(169,211, 2i3 and287 d) and at five times during the test day (0800, 1000, 1200, 1,100 and 1600 h) were performed. Egg lipids were analyzed at each of the four periods.Pllrtnu total lipids were inversely related (P < 0.01) to dietary HM levels while omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid levels were positively and inversely related (P < 0.001), respectively. HM levels did not influence the total lipid content of the egg yolk iipid. boi o-.ga-3 and omega-6 fany acid content w;re positively and inversely related, respectively. The lwels_ of eicosapentaglgig (20:Sn:,epn) and docosahlxae11oic (22:6I3,DHA) a;id were 1l and 3 times higher, respectively (7.8 and 100.5 mg yolk-') in the yolks from hens given the l27o HM diet compared to the control diet.Key words; Herring meal, laying hens, omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid Nash, D. M., Hamilton Dietary HM lowered the omega-6 (P < 0.001) and increased the omega-3 fatty acid content (P < 0.001) of the plasma lipids (Table 4), thus lowering the plasma n6/n3 ratio from7.7 to a more beneficial 3.7 (Surgeon General's Report 1988). The major fatty acids responsible for the above change were palmitic (16:0), oleic (18:1n9), linoleic (18:2n6), arachidonic Q0:4n6), eicosapentaenoic (20:5n3) and docosahexaenoic (22:6n3) (Table 5). There was a genotype x diet interaction for 16:0, but no trends were evident. The difference (P < 0.05) in the levels of these plasma fatty acids between genotypes indicated genetic variation between the two commercial stocks of laying hens. With the l2Vo HM diet, the plasma EPA (20:5n3) and DHA (22:6n3) levels (0.29 and 2.73 'xtl7o, Table 5) were lower than the EPA and DHA levels (1.3 and 3.8 wtl%) observed by Cherian and Sim (1991) who fed a diet that contained 16% flaxto SCWL layers. The levels of EPA and DHA reported herein were There was a linear (P < 0.001) relation between EpA and DHA levels in the plasma and dietary levels of HM (Table 6) showing a typical dose response relationship. The change over time for genorype (P < 0.05), suggested that this response was less for DHA as time increased (Table 6). *,**,***SignificantatP<0.05,P<0.01andp<0.00l,respectively;NS,nonsignifrcant(p>0.05). x'**'***signiflcantatP<0.05,P<0.0landp<0.00l,respectively;NS,nonsignificant(p>0.05).