research for Rural Development 2004, 16, #72. Retrieved January 2, 2024, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/9/oke16072.htm.
- Vekić, M. Savić, D.; Cvijanović, D. Changes of selected egg quality traits depending on the laying period of semi-intensively raised Guinea fowl hens. Agro-knowledge Journal 2019, 20, 141–149. [Google Scholar]
- Nowaczewski, S.; Witkiewicz, K.; Frątczak, M.; Kontecka, H.; Rutkowski, A.; Krystianiak, S.; Rosiński, A. Egg quality from domestic and French guinea fowl. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 2008, 2. https://www.npt.up-poznan.net/pub/art_2_8.pdf.
- Manyeula, F.; Tumagole, O.; Kgwatalala, P. Phenotypic correlations among various egg quality traits in pearl grey, lavender, royal purple, and white varieties of helmeted guinea fowl. J. World Poult. Res. 2020, 10, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malfatti, L.H.; Zampar, A.; Galvão, A.C.; Robazza, W.D.S.; Boiago, M.M. Evaluating and predicting egg quality indicators through principal component analysis and artificial neural networks. LWT 2021, 148, 111720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes, M. (2009). Multiple linear regression models based on principal component scores to predict slaughter weight of broiler. Arch. Geflügelk 2009, 73, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
- Liswaniso, S.; Qin, N. , Tyasi, T.L., Chimbaka, I.M. Use of data mining algorithms chaid and cart in predicting egg weight from egg quality traits of indigenous free-range chickens in zambia. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2021, 9, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Parameters | Indigenous guinea fowls | Exotic guinea fowls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No of incubated eggs No of fertile eggs No of unfertile eggs % of fertile eggs % of unfertile eggs No of hatched keets % Hatchability |
120.0 88.0 32.0 73.3 26.7 50 56.8 |
120.0 108.0 12.0 90.0 10.0 72.0 66.7 |
| Genetic group | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Traits | Indigenous | Exotic | |
| Egg weight (g) | 34.09±1.69a | 41.50±1.77a | |
| Egg length (mm) | 45.48±2.31b | 50.91±2.31a | |
| Egg width (mm) | 32.73±1.54b | 37.86±1.54a | |
| Shell thickness (mm) | 0.67±0.06b | 0.71±0.06a | |
| Shell weight (g) | 6.44±0.55b | 6.82±0.52a | |
| Egg shell index (%) | 18.88±0.79a | 16.41±0.69b | |
| Egg shape index (%) | 72.08±3.97b | 74.46±3.53a | |
| Yolk weight (g) | 10.30±0.73b | 13.08±0.71a | |
| Yolk height (mm) | 12.97±0.71b | 14.88±0.71a | |
| Yolk diameter (mm) | 33.20±0.98b | 36.31±0.98a | |
| Yolk ratio | 30.18±0.92b | 31.50±0.69a | |
| Yolk index (%) | 39.10±2.63b | 41.01±2.43a | |
| Albumen weight (g) | 16.41±1.01b | 20.77±0.97a | |
| Albumen height (mm) | 7.11±0.58b | 7.34±0.58a | |
| Albumen diameter (mm) | 51.54±1.76b | 57.66±1.76a | |
| Yolk/Albumen ratio | 0.63±0.02a | 0.63±0.02a | |
| Haugh unit | 92.37±3.13a | 91.09±3.22b | |
| Traits | EW | EL | EWD | ST | SW | ESI | ESPI | YW | YH | YD | YR | YI | AW | AH | AD | Y/A | HU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EW | 0.60 ** |
0.97 ** |
0.90 ** |
0.95 ** |
0.76 ** |
0.29 ** |
0.93 ** |
0.36 ** |
-0.05 ns |
0.52 ** |
0.32 ** |
0.92 ** |
0.07 ns |
-0.14 ns |
0.28 ** |
-0.11 ns |
|
| EL | 0.89 ** |
0.60 ** |
0.56 ** |
0.56 ** |
0.45 ** |
-0.57 ** |
0.54 ** |
0.08 ns |
0.17 ns |
0.28 ** |
-0.02 ns |
0.52 ** |
0.17 ns |
0.03 ns |
0.21 ** |
0.06 ns |
|
| EWD | 0.96 ** |
0.91 ** |
0.91 ** |
0.92 ** |
0.75 ** |
0.32 ** |
0.91 ** |
0.35 ** |
-0.11 ns |
0.52 ** |
0.34 ** |
0.91 ** |
0.11 ns |
-0.14 ns |
0.25 ** |
-0.07 ns |
|
| ST | 0.88 ** |
0.84 ** |
0.89 ** |
0.82 ** |
0.62 ** |
0.28 ** |
0.84 ** |
0.31 ** |
-0.05 ns |
0.47 ** |
0.27 ** |
0.78 ** |
0.06 ns |
-0.15 ns |
0.35 ** |
-0.11 ns |
|
| SW | 0.90 ** |
0.80 ** |
0.90 ** |
0.77 ** |
0.93 ** |
0.28 ** |
0.89 ** |
0.31 ** |
0.00 ns |
0.51 ** |
0.26 ** |
0.91 ** |
0.09 ns |
-0.13 ns |
0.21 ** |
-0.09 ns |
|
| ESI | 0.66 ** |
0.58 ** |
0.69 ** |
0.55 ** |
0.90 ** |
0.24 ** |
0.72 ** |
0.21 ** |
0.06 ns |
0.42 ** |
0.15 ns |
0.77 ** |
0.10 ns |
-0.10 ns |
0.08 ns |
-0.04 ns |
|
| ESPI | 0.69 ** |
0.48 ** |
0.76 ** |
0.62 ** |
0.68 ** |
0.57 ** |
0.29 ** |
0.26 ** |
-0.30 ** |
0.20 ** |
0.35 ** |
0.33 ** |
-0.09 ns |
-0.18 ns |
0.01 ns |
-0.14 ns |
|
| YW | 0.92 ** |
0.81 ** |
0.90 ** |
0.82 ** |
0.81 ** |
0.55 ** |
0.68 ** |
0.41 ** |
-0.05 ns |
0.80 ** |
0.35 ** |
0.90 ** |
0.12 ns |
-0.16 ns |
0.48 ** |
-0.05 ns |
|
| YH | 0.39 ** |
0.26 ** |
0.40 ** |
0.32 ** |
0.34 ** |
0.20 * |
0.48 ** |
0.45 ** |
-0.16 ns |
0.34 ** |
0.89 ** |
0.37 ** |
0.01 ns |
-0.05 ns |
0.18 * |
-0.06 ns |
|
| YD | -0.09 ns |
-0.03 ns |
-0.13 ns |
-0.11 ns |
-0.09 ns |
-0.08 ns |
-0.20 * |
-0.10 ns |
-0.08 ns |
-0.03 ns |
-0.59 ** |
-0.05 ns |
-0.11 ns |
0.08 ns |
-0.02 ns |
-0.10 ns |
|
| YR | 0.37 ** |
0.33 ** |
0.38 ** |
0.36 ** |
0.30 ** |
0.15 ns |
0.33 ** |
0.67 ** |
0.31 ** |
-0.04 ns |
0.29 ** |
0.59 ** |
0.17 ns |
-0.14 ns |
0.65 ** |
0.07 ns |
|
| YI | 0.33 ** |
0.19 ** |
0.36 ** |
0.26 ** |
0.30 | 0.18 * |
0.50 ** |
0.37 ** |
0.88 ** |
-0.50 ** |
0.24 ** |
0.33 ** |
0.06 ns |
-0.07 ns |
0.15 ns |
-0.01 ns |
|
| AW | 0.94 ** |
0.82 ** |
0.90 ** |
0.76 ** |
0.84 ** |
0.60 ** |
0.64 ** |
0.86 ** |
0.39 ** |
-0.09 ns |
0.33 ** |
0.33 ** |
0.12 ns |
-0.06 ns |
0.05 ns |
-0.05 ns |
|
| AH | 0.02 ns |
0.08 ns |
0.05 ns |
0.03 ns |
0.06 ns |
0.09 ns |
0.01 ns |
0.05 ns |
0.01 ns |
-0.08 ns |
0.13 ns |
0.09 ns |
-0.01 ns |
0.14 ns |
0.03 ns |
0.98 ** |
|
| AD | -0.13 ns |
-0.09 ns |
-0.16 ns |
-0.16 ns |
-0.11 ns |
-0.07 ns |
-0.21 * |
-0.18 ns |
-0.10 ns |
0.001 ns |
-0.20 * |
-0.06 ns |
-0.09 ns |
0.06 ns |
-0.25 ** |
0.18 ns |
|
| Y/A | 0.29 ** |
0.29 ** |
0.31 ** |
0.39 ** |
0.25 ** |
0.13 ns |
0.30 ** |
0.54 ** |
0.18 * |
-0.01 ns |
0.77 ** |
0.13 ns |
0.07 ns |
0.09 ns |
-0.22 * |
-0.02 ns |
|
| HU | -0.19 * |
-0.11 ns |
-0.15 ns |
-0.14 ns |
-0.13 ns |
-0.05 ns |
-0.13 ns |
-0.14 ns |
-0.08 ns |
-0.07 ns |
0.04 ns |
0.02 ns |
-0.20 * |
0.97 ** |
0.11 ns |
0.01 ns |
| Genetic group | |||||||||
| Indigenous | Exotic | ||||||||
| Traits | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | Communality | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | Communality | |
| Egg length | 0.737 | -0.421 | 0.174 | 0.751 | 0.730 | -0.453 | 0.140 | 0.758 | |
| Egg width | 0.944 | 0.228 | 0.002 | 0.944 | 0.953 | 0.208 | -0.010 | 0.951 | |
| Shell thickness | 0.875 | 0.180 | -0.042 | 0.799 | 0.883 | 0.157 | -0.060 | 0.807 | |
| Shell weight | 0.957 | 0.167 | -0.025 | 0.945 | 0.931 | 0.183 | 0.034 | 0.901 | |
| Egg shell index | 0.836 | 0.090 | -0.005 | 0.708 | 0.750 | 0.141 | 0.110 | 0.594 | |
| Egg shape index | 0.102 | 0.723 | -0.201 | 0.574 | 0.100 | 0.741 | -0.175 | 0.590 | |
| Yolk weight | 0.907 | 0.262 | 0.023 | 0.893 | 0.897 | 0.234 | 0.004 | 0.860 | |
| Yolk height | 0.236 | 0.795 | 0.059 | 0.692 | 0.244 | 0.775 | 0.044 | 0.663 | |
| Yolk index | 0.167 | 0.861 | 0.107 | 0.781 | 0.185 | 0.845 | 0.097 | 0.757 | |
| Albumen weight | 0.904 | 0.254 | 0.017 | 0.883 | 0.896 | 0.217 | -0.022 | 0.851 | |
| Albumen height | 0.099 | 0.001 | 0.983 | 0.976 | 0.111 | -0.007 | 0.985 | 0.984 | |
| Haugh unit | -0.075 | -0.041 | 0.985 | 0.978 | -0.049 | -0.042 | 0.991 | 0.987 | |
| Eigenvalue | 5.949 | 2.148 | 1.825 | 5.739 | 2.164 | 1.799 | |||
| % of total variance | 49.58 | 17.90 | 15.21 | 47.82 | 18.03 | 14.99 | |||
| Genetic group | |||||||
| Indigenous | Exotic | ||||||
| Traits | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | |
| Egg length | 0.188 | -0.272 | 0.057 | 0.194 | -0.289 | 0.032 | |
| Egg width | 0.167 | 0.013 | -0.009 | 0.177 | 0.004 | -0.023 | |
| Shell thickness | 0.159 | -0.004 | -0.032 | 0.169 | -0.016 | -0.048 | |
| Shell weight | 0.177 | -0.019 | -0.025 | 0.174 | -0.004 | -0.001 | |
| Egg shell index | 0.160 | -0.043 | -0.016 | 0.139 | -0.004 | 0.040 | |
| Egg shape index | -0.050 | 0.332 | -0.076 | -0.050 | 0.344 | -0.061 | |
| Yolk weight | 0.156 | 0.034 | 0.003 | 0.163 | 0.023 | -0.014 | |
| Yolk height | -0.035 | 0.362 | 0.053 | -0.029 | 0.355 | 0.045 | |
| Yolk index | -0.057 | 0.402 | 0.080 | -0.050 | 0.396 | 0.076 | |
| Albumen weight | 0.156 | 0.031 | 0.000 | 0.165 | 0.014 | -0.027 | |
| Albumen height | 0.001 | 0.026 | 0.487 | -0.003 | 0.024 | 0.486 | |
| Haugh unit | -0.030 | 0.023 | 0.490 | -0.033 | 0.023 | 0.492 | |
| Model | Predictors | Intercept | Regression coefficient | Standard error | R2 |
| Indigenous | |||||
| (i) Original egg indices as predictors | |||||
| 1 | Egg width | -0.797 | 1.066 | 0.026 | 0.936 |
| 2 | Egg width | 4.340 | 0.676 | 0.054 | 0.958 |
| Shell weight | 1.185 | 0.151 | |||
| 3 | Egg width | 31.458 | 0.067 | 0.014 | 0.999 |
| Shell weight | 4.996 | 0.072 | |||
| Egg shell index | -1.682 | 0.029 | |||
| 4 | Egg width | 32.751 | 0.060 | 0.013 | 0.999 |
| Shell weight | 5.072 | 0.068 | |||
| Egg shell index | -1.719 | 0.028 | |||
| Yolk/Albumen ratio | -1.391 | 0.307 | |||
| (ii) Orthogonal traits as predictors | |||||
| 1 | PC1 | 34.087 | 1.613 | 0.047 | 0.908 |
| 2 | PC1 | 34.087 | 1.613 | 0.034 | 0.953 |
| PC2 | 0.360 | 0.034 | |||
| Exotic | |||||
| (i) Original egg indices as predictors | |||||
| 1 | Egg width | -0.531 | 1.110 | 0.029 | 0.927 |
| 2 | Egg width | -0.230 | 0.778 | 0.054 | 0.948 |
| Albumen weight | 0.591 | 0.086 | |||
| 3 | Egg width | -6.842 | 0.602 | 0.058 | 0.959 |
| Albumen weight | 0.837 | 0.089 | |||
| Yolk/Albumen ratio | 12.967 | 2.359 | |||
| (ii) Orthogonal traits as predictors | |||||
| 1 | PC1 | 41.498 | 1.693 | 0.048 | 0.913 |
| 2 | PC1 | 41.498 | 1.693 | 0.037 | 0.950 |
| PC2 | 0.343 | 0.037 | |||
| 3 | PC1 | 41.498 | 1.693 | 0.036 | 0.952 |
| PC2 | 0.343 | 0.036 | |||
| PC3 | -0.081 | 0.036 |
| Predictors | Standardized Regression coefficient | Standard error | P-value | R2 |
| Indigenous | ||||
| Egg length | 0.146 | 0.015 | 0.01** | 0.959 |
| Egg width | 0.128 | 0.010 | 0.01** | |
| Shell thickness | 0.118 | 0.013 | 0.01** | |
| Shell weight | 0.151 | 0.009 | 0.01** | |
| Egg shell index | 0.094 | 0.013 | 0.01** | |
| Egg shape index | 0.049 | 0.015 | 0.01** | |
| Yolk weight | 0.140 | 0.011 | 0.01** | |
| Yolk height | 0.016 | 0.021 | 0.43ns | |
| Yolk diameter | -0.027 | 0.021 | 0.21ns | |
| Albumen weight | 0.139 | 0.011 | 0.01** | |
| Albumen height | -0.006 | 0.020 | 0.75ns | |
| Albumen diameter | -0.021 | 0.027 | 0.64ns | |
| Yolk ratio | -0.012 | 0.031 | 0.71ns | |
| Yolk/Albumen ratio | 0.036 | 0.028 | 0.20ns | |
| Yolk index | 0.021 | 0.011 | 0.04* | |
| Haugh unit | 0.010 | 0.021 | 0.65ns | |
| French strain | ||||
| Egg length | 0.149 | 0.071 | 0.01** | 0.959 |
| Egg width | 0.156 | 0.019 | 0.01** | |
| Shell thickness | 0.123 | 0.021 | 0.01** | |
| Shell weight | 0.179 | 0.023 | 0.01** | |
| Egg shell index | -0.019 | 0.058 | 0.74ns | |
| Egg shape index | 0.067 | 0.021 | 0.01** | |
| Yolk weight | 0.149 | 0.019 | 0.01** | |
| Yolk height | 0.027 | 0.028 | 0.34ns | |
| Yolk diameter | -0.018 | 0.028 | 0.67ns | |
| Albumen weight | 0.185 | 0.022 | 0.01** | |
| Albumen height | 0.049 | 0.033 | 0.12ns | |
| Albumen diameter | 0.016 | 0.034 | 0.81ns | |
| Yolk ratio | -0.053 | 0.019 | 0.01** | |
| Yolk/Albumen ratio | 0.056 | 0.030 | 0.04* | |
| Yolk index | 0.018 | 0.027 | 0.66ns | |
| Haugh unit | -0.014 | 0.037 | 0.87ns |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).