Comparative analysis of the energy value of eggs of hens of gene pool breeds and industrial cross

Local breeds are a reservoir of unique genes lost in commercial crosses. One of the most important economically significant features of chickens is the quality of eggs. According to world scientific researches, eggs of local breeds of chickens, in terms of nutritional value, are superior to chickens of industrial crosses. The purpose of the research was to conduct a comparative analysis of a number of qualitative indicators (including nutritional value) of chicken eggs of Russian gene-pool breeds and commercial laying crosses. The research was conducted as part of the annual monitoring of the genetic resources of chickens by the National Center for Genetic Resources of Farm Animals at RRIFAGB. The object of the study is eggs of gene pool breeds: Russian Snow–White (laying breed), Poltava Clay (dualpurpose breed), Orloff (dual-purpose breed), as well as eggs of commercial white-shell laying cross (eggs' class 1; in laying Phase II). The following egg quality indicators were evaluated: egg weight, shape index and yolk weight using the egg quality assessment system Broring EggQuality 3.0 (Germany). Eggs of Russian gene pool breeds, in comparison with commercial laying crosses, have a higher nutritional and energy value of eggs (4.8–17.3% higher) due to their higher yolk value (p<0.05). In commercial poultry, the highest frequency of the "yolk size" trait is in the range of 25-28% (88% of the population), while in gene pool breeds chickens with a high proportion of yolk in the egg are most often found: 30-32% in the Snow–White Russian (58% of the population), 30-33% in Poltava Clay (62% of the population) and 34-38% of the Orloff (76% of the population). Gene pool chickens have a higher degree of variability in the "egg yolk size" trait (Cv 6.5 – 7.3%) compared to industrial poultry (Cv 3.7%), which allows for selection in order to optimize this indicator.

1. Hartmann C, Wilhelmson M. The hen’s egg yolk: a source of biologically active substances. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2001;57(1):13-28.

2. Damaziak K, Marzec A, Kieliszek M, Bucław M, et.al. Comparative analysis of structure and strength of vitelline membrane and physical parameters of yolk of ostrich, emu, and greater rhea eggs. Poultry Science. 2018;97(3):1032-1040.

3. Fedorova E.S. Yolk diameter of chicken eggs as a selection criterion for increasing their nutritional and energy value / E.S. Fedorova, O.I. Stanishevskaya // Genetics and animal breeding. - 2015. - No. 1. – P. 21-25.

4. Moula N, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Decuypere E, et.al. Comparative study of egg quality traits in two Belgian local breeds and two commercial lines of chickens. European Poultry Science. 2010;74(3):164-171. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9098(25)00814-8.

5. Lordelo M, Cid J, Cordovil CMDS, Alves SP, et.al. A comparison between the quality of eggs from indigenous chicken breeds and that from commercial layers. Poultry Science. 2020;99(3):1768-1776.

6. Romero C, Yustos JL, Sánchez-Román I, et al. Assessment of performance and egg quality in laying hens of Spanish indigenous breed Black Castellana as compared with a selected white egg-layer strain. Poultry Science. 2024;103(10):104096.

7. Goto T, Ohya K, and Takayay M. Genotype affects free amino acids of egg yolk and albumen in Japanese indigenous breeds and commercial Brown layer chickens. Poultry Science. 2022;101:101582.

8. Contribution of peptides and amino acids to the taste of foods. Kirimura J, Shimizu A, Kimizuka A, et al. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1969;17(4):689–695.

9. Suleimanov FI. Influence of morphometric and biophysical parameters of chicken eggs on incubation results / FI Suleimanov, EI Stepanova, MI Chelnokova // Bulletin of the Velikiye Luki State Agricultural Academy. - 2021. - Issue 36. - No. 3. - P. 33-41.

10. Dzhagaev A. Yu. Comparative analysis of morphometric parameters of eggs of hens of different genotypes / A. Yu. Dzhagaev, A. N. Vetokh, E. R. Ilyina // Bulletin of the Ulyanovsk State Agricultural Academy. - 2022. - Issue. 59. - No. 3. - Pp. 175-180.

11. Shabanova S. A. Incubation qualities of eggs of gene pool breeds / S. A. Shabanova, A. G. Bychaev // In the collection: Scientific support for the development of the agroindustrial complex in the context of import substitution. Collection of scientific papers of the International scientific and practical conference. - 2022. Pp. 139-143.

12. Khvostik V.P. Morphological Familiarization of Chickens of Domestic and Foreign Breeding / V.P. Khvostik, O.A. Katerinich, S.M. Pankova // Ptakhivnitstvo. - 2013. - Issue 70. - Pp. 34-42.

13. Technology of Incubation of Poultry Eggs (Methodological Instructions) / edited by V.I. Fisinin. Sergiev Posad: VNITIP, 2011. 85 p.

14. Ni A, Calus MPL, Bovenhuis H, et.al. Genetic parameters, reciprocal cross differences, and age-related heterosis of egglaying performance in chickens. Genet Sel Evol. 2023;55(1):87.

15. Wang Y, Sun Y, Ni A, et.al. Research Note: Heterosis for egg production and oviposition pattern in reciprocal crossbreeds of indigenous and elite laying chickens. Poult Sci. 2022;101(12):102201. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102201.

16. Mesele TL. Reproduction and production performance of improved chickens, their production constraints, and opportunities under Ethiopian conditions. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2023;55(4):245.

17. Soliman MA, Khalil MH, El-Sabrout K, et.al. Crossing effect for improving egg production traits in chickens involving local and commercial strains, Veterinary World. 2020;13(3): 407-412.