## 4 Conclusions  
Based on the results for the entire egg production period, we determined that there was a significant difference in the rate of egg-laying outside of the nest, i.e., the occurrence rate of litter eggs, between the tested genotypes. Regarding the proportion of eggs laid in the litter, the most favorable result was observed for the Maternal genotype (10.2%), followed by the Commercial hybrid (30.7%) and the Paternal genotype (41.1%). We believe that the most favorable result of the Maternal genotype was due to the favorable maternal traits developed during the breeding of the Rhode Island White (RIW) line. In the case of the Commercial hybrid, we did not receive a value close to the parental average, but here we measured a positive heterosis of around 7% in terms of the proportion of eggs laid in the litter, an assessment that is unfortunately particularly unfavorable and undesirable. As the time spent in production progressed, we found that the proportion of eggs laid in the litter gradually decreased for all three genotypes according to our conclusions. This is because the laying hens learned to use the nests over time and became accustomed to the nests. At the same time, the marked difference between the tested genotypes typically remained with respect to the nesting behavior. Because different nests were preferred by the laying hens based on the position of the nest (or even avoided), more 'traffic' (tumult) could develop at the nests preferred by \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Duration of Nest Visits by Laying Hens per Nest (minutes)**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Upper Nests**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Commercial Hybrid**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Combined Average**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **1.** & **2.** & **3.** & **4.** & **5.** & **6.** & **7.** & **Upper Nests** \\ \cline{2-9}  & - & - & - & - & 1.3 & 1.0 & 0.5 & 0.9 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Bottom Nests**} & **8.** & **9.** & **10.** & **11.** & **12.** & **13.** & **14.** & **Bottom Nests** \\ \cline{2-9}  & 8.0 & 7.1 & 4.6 & 11.1 & 8.0 & 9.1 & 4.6 & 7.9 a \\ \hline Prob. & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.266 \\ \hline SE & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 1.028 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Upper Nests**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Paternal**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **1.** & **2.** & **3.** & **4.** & **5.** & **6.** & **7.** & **Upper Nests** \\ \cline{2-9}  & 5.1 & - & - & - & 38.7 & - & 13.5 & 17.7 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Bottom Nests**} & **8.** & **9.** & **10.** & **11.** & **12.** & **13.** & **14.** & **Bottom Nests** \\ \cline{2-9}  & 14.4 & 5.7 & 9.3 & 7.6 & 19.3 & 17.8 & 11.1 & 13.4 b \\ \hline Prob. & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.703 \\ \hline SE & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.160 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Upper Nests**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Maternal**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **1.** & **2.** & **3.** & **4.** & **5.** & **6.** & **7.** & **Upper Nests** \\ \cline{2-9}  & 25.3 & 4.2 & 7.1 & 4.4 & 1.3 & - & 2.0 & 7.4 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Bottom Nests**} & **8.** & **9.** & **10.** & **11.** & **12.** & **13.** & **14.** & **Bottom Nests** \\ \cline{2-9}  & 7.3 & 2.8 & 6.1 & 10.3 & 7.6 & 18.1 & 7.7 & 8.6 a \\ \hline Prob. & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.894 \\ \hline SE & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 1.052 \\ \hline Prob. & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & **0.018** \\ \hline SE & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & **0.812** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* and b indicate significant differences in the bottom nests among the different genotypes (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: The change of the average duration of the nest visits of the laying hens per egg nest (in minutes). others, even to a greater extent than what would be expected based on the number of hens and available nests. This phenomenon could also be referred to as a'relative lack of egg nests', which can easily influence the increase in the number of eggs laid in the litter.