Table 1 shows a significant increase in the average live body weight during the weeks (5, 6, 7) for the birds bred in the densities 72 and 88 bird/m
2 compared to the density 56 b/m
2. The weight of birds in the seventh week was (275.57, 274.94 and 251.53) grams respectively and this could be due to the increase in the amount of feed consumed by the birds for the same two treatments, as shown in Table 3, because of the competitive behavior of the quail birds. These results were in agreement with the results of (
Al-Tammee, 2019;
Bolacali and Irak, 2017 and in disagreement with the results of
(Cengiz et al., 2015) and
(Aro et al., 2021), who reported that the body weight deteriorates with the increase of breeding density. Moreover, the researchers
Adeyemo et al., (2016); Al-Flaih (2019);
Boountian et al., 2019; Al-Hamed (2020);
Al-Hamed (2021) found that density of breeding had no significant effect on the body weight.
As for the effect of adding the yeast, it was observed that the body weight increased significantly during the weeks 3,4,5,6,7 with the treatment of adding yeast at a rate of 4 g/l compared with the control and with the two additions 2 and 6 g/l as the weight in the seventh week. This concentration (rate) might be the suitable one fulfilled in intestinal environment that could achieve the highest body weight. These results were in conformity with
Yusuf et al., (2015); Ashok et al., (2016) and
Talib (2022), but results disagreed with the results of
Al-Flaih (2019), who did not find an effect of the yeast added on this characteristic.
Results also, were not in conformity with the results of (
Abd El-Wahab et al., 2020), who found a significance decrease in the body weight when various concentrations of yeast (0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5%) were added to the feed.
As for the combination of the treatments: The density 72 b/m
2 + 4 g yeast gave the highest significant body weight at the seventh week of age.
Table 2 demonstrates that the weight gain increased significantly in the densities (72) and (88) b/m
2, compared to the density 56 b/m
2 for the weeks 3, 4 and 5 and also there was a significant increase in the total weight gain with values of (165.64, 166.46 and 145.3) grams respectively. This might be due to the consumption higher quantities of feed compared to the density (56) b/m
2 due to the competitive behavior in the high densities. These results are in conformity with the results of (
Al-Tammee, 2019), while they were not in conformity with the results of
(Ayoola et al., 2014), (Cengiz et al., 2015), (Yusuf et al., 2015), (
Al-Hamed, 2020) and
(Yusuf et al., 2015).
As for the effect of adding the yeast, it was noticed from Table 2 that the weight gain increased significantly in the treatments of adding the yeast with concentrations of (2, 4, 6) g/l for weeks (3, 4, 5 and 6) compared to the control group (no addition) and that was reflected in the cumulative weight gains 161.32, 165.19 and 161.39 grams compared to the value 149.0 grams of the control group. The reason could be that the yeast has enhanced the efficiency of the gastrointestinal tract and improved the intestinal environment by the beneficial single-cellular organisms,
(Pourabedin et al., 2014; Ozsoy et al., 2018; Abd El-wahab et al., 2020). So, there was an improvement in the as a result of the increased digestion and absorption
(Smith et al., 2014) and thus there was an improvement in weight gain. These results are in conformity with Table 4 that is relevant to the feed conversion ratio and results also agree with
Al-Hamed (2020);
Al-Hamed (2021) and disagree with and
Abd El- Wahab et al., (2020) and
Al-Flaih (2019). In the treatment of combination, the best overall weight gain was due to combining the density of birds 72 b/m
2 and the addition of 4 g of the yeast.
Table 3 shows that feed consumption increased significantly for the birds in the density 88 b/ m
2, compared to the densities (56) and (72) b/m
2 in the weeks (3, 4, 5 and 6) as well as an increase in the quantity of the total feed consumed and this disagree with
Ayoola et al., (2014); Al-Hamed (2021) and
Al-Hamed (2020).
In terms of adding yeast treatments, it was observed that there was a significant decrease in feed consumption when increasing the levels of the yeast added (2, 4, 6) g/l to the control for weeks (3, 4, 6) compared to the control group. It was also observed that there was a decrease in the total quantity of feed consumed as the values were (358.20, 358.84, 355.27 and 366.07) grams respectively. This result was in agreement with
Alagawany et al., (2021) and
Aro et al., (2021), but they were in disagreement with
Yusuf et al., (2015) and
Sharif et al., (2018). From the other hand,
Al-Flaih (2019) did not find an effect on this characteristic when yeast was added.
With regard to the effect of the interaction, it was noted that there was a significant increase in the total of feed consumed for the interaction resulting from the density 88b/ m
2 with or without the added yeast.
Table (4) shows that the feed conversion ratio increased significantly in the density (88
) b/m
2 compared with densities (56 and 72) b/m
2 in the third week. It also shows that there was no significant effect of density during the weeks (4, 5 and 6), while this ratio decreased significantly for the total period in the density (72) b/m
2 compared to the densities (56) and (88) b/m
2. These results were in agreement with the results of (
Al-Hamed, 2020), (
Al-Hamed, 2021),
(Aro et al., 2021) and (
Al-Tammee, 2019). The feed conversion ratio rose with the increase in the density of the birds and this was in disagreement with the results of
(Adeyemo et al., 2016) and
(Alagawany et al., 2021) who reported that the conversion ratio increased with the increase in the density. Ayoola
et al., ( 2014) observed no effects of density on breeding the birds.
As for the effect of adding the yeast, no significant differences were observed between the treatments in the weeks (3, 4 and 5), while the total conversion ratio improved in the yeast-adding treatments (2, 4 and 6) g/l for the sixth week, as well as for the total period. This may be due to the increased utilization of the nutrients in the feed as a result of the improvement of the intestinal environment, the development of the gastrointestinal tract and the increase in digestion and absorption processes that are a consequence of the role played by the single-cell organisms in improving performance
Smith et al., (2014) and
Ozsoy et al., (2018). These results are in agreement with
Abd El-Wahab et al., (2020), while they are in disagreement with the results of
Yusuf et al., (2015), Sharif et al., (2018) and
Al-Flaih (2019) who found no the effect of adding the yeast on this characteristic.
As for the combination treatment, it was found that the least of these combinations was the medium density 72b/m
2 with adding 6 g of yeast as the total highest conversion coefficient resulted from the density (72) b/m
2 and without adding the yeast.
Table 5 shows that the mass of eggs produced by female quails was not significantly affected by the difference in density during the weeks 7, 9 and 10, but it increased significantly in the total period (7-10) weeks for the density 72 b/m
2 compared to the densities (56 and 88) b/m
2. These results were in agreement with
Al-Tammee (2019) and were in disagreement with
Faitarone et al., (2005) who stated that the mass of produced eggs deteriorated with the increase of breeding density and with
El-Shafi et al., (2012).
Additionally, it was also observed that there was a significant increase in the yeast addition treatments 2, 4 and 6) g/l compared to the control treatment. This was because one of the feed components contains digestible proteins, multiple sugars, vitamins and minerals
Ozsoy et al., (2018); Elghandour et al., (2019). Results were in disagreement with the results of
Yusuf et al., 2015).
In the combinations treatment, it was found that the mass of eggs significantly increased in the combination of the densities (72 and 88) b/m
2 and the addition of yeast with a concentration of 4 g /l to the water as the values were (195.3 and 191.87) grams and this enhances the use of yeast in high densities to exploit the unit area and to reduce the impact of stress that results from the density. On the contrary, it was observed that the egg mass was the lowest in all the combinations resulting from the density and without adding any amount of the yeast.
Table 6 shows that the egg weight increased significantly in the breeding density (88) b/m
2 compared to the breeding densities (56 and 72 b/m
2). Also, the weight of albumin increased significantly in the density (72) b/m
2 compared to the two densities (56 and 88 b/m2). There was no significant effect on the weight of the yolk, the weight of shell and the thickness of the shell. These results are not in conformity with the results of
Al-Hamed (2021) and
Aro et al., (2021) who reported that the weight of eggs deteriorated with the increase of the breeding density. From the other hand,
Al-Tammee (2019) stated that the weight of the egg did not affected by the breeding density.
It was observed that the weight of the egg significantly increased in the treatments that involved addition of the yeast compared to the control treatment. The weight of the yolk, albumen and shell also increased that is due to the role played by the yeast as it acts as a probiotic in terms of making use of the nutrients absorbed and also the yeast contains digestible proteins, multiple saccharides, minerals and vitamins (
Alizadeh, 2016) and (
Al-Khalaifah, 2018). This was all reflected in the performance of the eggs produced. These results are in agreement with the results of
Yusuf et al., (2015) but they are in disagreement with the results of
Alagawany et al., 2021.
Moreover, it is found in Table (6) that the combination treatment (88 + 6) that results from the combination of the densities (88 b/m
2 + (6) grams of yeast, gave the highest egg weight and albumen weight. Adding the yeast with different concentrations for the three breeding densities increased the egg albumin weight white compared to the control treatment.
Table 7 shows that there is no significant effect of breeding density on both the length and the width of the egg, the height of the yolk and albumin, the diameter of the yolk and the indices of the yolk and the shape of the egg. These results were in agreement with the results of (Al-Tamee, 2019), while they were in disagreement with the results of
Aro et al., (2021), where these characteristics increased significantly with the increase of breeding densities.
As for the combination treatment, it was observed that the longest and widest egg was obtained from the combination of the breeding density (56 b/m
2) and the addition of yeast in the two concentrations (2 and 4) g/l. Moreover, the highest value for the height of the yolk and albumin and the index of the shape of the egg were obtained from the combination of (88 bird/m
2 + 6 g/l).