1. Introduction
In poultry nutrition, energy is divided into gross energy, digestible energy, metabolism energy (ME), and net energy. The ME for feedstuff used in poultry nutrition is the basic energy ( 1 ). The main factor that affects feed intake is ME in the ration. The grower quail stops the intake of the ration when it gets the requirements of ME so that the ration is balanced in all elements and compounds. Some researchers studied the best ME levels in the Japanese quail rations. They found that there were significant differences in body weight when they used different ME levels on the grower of Japanese quail rations, while Hasanien ( 2 ), Muniz, Barreto ( 3 ), as well as Muniz, Barreto ( 4 ), did not find any significant effects on body weight when they used different ME levels on Japanese quail rations. On the other hand, some other researchers studied the effect on Japanese quail strains, such as Bughio, Jatoi ( 5 ), as well as Al-Kafajy, Al-Shuhaib ( 6 ), who found significant differences in body weight when they used different strains of Japanese quail, while Ahmad, Mehmood ( 7 ).
2. Materials and Methods
Two strains of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica), including 250 birds of desert and 250 birds of white color, all one day old and unsexed, were divided into five treatment groups, each containing 50 replicates. This treatment included five levels of ME levels, including 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, and 3100 Kcal/Kg diet. The study included one stage (the growth stage) from day 1 to day 42 of birds’ age. It was completed at the Department of Animal Production, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq. Iron cages sized 50×50×50 cm were used to house the birds. The feed contained approximately 24% crude protein. The nutrient requirements of the grower quail and the chemical composition of rations used in this study were formulated according to the National Research Council ( 8 ) tabulated in table 1.
| Ingredients | Energy Level (Kcal./Kg diet) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | |
| 2700 | 2800 | 2900 | 3000 | 3100 | |
| Soybean meal | 28.40 | 29.10 | 30.20 | 31.40 | 32.50 |
| Yellow corn | 10 | 16.20 | 24 | 34 | 42 |
| Wheat | 46.40 | 40 | 30.70 | 19.30 | 10 |
| Wheat bran | 5.50 | 3.90 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Sunflower oil | 0.50 | 1.60 | 2.90 | 4.10 | 5.30 |
| Protein concentrate | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Limestone | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Di Calcium phosphate | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| Vit. Min. premix | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Common salt | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Chemical Analysis | |||||
| ME(kcal/kg diet) | 2700 | 2801 | 2902 | 3000 | 3100 |
| Crude protein % | 24.06 | 24.01 | 24.02 | 24.01 | 24.04 |
| ME / P ratio | 112.2 | 116.7 | 120.8 | 124.9 | 129 |
| Ether extract % | 2.76 | 3.89 | 5.23 | 6.50 | 7.76 |
| crude fiber % | 4.45 | 4.23 | 4.09 | 3.95 | 3.81 |
| Calcium % | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| A. phosphorus % | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.44 |
| Lysine % | 1.32 | 1.32 | 1.35 | 1.36 | 1.38 |
| Methionine % | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.56 |
| Linoleic acid % | 1.14 | 1.86 | 2.69 | 3.52 | 4.31 |
The water intake and the feed conversion ratio were calculated as stated in Kesab ( 9 ), with the following equations: 1) water intake (ml/bird)=the added water (ml/bird)−the remaining water (ml/bird) and 2) water conversion ratio (ml/gm weight gain)=water intake (ml/bird)/weight gain (gm/bird). At the end of the research (day 42), the birds were slaughtered, and the characteristics of their carcasses were recorded as reported previously ( 9 ). The sensory evaluation (tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and acceptability) of the Japanese quail breast meat was carried out according to Kesab ( 9 ). The economic calculations of the search parameters were calculated on day 42 to produce 1 Kg of live weight, depending on Kesab ( 9 ). The Statistical Analysis Software (SAS, 2002) was used to statistically analyze the study data for the factorial and two-factor experiment. The study followed a complete random design. The difference between the means was tested by Duncan ( 10 ) multi-range test. Finally, the standard error of each transaction was measured.
3. Results and Discussion
The results in table 2 showed significant differences (P≤0.05) caused by the strain, ME levels, and the interaction factor on body weight and weight gain. The strain factor significantly affected the body weight and weight gain of the desert quail. These results agree with the findings of Al-Fleeh ( 11 ). The most significant effects on body weight and weight gain were caused by the T3 (2900 Kcal/Kg diet) ME level. The interaction factor also caused significant differences (P≤0.05) in body weight and weight gain in T3 ME level (the interaction between desert quail and 2900 Kcal ME). However, the three factors did not significantly affect mortality percentages.
| Treatments | Body weight (g/bird) | Weight gain (g/bird) | Growth rate (%) | Mortality (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect | |||||
| Desert quail | 193.03 ±3.35 A | 185.58 ±3.36 A | 185.14 ±1.65 | 0.40 ±0.40 | |
| White quail | 185.03 ±1.87 B | 177.65 ±1.87 B | 184.65 ±2.13 | 0.80 ±0.54 | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| 2700 | 186.95 ±1.63 BC | 179.56 ±1.63 BC | 184.79 ±1.75 | 0 ±0 | |
| 2800 | 185.73 ±2.97 BC | 178.31 ±2.98 BC | 184.62 ±1.33 | 0 ±0 | |
| 2900 | 198.60 ±6.14 A | 191.20 ±6.12 A | 185.63 ±2.08 | 0 ±0 | |
| 3000 | 193.33 ±3.70 AB | 185.92 ±3.70 AB | 185.23 ±0.96 | 1 ±1 | |
| 3100 | 180.53 ±4.12 C | 173.11 ±4.18 C | 184.20 ±1.82 | 2 ±1.26 | |
| Interaction: Strain × Metabolism energy levels (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 186.48 ±3.02 BC | 179.04 ±3 BC | 184.65 ±1.27 | 0 ±0 |
| 2800 | 188.71 ±3.51 BC | 181.24 ±3.55 BC | 184.77 ±0.90 | 0 ±0 | |
| 2900 | 209.67 ±7.01 A | 202.22 ±7.03 A | 186.27 ±3.12 | 0 ±0 | |
| 3000 | 197.55 ±3.27 AB | 190.13 ±3.31 AB | 185.51 ±1.88 | 2 ±2 | |
| 3100 | 182.72 ±8.46 BC | 175.27 ±8.48 BC | 184.32 ±1.51 | 0 ±0 | |
| White quail | 2700 | 187.42 ±1.99 BC | 180.07 ±2.03 BC | 184.90 ±2.35 | 0 ±0 |
| 2800 | 182.75 ±4.79 BC | 175.37 ±4.81 BC | 184.46 ±2.65 | 0 ±0 | |
| 2900 | 187.52 ±4.10 BC | 180.17 ±4.06 BC | 184.90 ±2.02 | 0 ±0 | |
| 3000 | 189.11 ±5.59 BC | 181.71 ±5.60 BC | 184.93 ±1.12 | 0 ±0 | |
| 3100 | 178.33 ±2.90 C | 170.94 ±2.90 C | 184.08 ±0.87 | 4 ±4 | |
| A,c: Mean in the same column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05) | |||||
Table 3 showed significant differences (P≤0.05) in feed conversion ratio, water intake, and water conversion ratio caused by the strain factor; however, the difference caused in feed intake was not significant. Significant differences (P≤0.05) were caused by the strain effect on the desert quail in feed conversion ratio and water intake. As for the effect of ME levels, the T1 (2700 Kcal) ME level had the strongest effect on feed intake and water intake, followed by the T2 (2880 Kcal) ME level. On the other hand, T3 (2900 Kcal), followed by T4 (3000 Kcal) ME levels had the strongest effect on the feed conversion ratio. In the interaction, significant differences (P≤0.05) in feed intake were caused by T6 and T7 ME levels, while significant differences in water intake were caused by T7 ME level. The T3 ME level recorded the best feed conversion ratio.
| Treatments | Feed intake (g/bird) | Feed conversion ratio (gm: gm gain) | Water intak (ml/bird) | Water conversion ratio (ml: gm gain) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect | |||||
| Desert quail | 688.49 ±10.37 | 3.71 ±0.11 B | 1749.20 ±33.98 B | 9.43 ±0.18 B | |
| White quail | 714.84 ±13.92 | 4.02 ±0.09 A | 1878.26 ±32.57 A | 10.57 ±0.25 A | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| 2700 | 742.56 ±16.29 A | 4.14 ±0.12 A | 1933.84 ±59.25 A | 10.77 ±0.34 A | |
| 2800 | 740.36 ±13.42 A | 4.15 ±0.11 A | 1945.71 ±45.05 A | 10.91 ±0.81 A | |
| 2900 | 669.42 ±19.17 B | 3.50 ±0.17 B | 1680.80 ±31.14 B | 8.79 ±0.30 B | |
| 3000 | 685.33 ±16 B | 3.69 ±0.13 B | 1770.62 ±21.91 B | 9.52 ±0.25 B | |
| 3100 | 670.67 ±15.23 B | 3.87 ±0.07 AB | 1737.69 ±35.58 B | 9.99 ±0.29 AB | |
| Interaction: Strain × Metabolism energy levels (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 722.88 ±13.68 AB | 4.04 ±0.22 AB | 1870.48 ±115.02 BC | 10.45 ±0.41 AB |
| 2800 | 718.37 ±4.90 AB | 3.96 ±0.06 AB | 1859.13 ±32.38 C | 10.26 ±0.35 AB | |
| 2900 | 666.27 ±25.89 B | 3.29 ±0.23 C | 1620.65 ±17.22 D | 8.01 ±0.16 C | |
| 3000 | 680.08 ±10.52 AB | 3.58 ±0.08 BC | 1733.33 ±16.93 CD | 9.12 ±0.23 BC | |
| 3100 | 654.84 ±7.87 B | 3.74 ±0.24 ABC | 1662.43 ±3.58 D | 9.48 ±0.33 ABC | |
| White quail | 2700 | 762.23 ±21.10 A | 4.23 ±0.11 A | 1997.20 ±19.36 AB | 11.09 ±0.18 A |
| 2800 | 762.34 ±20.91 A | 4.35 ±0.23 A | 2032.29 ±40.06 A | 11.59 ±0.18 A | |
| 2900 | 672.56 ±20.19 B | 3.73 ±0.22 ABC | 1740.94 ±30.58 CD | 9.66 ±0.18 ABC | |
| 3000 | 690.58 ±29.97 AB | 3.80 ±0.27 ABC | 1807.90 ±26.90 C | 9.95 ±0.18 ABC | |
| 3100 | 686.49 ±29.12 AB | 4.02 ±0.23 AB | 1812.95 ±25.58 C | 10.61 ±0.18 AB | |
| a,c: Mean in the same column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05) | |||||
Table 4 shows significant effects (P≤0.05) of the three factors on protein conversion ratio and ME conversion ratio. The strain effect was the most significant on protein conversion ratio and ME conversion ratio in the desert quail. Regarding the ME levels, the strongest effect on protein intake was in T1 and T2, and on protein conversion ratio and ME conversion ratio, it was in T3. The interaction results show the best protein and ME conversion ratios for T3 ME level (desert quail with 2900 Kcal).
| Treatments | Protein intake (g/bird) | Protein conversion ratio (g: g gain) | ME intake (Kcal./bird) | ME conversion ratio (Kcal. : g gain) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect | |||||
| Desert quail | 165.43 ±2.81 | 0.89 ±0.02 B | 1993.54 ±26.17 | 10.74 ±0.29 B | |
| White quail | 171.76 ±3.43 | 0.97 ±0.02 A | 2068.99 ±32.45 | 11.65 ±0.27 A | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| 2700 | 178.66 ±4.24 A | 1 ±0.02 A | 2004.90 ±47.61 | 11.17 ±0.33 AB | |
| 2800 | 177.76 ±3.22 A | 1 ±0.02 A | 2073.73 ±37.13 | 11.63 ±0.31 A | |
| 2900 | 160.80 ±4.60 B | 0.84 ±0.04 B | 1942.65 ±55.63 | 10.16 ±0.51 B | |
| 3000 | 164.55 ±3.84 B | 0.89 ±0.03 AB | 2055.99 ±41.25 | 11.06 ±0.44 AB | |
| 3100 | 161.23 ±2.73 B | 0.93 ±0.03 AB | 2079.06 ±47.24 | 12.01 ±0.48 A | |
| Interaction: Strain × Metabolism energy levels (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 173.92 ±6.46 AB | 0.97 ±0.05 AB | 1951.78 ±72.54 | 10.90 ±0.59 AB |
| 2800 | 172.48 ±1.17 AB | 0.95 ±0.01 ABC | 2012.15 ±13.75 | 11.10 ±0.16 AB | |
| 2900 | 160.04 ±8.84 B | 0.79 ±0.06 C | 1933.52 ±106.83 | 9.56 ±0.82 B | |
| 3000 | 163.29 ±2.93 AB | 0.86 ±0.02 BC | 2040.24 ±36.63 | 10.73 ±0.23 AB | |
| 3100 | 157.42 ±1.89 B | 0.90 ±0.05 ABC | 2030 ±24.41 | 11.58 ±0.68 AB | |
| White quail | 2700 | 183.39 ±5.07 A | 1.02 ± 0.02 AB | 2058.02 ±56.97 | 11.43 ±0.32 AB |
| 2800 | 183.04 ±5.02 A | 1.04 ±0.05 A | 2135.31 ±58.56 | 12.18 ±0.65 A | |
| 2900 | 161.55 ±4.85 B | 0.90 ±0.03 ABC | 1951.77 ±58.60 | 10.83 ±0.42 AB | |
| 3000 | 165.81 ±7.19 AB | 0.91 ±0.06 ABC | 2071.74 ±89.91 | 11.40 ±0.82 AB | |
| 3100 | 165.03 ±5.58 AB | 0.97 ±0.05 AB | 2128.12 ±46.26 | 12.45 ±0.72 A | |
| a,c: Mean in the same column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05) | |||||
Table 5 shows the significant effects (P≤0.05) of the three factors on carcass weight. The strain factor had the strongest effect on the desert quail in the T3 ME level, and the interaction between strain and ME levels was in the T3 group. The T5 ME level and the interaction factors had a significant effect (P≤0.05) on the edible giblet percentage. The results did not record any significant effects on dressing percentage caused by the three factors (Tables 6 and 7).
| Treatments | Carcass weight (g/bird) | Dressing (%) | Breast (%) | Edible giblets (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect | |||||
| Desert quail | 130.65 ±2.63 A | 71.10 ±0.63 | 31.82 ±1.39 | 5.77 ±0.20 | |
| White quail | 118.57 ±2.03 B | 68.89 ±0.80 | 31.51 ±1.17 | 5.50 ±0.15 | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| 2700 | 121.92 ±3.44 B | 69.17 ±1.45 | 31.59 ±1.35 | 5.16 ±0.35 B | |
| 2800 | 122.42 ±3.62 B | 69.65 ±0.78 | 31.63 ±2.47 | 5.61±0.16 AB | |
| 2900 | 134.48 ±5.24 A | 71.46 ±1.27 | 32.04 ±1.06 | 5.57 ±0.13 AB | |
| 3000 | 125.65 ±3.88 AB | 69.93 ±1.48 | 31.94 ±0.97 | 5.74 ±0.35 AB | |
| 3100 | 118.59 ±3.43 B | 69.77 ±0.95 | 31.14 ±0.77 | 6.12 ±0.30 A | |
| Interaction : Strain × Metabolism energy levels(Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 127.54 ±5.83 B | 70.24 ±1.20 | 31.95 ±2.23 | 5.25 ± 0.57 AB |
| 2800 | 128.27 ±10.40 B | 70.85 ±1.02 | 31.88 ±1.51 | 5.52 ±0.25 AB | |
| 2900 | 144.87 ±9.29 A | 72.85 ±1.55 | 32.19 ±1.06 | 5.70 ±0.25 AB | |
| 3000 | 131.89 ±7.64 AB | 71.61 ±0.25 | 32.03 ±0.97 | 5.88 ±0.44 AB | |
| 3100 | 120.68 ±8.36 B | 69.93 ±1.73 | 31.07 ±1.25 | 6.49 ±0.25 A | |
| White quail | 2700 | 116.30 ±10.43 B | 68.10 ±2.87 | 31.22 ±0.38 | 5.06 ±0.46 B |
| 2800 | 116.57 ±10.99 B | 68.44 ±3.64 | 31.37 ±1.47 | 5.69 ±0.25 AB | |
| 2900 | 124.08 ±3.83 B | 70.07 ±0.53 | 31.90 ±0.67 | 5.43 ±0.22 AB | |
| 3000 | 119.39 ±8.13 B | 68.25 ±1.70 | 31.85 ±1.11 | 5.59 ±0.54 AB | |
| 3100 | 116.50 ±4.17 B | 69.60 ±1.76 | 31.20 ±0.85 | 5.75 ±0.30 AB | |
| a,c: Mean in the same column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05) | |||||
| Treatments | Tenderness | Juiciness | Flavor | Acceptability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect | |||||
| Desert quail | 2.76 ±0.05 | 2.66 ±0.06 | 2.73 ±0.07 | 2.71 ±0.09 | |
| White quail | 2.83 ±0.08 | 2.76 ±0.08 | 2.80 ±0.08 | 2.80 ±0.06 | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| 2700 | 2.91 ±0.08 | 2.81 ±0.10 | 2.88 ±0.10 | 2.94 ±0.11 | |
| 2800 | 2.94 ±0.09 | 2.91 ±0.06 | 2.82 ±0.06 | 2.88 ±0.09 | |
| 2900 | 2.85 ±0.07 | 2.72 ±0.14 | 2.78 ±0.06 | 2.75 ±0.11 | |
| 3000 | 2.72 ±0.11 | 2.60 ±0.06 | 2.72 ±0.07 | 2.63 ±0.07 | |
| 3100 | 2.66 ±0.06 | 2.54 ±0.04 | 2.63 ±0.06 | 2.60 ±0.08 | |
| Interaction: Strain × Metabolism energy levels (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 2.88 ±0.09 | 2.81 ±0.07 | 2.81 ±0.09 | 2.94 ±0.10 |
| 2800 | 2.94 ±0.10 | 2.81 ±0.12 | 2.69 ±0.12 | 2.81 ±0.09 | |
| 2900 | 2.81 ±0.08 | 2.69 ±0.09 | 2.75 ±0.07 | 2.69 ±0.07 | |
| 3000 | 2.69 ±0.09 | 2.56 ±0.07 | 2.75 ±0.07 | 2.56 ±0.06 | |
| 3100 | 2.50 ±0.07 | 2.44 ±0.05 | 2.63 ±0.06 | 2.56 ±0.05 | |
| White quail | 2700 | 2.94 ±0.12 | 2.81 ±0.13 | 2.94 ±0.10 | 2.94 ±0.10 |
| 2800 | 2.94 ±0.12 | 3.00 ±0.11 | 2.94 ±0.10 | 2.94 ±0.10 | |
| 2900 | 2.88 ±0.13 | 2.75 ±0.10 | 2.81 ±0.09 | 2.81 ±0.07 | |
| 3000 | 2.75 ±0.11 | 2.63 ±0.09 | 2.69 ±0.08 | 2.69 ±0.09 | |
| 3100 | 2.63 ±0.10 | 2.63 ±0.09 | 2.63 ±0.05 | 2.63 ±0.07 | |
| Treatments | Total Protein (gm/100ml) | Albumin (gm/100ml) | Globulin (gm/100ml) | Triglycerides (mg/100ml) | Total cholesterol (mg/100ml) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect | ||||||
| Desert quail | 4.38 ±0.08 | 2.52 ±0.05 A | 1.86 ±0.02 | 625.20 ±7.05 A | 182.23±3.49 | |
| White quail | 4.26 ±0.09 | 2.30 ±0.04 B | 1.96 ±0.02 | 608.28 ±5.95 B | 175.01±2.67 | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect(Kcal./Kg) : | ||||||
| 2700 | 4.26 ±0.04 | 2.33 ±0.03 BC | 1.93 ±0.03 | 587.50 ±5.15 C | 171.32±3.83 B | |
| 2800 | 4.24 ±0.08 | 2.27 ±0.06 C | 1.97 ±0.03 | 595.34± 5.18 C | 172.66 ±4.22 AB | |
| 2900 | 4.29 ±0.15 | 2.37 ±0.07 BC | 1.92 ±0.05 | 614.17± 5.90 B | 177.45± 4.15 AB | |
| 3000 | 4.35 ±0.06 | 2.46 ±0.07 B | 1.89 ±0.04 | 627.91± 5.46 B | 184.07± 5.77 AB | |
| 3100 | 4.46 ±0.23 | 2.62 ±0.07 A | 1.84±0.03 | 658.77± 7.03 A | 187.60±5.33 A | |
| Interaction : Strain × Metabolism energy levels(Kcal./Kg) : | ||||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 4.32 ±0.07 | 2.38 ±0.04 BCD | 1.94 ±0.05 | 594.19 ±6.94 A | 173.22 ±6.78 |
| 2800 | 4.17 ±0.14 | 2.43 ±0.04 BCD | 1.74 ±0.05 | 598.92 ±9.17 DE | 175.62 ±4.84 | |
| 2900 | 4.45 ±0.06 | 2.49 ±0.08 BC | 1.96 ±0.06 | 625.42 ±5.19 BC | 181.15 ±7.34 | |
| 3000 | 4.41 ±0.10 | 2.58 ±0.08 AB | 1.83 ±0.06 | 635.65 ±6.51 BC | 189.81 ±7.94 | |
| 3100 | 4.55 ±0.09 | 2.73 ±0.11 A | 1.82 ±0.06 | 671.80 ±7.66 A | 191.37 ±4.54 | |
| White quail | 2700 | 4.20 ±0.05 | 2.28 ±0.04 DE | 1.92 ±0.05 | 580.81 ±6.79 E | 169.42 ±4.47 |
| 2800 | 4.30 ±0.06 | 2.11 ±0.04 E | 2.19 ±0.04 | 591.76 ±5.69 E | 169.70 ±7.36 | |
| 2900 | 4.12 ±0.15 | 2.25 ±0.06 DE | 1.87 ±0.08 | 602.92 ±9.31 DE | 173.75 ±4.25 | |
| 3000 | 4.29 ±0.05 | 2.34 ±0.07 CD | 1.95 ±0.07 | 620.17 ±7.56 CD | 178.33 ±8.46 | |
| 3100 | 4.37 ±0.36 | 2.50 ±0.06 BC | 1.87 ±0.03 | 645.74 ± 7.68 B | 183.83 ±3.46 | |
| a,c: Mean in the same column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05) | ||||||
Table 8 shows the economic efficiency of producing 1 Kg live weight of grower quail in this study. The results showed that the desert quail has the best net revenue, compared to the white quail, and that T3 (2900 Kcal) had the best net revenue, compared to other ME levels, as the results of interaction for T3 (desert quail and 2900 Kcal) has best net revenue.
| Treatments | Feed intake cost | Other cost | Total cost | Revenue | Net Revenue | %Net revenue: Total costs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain effect : | |||||||
| Desert quail | 2437 | 2628 | 5065 | 9000 | 3935 | 77.69 | |
| White quail | 2472 | 2652 | 5124 | 9000 | 3876 | 75.64 | |
| Metabolism energy levels effect (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||||
| 2700 | 2649 | 2766 | 5415 | 9000 | 3585 | 66.20 | |
| 2800 | 2522 | 2666 | 5188 | 9000 | 3812 | 73.48 | |
| 2900 | 2235 | 2501 | 4736 | 9000 | 4264 | 90.03 | |
| 3000 | 2396 | 2588 | 4984 | 9000 | 4016 | 80.58 | |
| 3100 | 2472 | 2682 | 5154 | 9000 | 3846 | 74.62 | |
| Interaction: Strain × Metabolism energy levels (Kcal./Kg) : | |||||||
| Desert quail | 2700 | 2833 | 2891 | 5724 | 9000 | 3276 | 57.23 |
| 2800 | 2410 | 2623 | 5033 | 9000 | 3967 | 78.82 | |
| 2900 | 2081 | 2361 | 4442 | 9000 | 4558 | 102.61 | |
| 3000 | 2225 | 2557 | 4782 | 9000 | 4218 | 88.21 | |
| 3100 | 2638 | 2709 | 5347 | 9000 | 3653 | 68.32 | |
| White quail | 2700 | 2465 | 2641 | 5106 | 9000 | 3894 | 76.26 |
| 2800 | 2634 | 2709 | 5343 | 9000 | 3657 | 68.44 | |
| 2900 | 2389 | 2640 | 5029 | 9000 | 3971 | 78.96 | |
| 3000 | 2567 | 2618 | 5185 | 9000 | 3815 | 73.58 | |
| 3100 | 2306 | 2654 | 4960 | 9000 | 4040 | 81.45 | |
| Iraqi Dinar/Kg live weight | |||||||
The desert quail strain recorded the best net revenue and better performance traits, compared to the white quail. In addition, the T3 ME level recorded the best net revenue and better performance traits than other ME levels, and the interaction T3 has the best net revenue and best performance traits in this study.
Authors' Contribution
Study concept and design: Y. G. K.
Acquisition of data: R. N. W.
Analysis and interpretation of data: M. M. K.
Drafting of the manuscript: R. N. W.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: R. N. W.
Statistical analysis: Y. G. K.
Administrative, technical, and material support: M. M. K.
Ethics
All the ethical procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors are very grateful to the University of Mosul/College of Agriculture and Forestry for their provided facilities, which helped to improve the quality of this study.
References
- Ibrahim NS, El-Sayed MA, Assi HAM, Enab A, Abdel-Moneim A-ME. Genetic and physiological variation in two strains of Japanese quail. J Genet Eng Biotechnol. 2021; 19(1):1-12.
- Hasanien OAM. Effects of Dietary Protein, Energy and Lysine Intake on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Growing Japanese Quails. Asian J Poult Sci. 2015.
- Muniz JCL, Barreto SLdT, Mencalha R, Viana GdS, Reis RdS, Ribeiro CLN, et al. Metabolizable energy levels for meat quails from 15 to 35 days of age. Cienc Rural. 2016; 46:1852-7.
- Muniz J, Barreto S, Viana G, Mencalha R, Reis R, Hannas M, et al. Metabolizable energy levels for meat-type quails at starter phase. Braz J Poult Sci. 2018; 20:197-202.
- Bughio E, Jatoi A, Hussain J, Jaspal M, Mehmood S, Ishaq H, et al. Comparative study of carcass traits in four strains of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) at 3 to 6 weeks of age. Sarhad J Agric. 2020; 36(3):979-84.
- Al-Kafajy FR, Al-Shuhaib MBS, Al-Jashami GS, Al-Thuwaini TM. Comparison of three lines of Japanese quails revealed a remarkable role of plumage color in the productivity performance determination. J World Poult Res. 2018; 8(4):111-9.
- Ahmad S, Mehmood S, Javed K, Mahmud A, Usman M, Rehman A, et al. Different selection strategies for the improvement of the growth performance and carcass traits of Japanese quails. Braz J Poult Sci. 2018; 20:497-506.
- Council N-NR. Nutrient requirements of poultry. National Academy Press Washington; 1994.
- Kesab YG, Khaleel MM, Waleed RN. Effect of using millet seeds on nutrition of two strains of Japanese quail during growth and eggs production stages. Pp: 270-288. In The 3rd International Conference of (Environmental and Agricultural Status in the Middle East) 2020 Jul (pp. 14-16).
- Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955; 11(1):1-42.
- Al-Fleeh R. Effect of addition feenel seeds on productive traits of two breeds of japanes quail. JKU. 2018; 16(3)
)