The author analyzed the degree of influence of natural biologically active substances, which are part of feed additives from local plant resources, on the quality of products produced by laying hens of modern highly productive crosses with different genotypes. It has been established that the use of phytogenic feed additives in the diets of laying hens of various genotypes, consisting of 1 % flour of brown seaweed (kelp) and 2.0 % flour from local wild plants (common tansy, common yarrow, willow-herb angustifolia) contributes to the intensification of metabolic processes occurring in the body of all poultry genotypes: the digestibility of feed protein increased by 3.8–4.1 %; fat – 3.5–4.2 %; BEV – by 4.0–4.6 %; nitrogen use – by 4.3–5.7 % compared to the control indicators. The intensification of metabolic processes contributed to the improvement of the quality and consumer properties of products (eggs): the mass of eggs increased by 3.6–7.8 %; egg yolk weight – by 3.0–6.2 %; protein mass – by 4.3–6.3 %, which indicates an increase in the overall nutritional value of the egg. The biological value of the egg has increased: the fat content in the egg mass has increased by 2.5–5.5 %; protein – by 1.7–6.1 %; BEV – by 4.7–9.3 %; the concentration of carotenoids in the yolk of the egg – by 9.7–17.1 %. The thickness of the shell also increased and the yield of conditioned eggs increased. At the same time, the main zootechnical indicators of the productivity of poultry of all genotypes increased: the gross collection of eggs increased by 6.4–7.9 %; egg-laying intensity – by 6.0–7.8 %; egg mass yield – by 5.6–16.8 %. An increase in the productive indicators of poultry was reflected in an increase in feed conversion, so a decrease in feed costs for the production of 10 pcs. eggs amounted to 4.2–7.9 %; per 1 kg of egg mass – by 8.8–14.3 % to the control. As a result of the analysis of the obtained results, the author revealed that the most "responsive" genotype (cross) to the intake of biologically active substances that are part of the feed additive with the diet is the "Dekalb" cross, since the bird of this cross showed higher results in all studied indicators.

Ignatovich Larisa S.

1. Yaichnoe pticevodstvo v Rossii: rejting regionov liderov i autsajderov prirosta proizvodstva [Egg poultry farming in Russia: rating of regions of leaders and outsiders of production growth]. Ikar.ru Retrieved from https://ikar.ru/lenta/571.html (Accessed 13 January 2022) (in Russ.).
2. Fisinin V. I., Kavtarashvili A. Sh. Svezhij vzglyad na vazhnuyu problemu [A fresh look at an important issue]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2014; 5: 2–9 (in Russ.).
3. Bobyleva G. A. Puti povysheniya effektivnosti proizvodstva yaic i yajceproduktov [Ways to improve the efficiency of production of eggs and egg products]. Ptica i pticeprodukty. – Poultry and poultry products, 2013; 4: 22–24 (in Russ.).
4. Fisinin V., Shtelle A., Erastov G. Vitaminy v pishchevyh yajcah [Vitamins in food eggs]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2008; 3: 2–5 (in Russ.).
5. Fisinin V., Shtelle A., Erastov G. Kachestvo pishchevyh yaic i zdorovoe pitanie [Nutritional egg quality and healthy eating]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2008; 2: 2–6 (in Russ.).
6. Shtelle A. Pitatel'nost' i energeticheskaya cennost' pishchevyh yaic razlichnoj massy [Nutritional value and energy value of food eggs of various weights]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2012; 3: 39–41 (in Russ.).
7. Suraj P. Kak uluchshit' pishchevuyu cennost' yaic [How to improve the nutritional value of eggs]. Kombikorma. – Compound feed, 2010; 6: 95–96 (in Russ.).
8. Lukashenko V. S., Velichko O. A. Proizvodstvo funkcional'nyh yaic – trebovanie vremeni [The production of functional eggs is a requirement of the times]. Ptica i pticeprodukty. – Poultry and poultry products, 2013; 4: 28–30 (in Russ.).
9. Afanasyev V. Sovremennoe sostoyanie kombikormovoj promyshlennosti Rossii [The current state of the feed industry in Russia], Moskva, NKO "Soyuz kombikormshchikov", 2017, 22 p. (in Russ.).
10. Hovhannisyan V., Kondaridze M., Bastian C., Shanoyan A. Empirical evidence of changing food demand and consumer preferences in Russia. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2020; 52: 480–501.
11. Mammaeva T. V. Ekologo-biologicheskoe obosnovanie ispol'zovaniya laminarii kak kormovoj dobavki v racionah kur [Ecological and biological substantiation of the use of kelp as a feed additive in chicken diets]. Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis. Habarovsk, 2002, 23 p. (in Russ.).
12. Starikova N. P. Biologicheski aktivnye dobavki: sostoyanie i problemy: monografiya [Biologically active additives: state and problems: monograph), Habarovsk, Habarovskaya gosudarstvennaya akademiya ekonomiki i prava, 2005, 124 p. (in Russ.).
13. Saki A. A., Aliarabi H., Siyar S. A. H., Salari J., Hashemi M. Effect of a phytogenic feed additive on performance, ovarian morphology, serum lipid parameters and egg sensory quality in laying hen. Veterinary Research Forum, 2014; 5: 287–293.
14. Gheisar M. M., Kim I. H. Phytobiotics in poultry and swine nutrition – a review. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2018; 17: 92–99.
15. Abou-Elkhair R., Selim S., Hussein E. Effect of supplementing layer hen diet with phytogenic feed additives on laying performance, egg quality, egg lipid peroxidation and blood biochemical constituents. Animal Nutrition, 2018; 4: 339–460.
16. Ignatovich L. S. Mestnye rastitel'nye resursy v racionah kur-nesushek [Local plant resources in the diets of laying hens]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2016: 8: 37–40 (in Russ.).
17. Korshunova L. G., Karapetyan R. V. Ispol'zovanie geneticheskih metodov na osnove DNK-markerov produktivnyh priznakov v selekcii kur [The use of genetic methods based on DNA-markers of productive traits in chicken breeding]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2021; 5:4–7 (in Russ.).
18. Ignatovich L. S. Vliyanie genotipa kur-nesushek na usvoenie pitatel'nyh veshchestv korma i produktivnye kachestva [Influence of the genotype of laying hens on the assimilation of feed nutrients and productive qualities]. Dal'nevostochnyj agrarnyj vestnik. – Far Eastern Agrarian Bulletin, 2021; 2 (58): 76 (in Russ.).
19. Golovkina O. O. Sravnitel'naya ocenka krossov kur yaichnogo napravleniya "Hajseks Korichnevyj" i "Hajseks Belyj" [Comparative evaluation of crosses of hens of the egg direction "Hysex Brown" and "Hysex White"]. Azt.vccc.ac.ru Retrieved from https://azt.vscc.ac.ru/article/28454/full (Accessed 15 March 2020) (in Russ.).
20. Opisanie krossa "Dekalb": vsyo o soderzhanii i razvedenii [Description of the cross "Dekalb": all about keeping and breeding]. Ferma.expert.ru Retrieved from https://ferma.Expert/pticy/kury/porody-kury/dekalb/ (Accessed 15 March 2020) (in Russ.).
21. Metodika provedeniya nauchnyh i proizvodstvennyh issledovanij po kormleniyu sel'skohozyajstvennoj pticy: rekomendacii [Methodology for conducting scientific and industrial research on feeding poultry: recommendations], Sergiev Posad, Vserossijskij nauchnoissledovatel'skij i tekhnologicheskij institut pticevodstva, 2004, 33 p. (in Russ.).
22. Plohinskiy N. A. Rukovodstvo po biometrii dlya zootekhnikov [Guide to biometrics for livestock technicians], Moskva, Kolos, 1969, 87 p. (in Russ.).
23. Manukyan V. Cennyj prirodnyj korm [Valuable natural food]. Zhivotnovodstvo Rossii. – Animal Husbandry of Russia, 2012; 4: 19–20 (in Russ.).
24. Manukyan V. Travyanaya muka v kormlenii myasnyh kur [Grass meal in feeding meat chickens]. Pticevodstvo. – Poultry farming, 2008; 2: 10–11.