不同笼养方式对鸡蛋蛋黄风味的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.13.014

中国农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (13): 2609-2619.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.13.014

不同笼养方式对鸡蛋蛋黄风味的影响

高丽冰¹(), 陈刚², 王晶¹(), 齐广海¹, 张海军¹, 邱凯¹, 武书庚¹

¹ 农业农村部动物产品质量安全饲料源性因子风险评估实验室/农业农村部饲料生物技术重点开放实验室/中国农业科学院饲料研究所，北京 100081
² 中国农业大学农业农村部设施农业工程重点开放实验室，北京 100083

收稿日期:2022-04-26 接受日期:2023-02-28 出版日期:2023-07-01 发布日期:2023-07-06
通信作者:
王晶，Tel/Fax：010-82106097；E-mail：wangjing@caas.cn
联系方式: 高丽冰，E-mail：18811618200@163.com。
基金资助:
现代农业产业技术体系专项资金资助(CARS-40-K12); 中国农业科学院农科英才特殊支持计划(NKYCQN-2021-016)

Effects of Different Caging Regimes on Egg Yolk Flavor of Laying Hens

GAO LiBing¹(), CHEN Gang², WANG Jing¹(), QI GuangHai¹, ZHANG HaiJun¹, QIU Kai¹, WU ShuGeng¹

¹ Laboratory of Quality & Safety Risk Assessment for Products on Feed-origin Risk Factor, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Key Laboratory of Feed Biotechnology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Institute of Feed Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081
² Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083

Received:2022-04-26 Accepted:2023-02-28 Published:2023-07-01 Online:2023-07-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】采用感官评价、电子鼻和电子舌检测、质构仪分析，确定传统叠层笼养和栖架福利笼养下鸡蛋蛋黄风味的差异，为鸡蛋蛋黄风味研究提供基础数据。【方法】以传统叠层笼养和栖架福利笼养的55周龄健康京粉蛋鸡所产鸡蛋为试验对象，通过感官评价、电子鼻和电子舌检测、质构仪检测蛋黄的气味、滋味和质感，运用线性判别分析（linear discriminant analysis, LDA）分析、支持向量机（support vector machine, SVM）分析、K-最近邻法（K-nearest neighbor method, KNN）分析和决策树（decision tree）分析对两种笼养方式的蛋黄风味进行判别，探究不同笼养模式对鸡蛋蛋黄风味的影响。【结果】与栖架福利笼养相比，传统叠层笼养的蛋黄颜色评分显著增加（P<0.05）。感官评价中，栖架福利笼养组蛋黄的奶香味滋味评分显著高于传统叠层笼养组（P<0.05），海苔味滋味和糊口性评分低于栖架福利笼养组（P<0.05）。相关性分析结果表明，蛋黄整体喜好度评分与滋味喜好度和质感喜好度评分显著正相关（P<0.05）。蛋香味滋味评分与滋味喜好度评分显著正相关（P<0.05），蛋香滋味与鱼腥滋味和甜味滋味显著负相关（P<0.05），鱼腥滋味与甜味滋味显著正相关（P<0.05）。蛋黄颗粒感与蛋黄粘牙度呈显著正相关（P<0.05）。仪器检测中，栖架福利笼养组蛋黄在电子鼻传感器W2W（芳香有机硫成分）、W2S（甲醇、乙醇）、W1W（对硫化物灵敏）和W1S（对甲基类灵敏）响应程度显著大于传统叠层笼养组（P<0.05），在电子舌传感器SRS（酸味）、STS（咸味）和UMS（鲜味）响应程度显著小于传统叠层笼养组（P<0.05），蛋黄质构特性的硬度和咀嚼性显著大于传统叠层笼养组（P<0.05）。判别分析可知，K-最邻近法判别方法可依据电子鼻响应值判别两种笼养方式下的蛋黄气味差异，准确率为94.5%。支持向量机算法、K-最邻近法和决策树判别方法可依据电子舌响应值判别两种笼养方式下的蛋黄滋味差异，准确率为100.0%。【结论】栖架福利笼养下鸡蛋蛋黄奶香味滋味增强、海苔味滋味和糊口减弱，电子鼻硫化物传感器响应值增强，电子舌鲜味和咸味传感器响应值减弱。基于电子鼻和电子舌检测，采用K-最邻近法、支持向量机算法和决策树方法能够判别传统叠层笼养和栖架福利笼养下蛋黄风味差异。

关键词: 蛋黄风味, 福利笼养, 电子鼻, 电子舌, 质构特性, 产蛋鸡

Abstract:

【Objective】In this study, sensory evaluation, electronic nose detection, electronic tongue detection and texture analyzer detection were used to determine the differences in egg yolk flavor between traditional caging regime and furnished caging regime, to provide basic data on the egg yolk flavor. 【Method】The eggs were produced by Jing Tint 6 laying hens that were 55 weeks old and healthy in traditional caging regime and furnished caging regime that was used as the test objects. The aroma, flavor and texture of egg yolk were detected by sensory evaluation, electronic nose detection and electronic tongue detection, and texture analyzer. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) analysis, support vector machine (SVM) analysis, K-nearest neighbor method (KNN) analysis and decision tree analysis were used to distinguish the yolk flavor of the two caging regimes to explore the influence of different caging regimes on the flavor of egg yolk.【Result】The yolk color was significantly increased in traditional caging regime compared with furnished caging regime (P<0.05). The milky flavor scores of egg yolk in furnished caging regime were significantly higher than that in traditional caging regime (P<0.05), and the seaweed flavor scores and stickiness scores of egg yolk in traditional caging regime were higher than those in furnished caging regime (P<0.05). The results of correlation analysis showed that the overall preference score of the yolk was significantly correlated with the acceptance of flavor scores and texture scores (P<0.05). Egg flavor was significantly negatively correlated with fishy flavor and sweet flavor (P<0.05), and the fishy flavor was significantly positively correlated with sweet flavor (P<0.05). There was a significant positive correlation between egg yolk lumpy and egg yolk adhesive dentition (P<0.05). The responses of W2W, W2S, W1W and W1S of electronic nose sensors in furnished caging regime were significantly higher than those in traditional caging regime (P<0.05), and the responses of SRS, STS and UMS of egg yolk electronic tongue sensors in furnished caging regime were significantly lower than those in traditional caging regime (P<0.05). The hardness and chewiness of egg yolk in furnished caging regime were significantly higher than that in traditional caging regime (P<0.05). The KNN method could discriminate the differences in egg yolk aroma in the different caging regimes based on the responses of the electronic nose, and the accuracy was 94.5%. The SVM, KNN method and decision tree could distinguish the differences in egg yolk flavor in the different caging regime based on the responses of the electronic tongue, with 100% accuracy rate. 【Conclusion】In conclusion, the milky flavor of egg yolk was increased in furnished caging regime, and seaweed flavor and stickiness were reduced. The instrument detected the increased responses of the electronic nose sulfide sensor and the decreased responses of the electronic tongue umami and salty sensors in furnished caging regime. According to the responses of electronic nose and electronic tongue, the differences in egg yolk flavor in two different caging regimes could be effectively distinguished by KNN analysis, SVM analysis and decision tree analysis.

Key words: egg flavor, furnished caging regime, electronic nose, electronic tongue, texture characteristics, laying hen

高丽冰, 陈刚, 王晶, 齐广海, 张海军, 邱凯, 武书庚. 不同笼养方式对鸡蛋蛋黄风味的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(13): 2609-2619.

GAO LiBing, CHEN Gang, WANG Jing, QI GuangHai, ZHANG HaiJun, QIU Kai, WU ShuGeng. Effects of Different Caging Regimes on Egg Yolk Flavor of Laying Hens[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(13): 2609-2619.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.13.014

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2023/V56/I13/2609

图/表 8

表1

表2

表3

图1

图2

表4

图3

图4

参考文献 39

[1]	杨柳, 李保明. 蛋鸡福利化养殖模式及技术装备研究进展. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(23): 214-221.
	YANG L, LI B M. Research progress of welfare-oriented breeding mode and technical equipments for laying hen. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2015, 31(23): 214-221. (in Chinese)
[2]	VITS A, WEITZENBÜRGER D, HAMANN H, DISTL O. Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Science, 2005, 84(10): 1511-1519. pmid: 16335118
[3]	石海鹏, 杨柳, 张家发, 李保明. 栖架散养系统对产蛋后期鸡蛋品质、血清生化指标、屠宰性能、骨骼健康的影响. 中国家禽, 2015, 37(17): 39-43.
	SHI H P, YANG L, ZHANG J F, LI B M. Effect of aviary system during period of laying on egg quality, serum biochemical indexes, slaughter performance and bone health in laying hens. China Poultry, 2015, 37(17): 39-43. (in Chinese)
[4]	王显. 不同饲养方式对蛋鸡生产性能、鸡蛋品质及经济效益的影响. 中国饲料, 2021, (6): 21-24.
	WANG X. Effects of different raising systems on production performance, egg quality and economic benefit of laying hens. China Feed, 2021, (6): 21-24. (in Chinese)
[5]	PLAGEMANN I, ZELENA K, KRINGS U, BERGER R G. Volatile flavours in raw egg yolk of hens fed on different diets. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2011, 91(11): 2061-2065. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4420 pmid: 21538364
[6]	FENG J, LONG S, ZHANG H J, WU S G, QI G H, WANG J. Comparative effects of dietary microalgae oil and fish oil on fatty acid composition and sensory quality of table eggs. Poultry Science, 2020, 99(3): 1734-1743. doi: S0032-5791(19)57794-X pmid: 32115040
[7]	冯嘉. 不同营养源生产n-3 PUFA保健鸡蛋的风味变化研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2018.
	FENG J. Study on sensory profile of n-3 enriched eggs procured by dietary supplementation with different sources[D]. Yangling, Northwest A & F University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[8]	CHRISTOPH C, RENÉE G. Evaluation of potent odorants in heated egg yolk by aroma extract dilution analysis. European Food Research and Technology, 2004, 219(5): 452-454. doi: 10.1007/s00217-004-1000-8
[9]	GOLDBERG E M, RYLAND D, GIBSON R A, ALIANI M, HOUSE J D. Designer laying hen diets to improve egg fatty acid profile and maintain sensory quality. Food Science & Nutrition, 2013, 1(4): 324-335.
[10]	ZHANG J H, CAO J, PEI Z S, WEI P Y, XIANG D, CAO X Y, SHEN X R, LI C. Volatile flavour components and the mechanisms underlying their production in golden pompano (Trachinotus blochii) fillets subjected to different drying methods: A comparative study using an electronic nose, an electronic tongue and SDE-GC-MS. Food Research International, 2019, 123: 217-225. doi: S0963-9969(19)30301-1 pmid: 31284971
[11]	SMYTH H, COZZOLINO D. Instrumental methods (spectroscopy, Instrumental methods (spectroscopy, electronic nose, and tongue) as tools to predict taste and aroma in beverages: advantages and limitations. Chemical Reviews, 2013, 113(3): 1429-1440. doi: 10.1021/cr300076c pmid: 23256680
[12]	OLGA S. P, EFSTATHIOS Z. P, FADY R. M, GEORGE-JOHN E. N. Sensory and microbiological quality assessment of beef fillets using a portable electronic nose in tandem with support vector machine analysis. Food Research International, 2013, 50(1): 241-249. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.10.020
[13]	AMBRA R D R, FRANCESCO L, FEDERICA C, VINCENZO C. Fusion of electronic nose, electronic tongue and computer vision for animal source food authentication and quality assessment-A review. Journal of Food Engineering, 2017, 210: 62-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.04.024
[14]	TOKO K, MATSUNO T, YAMAFUJI K, HAYASHI K, IKEZAKI H, SATO K, TOUKUBO R, KAWARAI S. Multichannel taste sensor using electric potential changes in lipid membranes. Biosensors Bioelectron, 1994, 9(4-5): 359-64. doi: 10.1016/0956-5663(94)80036-7
[15]	张秋会, 宋莲军, 黄现青, 赵秋艳, 崔文明, 王凡. 质构仪在食品分析与检测中的应用. 农产品加工, 2017, (24): 52-56.
	ZHANG Q H, SONG L J, HUANG X Q, ZHAO Q Y, CUI W M, WANG F. Implication of texture analyzer in food analysis and detection. Farm Products Processing, 2017, (24): 52-56. (in Chinese)
[16]	匡凤军, 刘群, 曹倩蕾, 冯彦勇. 质构仪在食品行业中的应用综述. 现代食品, 2020, (3): 112-115.
	KANG F J, LIU Q, CAO Q L, FENG Y Y. Application of texture analyzer in food industries. Modern Food, 2020, (3): 112-115. (in Chinese)
[17]	曹晏飞, 张俊妍, 滕光辉, 李保明, 李乔伟. 笼养和栖架养殖模式下鸡蛋品质比较. 中国家禽, 2014, 36(13): 30-32.
	CAO Y F, ZHANG J Y, TENG G H, LI B M, LI Q W. Quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in cage system and perch system. China Poultry, 2014, 36(13): 30-32. (in Chinese)
[18]	GOLDBERG E M, RYLAND D, ALIANI M, HOUSE J D. Interactions between canola meal and flaxseed oil in the diets of White Lohmann hens on fatty acid profile and sensory characteristics of table eggs. Poultry Science, 2016, 95(8): 1805-1812. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew025 pmid: 27252370
[19]	TERČIČ D, ŽLENDER B, HOLCMAN A. External, internal and sensory qualities of table eggs as influenced by two different production systems. Агрознање, 2013, 13(4).
[20]	KAMIL K, MEHMET B, EMINE N H, MUSTAFA Ç, ABDULLAH U Ç, EROL B, FETHIYE Ç. Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2012, 25(4): 559-568.
[21]	ROBERT P T, NICOLA G L, CHERYL F N. Effect of beta carotene on disease protection and humoral immunity in chickens. Avian Diseases, 1990: 848-854.
[22]	ANDERS P M, CLOTILDE B, JON B. Carotenoid-dependent signals: indicators of foraging efficiency, immunocompetence or detoxification ability? Poultry and Avian Biology Reviews, 2000, 11(3): 137-160.
[23]	KRISHNA P, GEORGE D. Analysis of discrimination mechanisms in the mammalian olfactory system using a model nose. Nature, 1982, 299(5881): 352-355. doi: 10.1038/299352a0
[24]	JIA W, LIU Y Y, SHI L. Integrated metabolomics and lipidomics profiling reveals beneficial changes in sensory quality of brown fermented goat milk. Food Chemistry, 2021, 364: 130378. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130378
[25]	冯月超, 刘美玉, 任发政, 石波. 不同蛋黄组分对蛋黄风味的影响. 食品科学, 2006(12): 58-62.
	FENG Y C, LIU M Y, REN F Z, SHI B. Effect of different components of egg yolk on flavor of egg yolk. Food Science, 2006(12): 58-62. (in Chinese)
[26]	GOLDBERG E M, GAKHAR N, RYLAND D, ALIANI ML, GIBSON R A, HOUSE J D. Fatty acid profile and sensory characteristics of table eggs from laying hens fed hempseed and hempseed oil. Journal of Food Science, 2012, 77(4): S153-160. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02626.x
[27]	MORI H, TAKAYA M, NISHIMURA K, GOTO T. Breed and feed affect amino acid contents of egg yolk and eggshell color in chickens. Poultry Science, 2020, 99(1): 172-178. doi: S0032-5791(19)57861-0 pmid: 32416798
[28]	XIANG X L, LIU Y Y, LIU Y, WANG X Y, JIN Y G. Changes in structure and flavor of egg yolk gel induced by lipid migration under heating. Food Hydrocolloids, 2020, 98: 105257. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105257
[29]	WANG Q L, JIN G F, JIN Y G. Discriminating eggs from different poultry species by fatty acids and volatiles profiling: Comparison of SPME-GC/MS, electronic nose, and principal component analysis method. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 2014, 116(8): 1044-1053. doi: 10.1002/ejlt.v116.8
[30]	毕玉芳. 鸡蛋风味特征及贮藏期间风味相关成分分析[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2016.
	BI Y F. Analysis of egg flavor characteristics and flavor components during storage[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2016. (in Chinese)
[31]	DONG X G, GAO L B, ZHANG H J, WANG J, QIU K, QI G H, WU S G. comparison of sensory qualities in eggs from three breeds based on electronic sensory evaluations. Foods, 2021, 10(9): 1984. doi: 10.3390/foods10091984
[32]	MIERLIŢĂ D. Fatty acid profile and oxidative stability of egg yolks from hens under different production systems. South African Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 50(2): 196-206. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v50i2.3
[33]	QI J, LIU D Y, ZHOU G H, XU X L. Characteristic flavor of traditional soup made by stewing chinese yellow-feather chickens. Journal of Food Science, 2017, 82(9): 2031-2040. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13801 pmid: 28732107
[34]	PABLO J, MONICA T, TATIANA K, BALASUBRAMANIAM V M, STEPHANIE C, JASON W M, PATRICK D C, GEORGE S, GUSTAVO V B C. Texture and water retention improvement in high- pressure thermally treated scrambled egg patties. Journal of Food Science, 2006, 71(2): E52-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.tb08897.x
[35]	白康, 陈辉, 郭小虎, 葛帅, 黄仁录. 棉籽油对蛋品质及熟鸡蛋质构的影响. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2014(03): 80-82+207.
	BAI K, CHEN H, GUO X H, GE S, HUANG R L. Effects of cottonseed oil on egg qualities and texture of boiled eggs. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2014(03): 80-82+207. (in Chinese)
[36]	ŚLIWIŃSKA M, WIŚNIEWSKA P, DYMERSKI T, NAMIEŚNIK J, WARDENCKI W. Food analysis using artificial senses. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2014, 62(7): 1423-1448. doi: 10.1021/jf403215y pmid: 24506450
[37]	PATRYCJA C, WOJCIECH W. Sensor arrays for liquid sensing- electronic tongue systems. The Analyst, 2007, 132(10): 963. doi: 10.1039/b705107g
[38]	HUANG LX, LIU HR, ZHANG B, WU D. Application of electronic nose with multivariate analysis and sensor selection for botanical origin identification and quality determination of honey. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2015, 8(2): 359-370. doi: 10.1007/s11947-014-1407-6
[39]	王琼, 徐宝才, 于海, 李聪. 电子鼻和电子舌结合模糊数学感官评价优化培根烟熏工艺. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(1): 161-170. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.01.014
	WANG Q, XU B C, YU H, LI C. Electronic nose and electronic tongue combined with fuzzy mathematics sensory evaluation to optimize bacon smoking procedure. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(1): 161-170. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.01.014

序号 Number	传感器名称Sensors name	性能描述 Sensitive characteristics
电子鼻Electronic nose
1	W1C	芳香成分，苯类 Sensitive to aromatic constituents, benzene
2	W5S	灵敏度大，对氮氧化物敏感 Sensitive to nitrogen oxides
3	W3C	芳香成分，氨类 Sensitive to aroma, ammonia
4	W6S	主要对氢化物有选择性 Sensitive to hydrides
5	W5C	短链烷烃芳香成分 Sensitive to short-chain alkane aromatic component
6	W1S	对甲基类灵敏，甲烷等 Sensitive to methyl
7	W1W	对硫化物灵敏 Sensitive to sulfides
8	W2S	甲醇、乙醇 Sensitive to alcohol and aromatic
9	W2W	芳香有机硫成分 Sensitive to organic sulfides
10	W3S	对长链烷烃灵敏 Sensitive to long-chain alkanes
电子舌 Electronic tongue
1	SRS	酸味 Sourness
2	GPS	复合味觉Composite
3	STS	咸味Saltiness
4	UMS	鲜味Umami
5	SPS	复合味觉Composite
6	SWS	甜味Sweetness
7	BRS	苦味Bitterness

项目 Item	传统笼养 Traditional caging regime	栖架笼养 Furnished caging regime	P值 P value
蛋重Egg weight(g)	59.80±0.98	58.86±1.13	0.05
蛋黄比例Yolk (%)	27.13±0.52	27.10±0.40	0.86
蛋壳比例Eggshell (%)	9.43±0.21	9.55±0.18	0.20
蛋白高度Albumen height (mm)	6.86±0.26	6.79±0.20	0.47
蛋黄颜色Yolk color	5.81±0.44a	5.31±0.31b	<0.01
哈氏单位Haugh unit	82.04±1.85	82.06±1.27	0.95

项目 Item	传统笼养 Traditional caging regime	栖架笼养 Furnished caging regime	P 值 P value
气味 Aroma
蛋香味气味 Egg aroma	8.37±0.64	9.13±0.95	0.06
氨味气味 Ammonia aroma	2.67±1.72	2.66±1.18	0.98
腥味气味 Fishy aroma	2.64±1.36	2.47±1.12	0.78
滋味 Flavor
蛋香味滋味 Egg flavor	9.47±1.35	9.63±1.35	0.81
腥味滋味 Fishy flavor	0.96±0.82	0.49±0.26	0.16
氨味滋味 Ammonia flavor	0.48±0.28	0.28±0.12	0.14
奶香味滋味 Milky flavor	2.61±0.88b	4.04±0.50a	<0.01
甜味滋味 Sweet flavor	1.93±1.17	1.42±1.02	0.40
咸味滋味 Salty flavor	1.21±0.53	1.29±0.68	0.80
海苔味滋味 Seaweed flavor	1.02±0.23a	0.48±0.28b	0.04
质感 Texture
粘牙度 Adhesive dentition	6.57±1.46	6.55±2.02	0.99
糊口性 Stickiness	6.21±1.16a	3.78±0.92b	<0.01
湿润度 Moist	4.02±1.39	4.90±1.39	0.20
颗粒感 Lumpy	3.42±0.59	3.29±1.05	0.76
紧实度 Compactness	7.55±1.40	7.70±1.44	0.83
硬度 Hard	2.92±0.88	2.55±0.83	0.37
喜好度 Preference
气味喜好度 Aroma preference	9.83±1.98	9.64±2.07	0.86
滋味喜好度 Flavor preference	9.69±1.62	9.62±2.08	0.93
质感喜好度 Texture preference	9.13±2.47	10.00±2.2	0.48
整体喜好度 Overall preference	8.70±2.55	9.99±2.29	0.31

项目 Item	传统笼养 Traditional caging regime	栖架笼养 Furnished caging regime	P值 P value
硬度Hardness (N)	4.09±0.56b	4.91±0.63a	0.01
内聚性Cohesiveness (Ratio)	0.42±0.07	0.45±0.08	0.57
弹性Springiness (mm)	5.29±0.30	5.26±0.47	0.88
胶粘性Gumminess (N.mm)	1.77±0.51	2.27±0.62	0.08
咀嚼性Chewiness	7.83±1.36b	10.20±1.53a	<0.01

不同笼养方式对鸡蛋蛋黄风味的影响

Effects of Different Caging Regimes on Egg Yolk Flavor of Laying Hens

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 39

相关文章 8

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	岳盈肖,何近刚,赵江丽,闫子茹,程玉豆,武肖琦,王永霞,关军锋. 窖藏和冷藏条件下鸭梨挥发性物质及其相关基因表达分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(21): 4635-4649.
[2]	郝怡宁,王志高,何荣,鞠兴荣,袁建. 混菌静态发酵改善双低菜籽粕品质[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(10): 2066-2077.
[3]	苏杭，王琦，李春梅，邵华，金茂俊，王珊珊，郑鹭飞，佘永新，王静，王怀松，金芬. 植物生长调节剂噻苯隆对甜瓜品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(16): 3095-3105.
[4]	王琼，徐宝才，于海，李聪. 电子鼻和电子舌结合模糊数学感官评价优化培根烟熏工艺[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(1): 161-170.
[5]	曹俊，刘欣，陈文若，戴炳业，董文，陈银基. 基于E-NOSE与SPME-GC/MS技术分析温湿度动态变化过程中稻谷的挥发性成分[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(1): 142-160.
[6]	方勇，王红盼，杨文建，裴斐，刘俊飞，汤晓智，马宁，胡秋辉. 金针菇复配发芽糙米挤压膨化工艺及产品品质特性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(4): 727-738.
[7]	王永辉, 张业辉, 张名位, 魏振承, 唐小俊, 张瑞芬, 邓媛元, 张雁. 不同水稻品种大米直链淀粉含量对加工米粉丝品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(1): 109-120.
[8]	赵京岚,陈民生,马艳明,李瑞军,任勇攀,孙庆泉,李斯深 . 中国干面条品质性状的QTL分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(11): 3482-3488 .