DOI: https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e32108
Received: 18/12/2021 Accepted: 01/03/2022 Published: 09/05/2022
1 of 7
Revista Cientíca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXII, rcfcv-e32108, 1 - 7
ABSTRACT
The present research was carried out at the Santa Ines farm of the
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (FCA) of the Universidad Técnica
de Machala (UTMACH), in the Province of El Oro (Ecuador), which
objective was to evaluate the effect of the inclusion of Medicago
sativa meal (alfarina) in broiler chicken Cobb 500 feed on productive
parameters, carcass and sensory analysis. Poultry biosecurity
standards established for open house systems were applied, trying
to maintain comfort and well-being for the birds; a basic vaccination
plan was used that consisted of the use of Gumboro “Intermediate
strain” and New Castle “La Sota”. A Completely Random Design (CRD)
was used, distributed in 5 treatments, with 4 replicates of 10 chickens,
for a total of 40 birds per treatment (T). The T1 or control received a
commercial diet (without inclusion of alfarine), while in T2, T3, T4 and
T5, alfarine was included in the feed at 1, 2, 3 and 4%, respectively. The
variables studied were: accumulated feed and water consumption,
feed conversion, mortality, live weight gain, carcass assessment
parameters, abdominal fat thickness and organoleptic indicators. The
data obtained were processed in the statistical program Statgraphics
Centurión XV.I, performing an ANOVA analysis on all the quantitative
variables studied, after complying with the assumptions of normality
and homogeneity. To discriminate between means, Tukey’s signicant
difference procedure was used, with a condence level of 95%.
The results show that alfalfa meal in the diet has no effect on the
parameters evaluated, so this raw material can be used without
problems in the feeding of broilers without exceeding 4% inclusion.
Key words: Alfarina; productive parameters; carcass performance;
sensory analysis
RESUMEN
La presente investigación se realizó en la granja Santa Inés de la
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias de la Universidad Técnica de
Machala, en la Provincia de El Oro (Ecuador), cuyo objetivo fue evaluar
el efecto de la inclusión de harina de Medicago sativa (alfarina) en la
alimentación de pollos de engorde Cobb 500, sobre los parámetros
productivos, de la canal y análisis sensorial. Se aplicaron los estándares
de bioseguridad avícola establecidos para los sistemas de naves
abiertas, tratando de mantener la comodidad y el bienestar de las
aves; se utilizó un plan básico vacunal que consistió en el uso de
Gumboro “cepa Intermedia” y New Castle “La Sota”. Se empleó un
Diseño Completamente Aleatorio (DCA), distribuido en 5 tratamientos,
con 4 réplicas de 10 pollos, para un total de 40 aves por tratamiento.
El T1 o control recibió una dieta comercial (sin inclusión de alfarina),
mientras que en T2, T3, T4 y T5 se incluyó alfarina en la alimentación
al 1, 2, 3 y 4%, respectivamente. Las variables estudiadas fueron:
consumo acumulado de alimento y agua, conversión alimenticia,
mortalidad, ganancia de peso vivo, parámetros de valoración de la
canal, espesor de grasa abdominal e indicadores organolépticos.
Los datos obtenidos fueron procesados en el programa estadístico
Statgraphics Centurión XV.I, realizando un análisis ANOVA sobre
todas las variables cuantitativas estudiadas, luego de cumplir con
los supuestos de normalidad y homogeneidad. Para discriminar entre
medias, se utilizó el procedimiento de diferencia signicativa de
Tukey, con un nivel de conanza del 95%. Los resultados muestran
que la harina de alfalfa en la dieta no tiene efecto sobre los parámetros
evaluados, por lo que esta materia prima puede ser utilizada sin
problemas en la alimentación de pollos de engorde sin exceder el
4% de inclusión.
Palabras clave: Alfarina; parámetros productivos; rendimiento de
la canal; análisis sensorial
Effect of the inclusion of Medicago sativa in feed chicken Cobb 500
Efecto de inclusión de Medicago sativa en el alimento de pollos Cobb 500
Angel Roberto Sánchez-Quinche
1,2
* , Diana Verónica Chuquisala-Pinza
1
, Gissella Anabel Pogo-Troya
1
, Adriana Mayte Chalco-Ortega
1
,
Henry Olay Peláez-Rodríguez
1
and Carlos Armando Álvarez-Díaz
1
1
Universidad Técnica de Machala, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Research Group on Food Production and Animal Health (GIPASA). Machala, El Oro, Ecuador.
²Seedbed for Research in Animal Production (SIPA). Machala, El Oro, Ecuador. *Email: arsanchez@utmachala.edu.ec
Inclusion of Medicago sativa in feed chicken / Sanchez-Quinche et al.________________________________________________________________
2 of 7
INTRODUCTION
Poultry farming is one of the most important livestock activities
in Ecuador, due to the growing demand for poultry protein, in both
quantity and quality as well as safe edible products for the consumer,
and the production of fattening birds is one of the productive sectors
with greater economic movement. Among the most exploited poultry
lines in the Country, the Cobb 500 broiler stands out, thanks to genetic
improvement, growth rate, carcass performance, excellent feed
conversion rate and the ability to cope with low-density and low-cost
diets; qualities that give them a competitive advantage for the lower
cost per kilogram (kg) or pound of live weight produced to meet the
high demand worldwide [4].
Feeding represents approximately 70% of the production costs in
the economic structure of a poultry farm, so it is of utmost importance
to consider an economic feeding plan, so that it positively inuences
the costs in the farm [5, 25]. This has prompted researchers to
improve feed management standards, taking interest in studies
on the inclusion of protein-brous sources in the diets of broiler
chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), which have shown inuence
on the welfare of the bird, in addition to avoiding cannibalism [17].
España-Castillo et al. [8] stated that modern producers have the
tendency to incorporate alternatives for the fattening bird like grazing,
thereby reducing stress, pecking and cannibalism, main causes of
mortality in chickens.
Due to this and other physiological reasons related to the animals,
feeding alternatives are being implemented and also achieving
lower production costs, nding studies at nutritional level with the
inclusion of various raw materials, among them those carried out with
protein-brous products like Medicago sativa (alfalfa); a forage legume
commonly used as feed in different species of animals [10], due to its
high content of protein (17.4%), ber (24.5%) and xanthophylls (40
to 620 mg·kg
-1
) [9], as well as the natural pigmenting capacity that
it possesses and that helps to favor the characteristic coloration of
the chicken skin and the yolk of the eggs [10]. It can be consumed
in a dry, ensiled, hay or dehydrated form, the latter giving rise to a
higher quality product [9]. Alfalfa, given its nutritional value, has been
implemented in both human and animal nutrition [23].
Therefore, the objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of
the inclusion of M. sativa meal in broiler chicken feed on the productive
parameters, the carcass performance and sensory analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research was carried out at the experimental farm “Santa Ines”
belonging to the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences of the Universidad
Técnica de Machala (UTMACH), which is located at kilometer 5½, via
Machala – Pasaje, coastal region of Ecuador, whose geographical
coordinates are 79°54'05" West, 3°17'16" South, with an altitude of 5
meters above sea level. Its temperature uctuates between 22 and 35°C.
In order to maintain an optimal environment for the birds, all
biosecurity standards specied for open houses were implemented.
The disinfection of the installation was carried out by liming (Cal P24)
and 37% formaldehyde diluted in water and applied directly by spraying
to oors and walls before the arrival of the experimental animals. Coarse
wood chips were used as litter. A basic vaccination plan was used that
consisted of vaccines according to the diseases present in the area,
therefore administering GumboVac Intermediate strain, orally on day
(d) 6 and its reinforcement on d 14 and by ocular route, and New Castle
“La Sota ”on d 9 and its revaccination on d 23.
In order to maintain the comfort temperature of the animals, plastic
curtains were used over the mesh walls and yellow 100-watt bulbs
that served as a source of illumination as well. For the experiment,
200 mixed newborn chickens of the Cobb 500 line were used, and
evaluated for 35 d.
Throughout the study, the following variables were recorded: feed
and water consumption, feed conversion, mortality, live weight of
the birds, carcass data, abdominal fat thickness and organoleptic
indicators (color, avor, tenderness and juiciness). To record the
weight data, a CAMRY brand electronic gramera scale (model
EK9332-F302 “China”) was used with a maximum capacity of 5 kg and
a margin of error of ± 1 gram (g). The volume data were recorded with
a 4 liter (L) container with minimum measurements of 50 mililiter
(mL), and to obtain abdominal fat thickness data, a digital caliper
0-150 milimeter (mm) brand TACTIX was used.
Cumulative feed intake (g)
It was recorded weekly and expressed in g, it was obtained by
subtracting the excess food from the offered one, and this was done
throughout the duration of the experiment. This variable is quantitative.
One hundred data were obtained 5 Treatments (T) x 4 Experimental
Unit (EU) x 5 weeks (wk). The formula is as follows:
Accumulated feed consumption (g)=Feed offered-Leftover feed
Cumulative water intake (mL)
This variable is of a quantitative type, expressed in mL, and to obtain
it, the sum of the water offered daily was considered and subtracting
the sum of the unconsumed water. One hundred data were obtained
(5T x 4EU x 5 wk). The applied formula is the following:
Accumulated water consumption (mL)=Water offered-Unconsumed water
Feed conversion ratio
This numerical data was calculated by dividing the feed consumed
by the weight of the birds in g, this variable being of a quantitative
type. One hundred data were obtained (5T x 4EU x 5wk). The applied
formula was the following:
()
()
Feed conversion ratio
Weight of birds g
Feed consumptio
ng
=
Mortality
The number of dead birds was recorded throughout the experiment.
This variable is quantitative and is expressed as a percentage (%).
The formula used was the following:
(%)Mortality
Numbersofstartingbirds
Number of starting birdsNumberoffinishing birds
100
#
=
-
________________________________________________________________________Revista Cientica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXII, rcfcv-e32108, 1 - 7
3 of 7
Live weight gain (g)
To obtain this variable, the weekly weight data of each of the birds
in the experiment was recorded, ordered in such a way that each data
is recorded in its respective repetition and therefore in its treatment.
This variable is quantitative. Approximately 1,000 data were obtained
(5T x 4EU x 10 chickens(c) x 5 wk). The formula used was the following:
Live weight gain (g)=Live weight recorded-Live weight at the beginning of the experiment
Carcass data, abdominal fat thickness and organoleptic indicators
The data on the carcass and fat thickness were obtained after
slaughter, using the methodology described by Sánchez et al. [19].
To obtain the data from the sensory analysis, a consumer tasting test
was used after applying the respective discrimination, so that the
selected individuals respond to a previously designed survey, this was
repeated after 1 d, it was applied to the employees and students of the
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (UTMACH), with a total of 112 people.
Experimental design
For the present experiment, a Completely Random Design (CRD)
was used, distributed in 5 T, with 4 replicates of 10 chickens, for
a total of 40 birds per treatment (T). The T1 or control was fed a
normal commercial diet (without inclusion of alfarine), while in other
treatments T2, T3, T4 and T5, alfarine was included in the feed at 1,
2, 3 and 4%, respectively. The feed mixtures were provided by the
company BALMAR (El Oro-Ecuador).
Statistical analysis
The statistics used in the present investigation were based on
the book by Blasco [1]. To determine which factors presented a
statistical effect, after complying with the assumptions of normality
and homogeneity, an analysis for one factor (ANOVA) was used in all the
quantitative variables studied. To discriminate between the means,
the honest Tukey signicant difference procedure was used, with a
95% condence level. Contingency tables were prepared to assess
the qualitative data and the Chi-square test was used to establish
the differences among the treatments. Everything was executed in
the statistical program STATGRAPHICS Centurión XV.I.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Feed and water consumption and feed conversion
In TABLE I, it can be seen that during the experiment there was not
a statistically signicant difference for cumulative feed consumption,
this trend was maintained until the end of the research, which agrees
with the results by Paredes and Risso [16], who carried out the
evaluation of the effects of alfalfa our inclusion in the feed, on the
productive parameters, carcass and weight of digestive and lymphoid
organs from organic type broilers, using 240 Hubbard females from 35
to 84 d of age, demonstrating that feed consumption is not affected
by the inclusion of dehydrated forage in the diet.
Interesting data regarding alfalfa were reported by other authors,
Tkáčová et al. [23], advise using this product in amounts that do not
exceed 6%, because higher percentages produce negative effects
on production, in addition Ponte et al. [18], mention that alfalfa our
is very palatable for broiler chickens, which was corroborated by the
results from Wüstholz et al. [27], who demonstrated that the inclusion
of alfalfa produces an improvement in the silage that was given to
organic chickens and laying hens.
As can be seen in TABLE II, the water consumption in the 1st and 2nd
wk shows a signicant difference, with T3 being the one that differs
from T1, although in wk 3, 4 and 5 when compared to the control T
there is a higher water consumption in chickens that received alfarine.
These results might indicate an effect of alfalfa on the cumulative
water consumption, although these values coincide with the normal
gastrointestinal maturity of the bird. This could be explained because
the absorption mechanisms in birds at birth are not fully mature,
therefore the digestive capacity is not fully functional [14, 21, 26]. At
an early age, these animals prioritize their needs and the allometric
coecient is higher for the organs that contribute than for those
that demand nutrients [13].
Mortality
When analyzing the data in TABLE III, it is observed that, in wk 1,
2, 4 and 5 there is no signicant difference, although in wk 3, T (3, 4
and 5) differ from the control, these results are probably due to the
adjustment of gastrointestinal maturity that occurs in the birds in that
wk and that is why at the end of the experiment there is no difference
as such. Similar results were reported by Paredes and Risso [16],
who in their study included alfalfa our (HA) at 5 and 10% in the diet
of female broilers, not registering an effect on the feed conversion
TABLE I
Cumulative feed intake in Cobb 500 chickens (averages ± condence intervals)
Tr.¹ Week.² 1 Week.² 2 Week.² 3 Week.² 4 Week.² 5
1 1,373.0 ± 43.9
a
5,935.0 ± 97.5
a
11,925.8 ± 92.0
a
21,860.3 ± 294.1
a
34,453.0 ± 544.6
a
2 1,323.5 ± 43.9
a
5,804.3 ± 97.5
a
11,776.5 ± 92.0
a
21,751.8 ± 294.1
a
34,419.8 ± 544.7
a
3 1,378.5 ± 43.9
a
5,963.5 ± 97.5
a
11,958.5 ± 92.0
a
21,735.0 ± 294.0
a
34,296.0 ± 544.6
a
4 1,367.0 ± 43.9
a
5,957.8 ± 97.5
a
11,948.8 ± 92.0
a
21,915.3 ± 294.1
a
34,626.5 ± 544.6
a
5 1,343.3 ± 43.9
a
5,893.8 ± 97.5
a
11,861.8 ± 92.0
a
21,776.8 ± 294.1
a
34,465.5 ± 544.6
a
Tr.¹: Treatments 1 control, 2, 3, 4, and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %, 2 %, 3 % and 4 %; Week.² 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: weekly accumulated
feed data;
abc
: It is the representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found when comparing with T1
Inclusion of Medicago sativa in feed chicken / Sanchez-Quinche et al.________________________________________________________________
4 of 7
index. In an experiment conducted by Elkomy et al. [7], used alfalfa
seeds at 1% in the feeding of broilers in order to counteract the
toxicity of carbofuran, however, at the end of the study, an effect in
the conversion index was registered.
Two dead birds were registered in T2 on d 25, the necropsy showed
possible intoxication, for which, the natural toxin entrapment (Zeolite)
was duplicated in the food of all T until the end of the experiment.
The evidence is that Zeolite has positive effects on feed eciency,
nutrient utilization, the prevention of aatoxicosis and the reduction
of humidity and odor in the litter of birds [22, 24].
Live weight of birds
TABLE IV shows the data corresponding to the average weights per
wk, obtained for each T, with no signicant difference. These results
were similar to those found by Laudadio et al. [11], who pointed out
that when administering 15% of alfalfa in laying hens, adverse effects
on weight gain were not determined. On the other hand, the results
of Mateos et al. [15], showed that the incorporation of alfalfa in the
feed of broilers, favors a decrease in weight, because its digestibility
is reduced through simple encapsulation, low assimilation of fats and
the high ber content. This would explain that, the higher the inclusion
percentage, the lower the live weight gain of the birds
TABLE II
Accumulated water consumption in Cobb 500 chickens
Trt.¹ Week² 1 Week² 2 Week² 3 Week² 4 Week² 5
1 4,118.8 ± 381.7
a
13,056.3 ± 825.7
a
24,643.8 ± 2,231.6
a
37,312.5 ± 5,669.8
a
50,462.5 ± 10,822.0
a
2 4,581.3 ± 381.7
ab
13,137.5 ± 825.6
a
26,418.8 ± 2,231.6
a
42,906.3 ± 5,669.7
a
64,968.8 ± 10,822.1
a
3 5,048.8 ± 381.7
b
148,76.3 ± 825.7
b
28,976.3 ± 2,231.6
a
47,301.3 ± 5,669.7
a
68,138.8 ± 10,822.1
a
4 4,703.8 ± 381.7
ab
14,416.3 ± 825.7
ab
28,428.8 ± 2,231.6
a
46,641.3 ± 5,669.7
a
68,378.8 ± 10,822.1
a
5 4,400.0 ± 381.7
ab
13,456.3 ± 825.7
ab
26,462.5 ± 2,231.5
a
42,687.5 ± 5,669.8
a
60,912.5 ± 10,822.0
a
Trt.¹: Treatments 1 control. 2. 3. 4. and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %. 2 %. 3 % and 4 %; Week² 1. 2. 3. 4. 5: weekly accumulated
water data;
abc
: It is the representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found when comparing with T1
TABLE III
Feed conversion ratio in Cobb 500 chickens
Trt.¹ Week² 1 Week² 2 Week² 3 Week² 4 Week² 5
1 0.91 ± 0.07
a
1.28 ± 0.08
a
1.38 ± 0.05
a
1.55± 0.06
a
1.71± 0.12
a
2 0.86 ± 0.07
a
1.27 ± 0.08
a
1.41± 0.05
ab
1.53± 0.06
a
1.70 ± 0.12
a
3 0.94 ± 0.07
a
1.36 ± 0.08
a
1.49 ± 0.05
bc
1.57± 0.06
a
1.91 ± 0.12
a
4 0.95 ± 0.07
a
1.39 ± 0.08
a
1.52 ± 0.05
cd
1.62± 0.06
a
1.80 ± 0.12
a
5 0.88 ± 0.07
a
1.33 ± 0.08
a
1.50 ± 0.05
bc
1.61± 0.06
a
1.84± 0.12
a
Trt.¹: Treatments 1 control. 2. 3. 4. and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %. 2 %. 3 % and 4 %; Week² 1. 2. 3. 4. 5: weekly accumulated
water data;
abcd
: is the representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found when comparing with T1
TABLE IV
Dierence in weights
Trt.¹ Week² 1 Week² 2 Week² 3 Week² 4 Week² 5
1 151.8 ± 10.5
a
464.3 ± 21.4
a
866.2 ± 25.0
a
1,410.8 ± 107.5
a
2,032.7 ± 265.8
a
2 155.2 ± 10.5
a
458.7 ± 21.4
a
835.4 ± 25.0
a
1,427.1 ± 107.5
a
2,024.2 ± 265.8
a
3 147.4 ± 10.5
a
438.6 ± 21.4
a
804.2 ± 25.0
ab
1,385.7 ± 107.5
a
1,809.6 ± 265.8
a
4 145.3 ± 10.5
a
428.5 ± 21.4
a
784.8 ± 25.0
bc
1,356.4 ± 107.5
a
1,925.1 ± 265.8
a
5 153.5 ± 10.5
a
444.4 ± 21.4
a
789.2 ± 25.0
c
1,454.1 ± 107.5
a
2,129.3 ± 265.8
a
Trt¹.: Treatments 1 control. 2. 3. 4. and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %. 2 %. 3 % and 4 %; Week² 1. 2. 3. 4. 5: weekly accumulated
water data;
abc
: is the representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found when comparing with T1
________________________________________________________________________Revista Cientica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXII, rcfcv-e32108, 1 - 7
5 of 7
Carcass data
When analyzing the data in TABLES V and VI with respect to the
antemortem and bleeded weights, without feathers, without viscera,
without head and legs, no signicant difference was found, as well
as for the abdominal fat thickness. These results differ from those
found by Castellini et al. [2], who demonstrated that by including
2.8% dehydrated HA, chickens obtain less abdominal fat. Laudadio
et al. [12] in their study mentioned that the increase in crude ber
(CF) in the diet from 3.19 to 3.52% in guinea chickens resulted in an
increase in abdominal fat in the birds whose diets contained HA,
without nding different carcass yields. Paredes and Risso [16],
obtained similar results to the aforementioned work. Furthermore
Dong et al. [6], mentioned that the greater accumulation of abdominal
fat in birds that consumed M. sativa our may be due to the fact
that alfalfa strengthens the immune system, and this regulates lipid
metabolism, therefore as the birds did not face any health challenges,
there was no lipolysis, but an increase in abdominal fat deposition.
TABLE V
Data obtained with the slaughter of the birds on day 35
Trt.
Ante-Mortem
Weight (g)
Bleeded
Weight (g)
Weight W/O
Feathers (g)
Weight W/O
Viscera (g)
Weight W/O
Head & Legs (g)
Abdominal
Fat (mm)
1 1,732.38 ± 208.03
a
1,687.00 ± 206.56
a
1,630.38 ± 199.23
a
1,398.50 ± 178.41
a
1,273.63 ± 169.17
a
1.73 ± 0.41
a
2 1,701.38 ± 208.03
a
1,602.38 ± 206.56
a
1,571.13± 199.23
a
1,360.88 ± 178.41
a
1,240.5 ± 169.17
a
1.68 ± 0.41
a
3 1,502.63 ± 208.03
a
1,451.38 ± 206.56
a
1,393.63± 199.23
a
1,196.88 ± 178.41
a
1,087.38 ± 169.17
a
1.53 ± 0.41
a
4 1,649.50 ± 208.03
a
1,586.63 ± 206.56
a
1,518.13± 199.23
a
1,322.00 ± 178.41
a
1,209.25 ± 169.17
a
1.76 ± 0.41
a
5 1,478.75 ± 208.02
a
1,407.38 ± 206.56
a
1,355.88± 199.23
a
1,187.25 ± 178.41
a
1,077.13 ± 169.17
a
1.32 ± 0.41
a
Trt.: Treatments 1 control, 2, 3, 4, and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %, 2 %, 3 % and 4 %; Bird slaughter data at day 35;
abc
: It is the
representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found comparing with Treatment 1
TABLE VI
Data obtained with the slaughter of the birds on day 35
Trt. Breast Weight (g)
Frozen Breast
Weight (g)
W/O Bone (g) Juice (mL) Juice (%)
1 398.87 ± 55.34
a
432.75 ± 55.14
a
250.25 ± 37.88
a
66.62 ± 10.25
a
26.92 ± 5.32
a
2 385.25 ± 55.34
a
395.75 ± 55.14
a
228.62 ± 37.88
a
50.37 ± 10.25
a
22.67 ± 5.32
a
3 340.75 ± 55.34
a
354.87 ± 55.14
a
204.50 ± 37.88
a
50.25 ± 10.25
a
26.48 ± 5.32
a
4 378.37 ± 55.34
a
386.62 ± 55.14
a
231.25 ± 37.88
a
59.75 ± 10.25
a
26.56 ± 5.32
a
5 343.87 ± 55.34
a
349.25 ± 55.14
a
208.37 ± 37.88
a
60.87 ± 10.25
a
30.25 ± 5.32
a
Trt.: Treatments 1 control, 2, 3, 4, and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %, 2 %, 3 % and 4 %; Bird slaughter data at day 35;
abc
: It is
the representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found comparing with Treatment 1
Abdominal fat thickness
Sensory Analysis
The results shown in TABLES VII and VIII were obtained through
the sensory analysis (consumer tasting) from people of the Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences (UTMACH), responding to two surveys with an
interval of 1 d, prior to a discrimination process. It can be noted that
there is no signicant difference when comparing all the treatments
with the control, both in smell, taste, tenderness and juiciness. The
total participants in the consumer tasting were 112 people.
These results could be explained in base to what was mentioned
by Scott et al. [20], who state that the inclusion of alfarine generates
good organoleptic qualities. In another study, Chamba-Ochoa et al.
[3] determined that the inclusion of 10% alfalfa and carrot extract
supplied in the drinking water of broilers improved skin pigmentation,
and therefore returns more attractiveness of the product to the
consumer.
CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion rates of M. sativa our in the feed of broiler chickens did
not show any effect on the live weight, feed and water consumption,
mortality and feed conversion ratio at the end of the experiment.
In the same way, the ante-mortem and post-mortem carcass
parameters did not show an effect due to the inclusion of alfalfa in
the feed either.
Inclusion of Medicago sativa in feed chicken / Sanchez-Quinche et al.________________________________________________________________
6 of 7
To further conrm these results, the sensory analysis indicates that
even at the maximum inclusion rate (4% HA), it showed acceptance
by the tasters, therefore it can be said that it does not negatively
affect the organoleptic parameters. Considering the preceding lines,
this raw material can be included without any problem in the feed
formulation for broilers.
Considering these results, a higher HA inclusion rate should be
studied and its effects on the different parameters evaluated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To the authorities of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences of the
Universidad Técnica de Machala for their continuous support to eld
research.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
[1] BLASCO, A. Análisis de datos experimentales para proyectos n de
carrera. Universitat Politécnica de Valencia (España). 91 pp. 2010.
[2] CASTELLINI, C.; MUGNAI, C.; DAL-BOSCO, A. Effect of organic
production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat
Sci. 60(3): 219–225. 2002. https://doi.org/b97fcs.
[3] CHAMBA-OCHOA, H.; CORDERO-SALAZAR, F.; VACACELA-AJILA,
W.; ORTEGA-ROJAS, R.; SOLORZANO-CASTILLO, J.; BENITEZ-
GONZALEZ, E. Efecto de zanahoria (Daucus carota) y alfalfa
(Medicago sativa) en pigmentación de carne de pollo. Bosques
Latitud Cero. 10(1): 39-45. 2020.
[4] CORZO, A.; SCHILLING, M.; LOAR, R.; MEJIA, L.; KIDD, M. Responses
of Cobb × Cobb 500 broilers to dietary amino acid density
regimens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19(3): 227–236. 2010. https://
doi.org/c32hwx.
[5] De VERDAL, H.; NARCY, A.; BASTIANELLI, D.; CHAPUIS, H.; MEME,
N.; URVOIX, S.; LE BIHAN-DUVAL, E.; MIGNON-GRASTEAU, S.
Improving the eciency of feed utilization in poultry by selection.
1. Genetic parameters of anatomy of the gastro-intestinal tract
and digestive eciency. BMC Genetics. 12: 59. 2011. https://doi.
org/cd3gft.
[6] DONG, X.; GAO, W.; TONG, J.; JIA, H.; SA, R.; ZHANG, Q. Effect
of polysavone (alfalfa extract) on abdominal fat deposition and
immunity in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 86(9): 1955–1959. 2007.
https://doi.org/hqnz .
[7] ELKOMY, A.; HAMID, A.; HAMID, E.; MAHMOUD, S.; DEKINESH,
S.; AHMED, M. Medicago sativa Seeds as a Natural Source of
Isoavones to Counteract the Toxicity of Contaminated Broiler
Rations. Glob. J. Pharmacol. 8(3): 437–443. 2014.
[8] ESPAÑA-CASTILLO, V.; GARCIA, M.; BURGOS-ARCOS, A. Sistema
de producción de aves de postura libre: Viabilidad nanciera e
impacto ambiental. Rev. Invest. Pec. 6(1): 83–23. 2019. https://
doi.org/hqn2.
[9] FUNDACION ESPAÑOLA PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LA NUTRICION
ANIMAL (FEDNA). Alfalfa en rama. 2018. En línea: https://bit.
ly/3EkDieK. 02-08-2021.
TABLE VII
Data of the acceptance responses obtained from the consumer tasting
Trt. Smell Flavor Tenderness Juice
1 96.66 ± 30.21
a
94.72 ± 15.54
a
74.86 ± 9.94
a
87.50 ± 12.37
a
2 97.91 ± 30.21
a
97.22 ± 15.54
a
74.30 ± 9.94
a
86.11 ± 12.37
a
3 95.83 ± 30.21
a
94.44 ± 15.54
a
74.02 ± 9.94
a
92.64 ± 12.37
a
4 92.50 ± 30.21
a
88.75 ± 15.54
a
60.55 ± 9.94
a
78.75 ± 12.37
a
5 77.08 ± 30.21
a
86.94 ± 15.54
a
68.19 ± 9.94
a
90.97 ± 12.37
a
Trt.: Treatments 1 control, 2, 3, 4, and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %, 2 %, 3 % and 4 %;
abc
: It is the
representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found when comparing them with Treatment 1
TABLE VIII
Data of the rejection responses obtained from the consumer tasting
Trt. Smell Flavor Tenderness Juice
1 3.33 ± 30.21
a
5.28 ± 15.54
a
24.86 ± 9.82
a
12.50 ± 12.37
a
2 2.08 ± 30.21
a
2.78 ± 15.54
a
25.69 ± 9.82
a
13.89 ± 12.37
a
3 4.16 ± 30.21
a
5.55 ± 15.54
a
25.97 ± 9.82
a
7.36 ± 12.37
a
4 7.50 ± 30.21
a
11.25 ± 15.54
a
39.44 ± 9.82
a
21.25 ± 12.37
a
5 22.91 ± 30.21
a
13.05 ± 15.54
a
31.80 ± 9.82
a
9.03 ± 12.37
a
Trt.: Treatments 1 control, 2, 3, 4, and 5 alfarine inclusion in the feed at 1 %, 2 %, 3 % and 4 %;
abc
: It is the
representation of the statistical dierences (P<0.05) found when comparing them with Treatment 1
________________________________________________________________________Revista Cientica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXII, rcfcv-e32108, 1 - 7
7 of 7
[10] FIGUEROA-BALLADARES, C.Y.; JIMENEZ-PACHECO, Z.R.;
ARAGONES-NUELA, J.M.; QUEVEDO-GUERRERO, J.N.; SANCHEZ-
QUINCHE, A.R. Evaluación de la germinación de un cultivar
serrano de Medicago sativa L. en la granja Santa Inés. Rev.
Científ. Agroecosyst. 6(2): 31-40. 2018.
[11] LAUDADIO, V.; CECI, E.; LASTELLA, N.M.B.; INTRONA, M.;
TURAFELLI, V. Low-ber alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) meal in
the laying hen diet: effects on productive traits and egg quality.
Poult. Sci. 93(7): 1868–1874. 2014. https://doi.org/f58m77.
[12] LAUDADIO, V.; NAHASHON, S.N.; TUFARELLI, V. Growth
performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowl broilers
fed micronized-dehulled pea (Pisum sativum L.) as a substitute
for soybean meal. Poult. Sci. 91(11): 2988–2996. 2012. https://
doi.org/f4fvx9.
[13] LILBURN, M. S. Practical aspects of early nutrition for poultry.
J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7(4): 420–424. 1998. https://doi.org/hqn3.
[14] MAHAGNA, M.; NIR, L.; LARBIER, M.; NITSAN, Z. Effect of age
and exogenous amylase and protease on development of the
digestive tract, pancreatic enzyme activities and digestibility of
nutrients in young meat-type chicks. Reprod. Nutr. Developm.
35(2): 201–212. 1995. https://doi.org/dfqvc6.
[15] MATEOS, G.; LAZARO, R.; GONZALEZ-ALVARADO, J.; JIMENEZ, E.;
VICENTE, B. Efectos de la bra dietética en piensos de iniciación
para pollitos y lechones. Avances en nutrición y alimentación
animal. 2006. FEDNA. En línea: https://bit.ly/3Elu6H3. 28-06-2021.
[16] PAREDES, A.; RISSO, A. Efectos de la inclusión dietaria de harina
de alfalfa sobre rendimiento productivo, carcasa y peso de
órganos digestivos y linfoides del pollo de engorde tipo orgánico.
Rev. Invest. Vet. Perú. 31(2): e17846. 2020. https://doi.org/hqn4.
[17] PICOLI, K.P.; MURAKAMI, A.E.; DUARTE, C.R.A.; EYNG, C.; OSPINA-
ROJAS, I C.; MASSUDA, E.M. Effect of Dietary Restriction and Hay
Inclusion in the Diet of Slow-Growing Broilers. Italian J. Anim.
Sci. 13(4): 3216. 2014. https://doi.org/f6vr8p.
[18] PONTE, P.I.P.; MENDES, I.; QUARESMA, M.; AGUIAR, M.N.M.;
LEMOS, J.P.C.; FERREIRA, L.M.A.; SOARES, M.A.C.; ALFAIA, C.M.;
PRATES, J A.M.; FONTES, C.M.G.A. Cholesterol levels and sensory
characteristics of meat from broilers consuming moderate to
high levels of alfalfa. Poult. Sci. 83(5): 810–814. 2004. https://doi.
org/hqn5.
[19] SANCHEZ-QUINCHE, A.R.; SOLORZANO-SALDARRIAGA, J.C.;
QUEVEDO-GUERRERO, J.N.; PALADINES-ROMERO, J.R.; PEREZ-
BAENA, I. Effect of Mentha spicata L. infusión on the productive
performance and organoleptic characteristics of Cobb 500
broilers. Acta Agronóm. 68(4): 312–318. 2019.
[20] SCOTT, M.L.; ASCARELLI, I.; OLSON, G. Studies of Egg Yolk
Pigmentation. Poult. Sci. 47(3): 863–872. 1968. https://doi.org/
hqn6.
[21] SELL, J.L. Physiological limitations and potential for improvement
in gastrointestinal tract function of poultry. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
5(1): 96–101. 1996. https://doi.org/hqn7.
[22] SHARIATMADARI, F. The application of zeolite in poultry
production. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 64(1): 76–84. 2008. https://
doi.org/cx69vz.
[23] TKACOVA, J.; ANGELOVICOVA, M.; CAPCAROVA, M.; KOLESAROVA,
A.; SCHNEIDGENOVA, M.; PAVELKOVA, A.; BOBKO, M.; ČUBOÑ, J.
The investigation of alfalfa effect on the activity of superoxide
dismutase in chicken meat in dependence on time storage. J.
Food Sci. 11(1): 606-611. 2017. https://doi.org/hqn9.
[24] TURAN, N.G. The effects of natural zeolite on salinity level of
poultry litter compost. Bio Resource Technol. 99(7): 2097–2101.
2008. https://doi.org/dh3xtx.
[25] UZCATEGUI-VARELA, J.P.; COLLAZO-CONTRERAS, K.D.; GUILLEN-
MOLIN, E.A. Evaluación del comportamiento productivo de pollos
Cobb 500 sometidos a restricción alimenticia como estrategia
sostenible de control nutricional. Rev. Med. Vet. 1(39): 85–97.
2020. https://doi.org/hqpb.
[26] VIEIRA, S.L.; MORAN, E.T. Effects of egg of origin and chick
post-hatch nutrition on broiler live performance and meat yields.
World’s Poult. Sci. J. 55(2): 125-142. 1999. https://doi.org/cdtvcc.
[27] WÜSTHOLZ, G.J.; CARRASCO, S.; BERGER, U.; SUNDRUM, A.;
BELLOF, G. Silage of young harvested alfalfa (Medicago sativa) as
home-grown protein feed in the organic feeding of laying hens.
Organic Agricult. 7(2): 153–163. 2017. https://doi.org/hqpc.