<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article
  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.1" specific-use="sps-1.9" xml:lang="es" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">av</journal-id>
			<journal-title-group>
				<journal-title>Abanico veterinario</journal-title>
				<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Abanico vet</abbrev-journal-title>
			</journal-title-group>
			<issn pub-type="ppub">2007-428X</issn>
			<issn pub-type="epub">2448-6132</issn>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>Sergio Martínez González</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21929/abavet2020.36</article-id>
			<article-id pub-id-type="other">00124</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Artículos originales</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Empleo de ácidos orgánicos en el agua de bebida y su efecto en el desempeño productivo en pollos de engorda</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-0917-9524</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Arce-Menocal</surname>
						<given-names>José</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-1958-3261</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Roa-Flores</surname>
						<given-names>Martín</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-2979-8282</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>López-Coello</surname>
						<given-names>Carlos</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-6036-1321</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Ávila- González</surname>
						<given-names>Ernesto</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-0207-3313</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera-Camacho</surname>
						<given-names>José</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-9509-3750</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Cortes-Cuevas</surname>
						<given-names>Arturo</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1">*</xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff1">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Departamento de Avicultura, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Unidad Acueducto. Avenida Acueducto esq. con Tzintzuntzan, S/N, col. Matamoros, CP. 58240, Morelia Michoacán. Unidad Posta. Carretera Morelia-Zinapácuaro, km. 9.5, Municipio Tarímbaro Michoacán. </institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás Hidalgo</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv2">Departamento de Avicultura</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<postal-code>58240</postal-code>
					<city>Morelia</city>
					<state>Michoacán</state>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="MX">Mexico</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff2">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Departamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Aves, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Avenida Universidad No. 3000, Colonia UNAM, CU, Alcaldía Coyoacán, CP 04510 </institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv2">Departamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Aves</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<postal-code>04510</postal-code>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="MX">Mexico</country>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c1">*Autor de correspondencia: Arturo Cortes Cuevas. Avenida Universidad No. 3000, Colonia UNAM, CU, Alcaldía Coyoacán, CP 04510 Autor Responsable: José Arce Menocal. Unidad Acueducto. Avenida Acueducto esq. con Tzintzuntzan, S/N, col. Matamoros, CP. 58240, Morelia Michoacán. Unidad Posta. Carretera Morelia-Zinapácuaro, km. 9.5, Municipio Tarímbaro Michoacán. <email>josearce_55@yahoo.com</email>, <email>martinroa75@hotmail.com</email>, <email>coelloca@unam.mx</email>, <email>josheca@hotmail.com</email>, <email>avilaernesto@yahoo.com</email>, <email>cortescuevasarturo@yahoo.com</email>.</corresp>
			</author-notes>
			<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
				<day>30</day>
				<month>04</month>
				<year>2021</year>
			</pub-date>
			<pub-date date-type="collection" publication-format="electronic">
				<month>12</month>
				<year>2020</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>10</volume>			
			<elocation-id>e124</elocation-id>
			<history>
				<date date-type="received">
					<day>23</day>
					<month>03</month>
					<year>2020</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>25</day>
					<month>11</month>
					<year>2020</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" xml:lang="es">
					<license-p>Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons</license-p>
				</license>
			</permissions>
			<abstract>
				<title>RESUMEN</title>
				<p>Se evaluó el empleo de ácidos orgánicos (AO) en el agua de bebida en pollo de 1 a 42 días de edad en el desempeño productivo, salud intestinal, pH, morfología digestiva, pH sanguíneo, resistencia de yeyuno (RY) y pigmentación de piel (PP). Se utilizaron 1080 pollos distribuidos en tres tratamientos con nueve repeticiones de 40 aves: Los tratamientos fueron: Uso de agua de bebida sin acidificar (pH 8) grupo testigo (T1), acidificación con una mezcla AO (ácido fórmico 31%, ácido propiónico 19%, formato de amonio 26% y propionato de amonio 6%) en dosis de 1.0 L/1000 L de agua (T2) para obtener un pH de 4 y 0.3 L/1000 L de agua (T3) para un pH de 6. Los resultados mostraron (p≤ 0.01) mayor peso corporal, menor consumo de alimento y mejor eficiencia alimenticia, para las aves del T3. No existieron diferencias (p≥ 0.05) en los valores del pH digestivo, PP y morfología intestinal; únicamente mostraron efectos (p≤ 0.01) en el ancho de vellosidades y en el área digestiva. El pH sanguíneo y la RY, mostraron efectos (p≤0.01) entre los tratamientos. Se concluye que la acidificación en el agua de bebida en pollos de engorda, con la mezcla AO en 0.3 L/1000 L es suficiente para lograr un mejor desempeño productivo.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="es">
				<title>Palabras clave:</title>
				<kwd>Pollo de engorda</kwd>
				<kwd>ácidos orgánicos</kwd>
				<kwd>rendimiento productivo</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<counts>
				<fig-count count="0"/>
				<table-count count="14"/>
				<equation-count count="0"/>
				<ref-count count="40"/>
				<page-count count="0"/>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
	<body>
		<sec sec-type="intro">
			<title>INTRODUCCIÓN</title>
			<p>Los compuestos conocidos como ácidos orgánicos (AO), utilizados en la industria pecuaria, son ácidos carboxílicos alifáticos formados por carbono, oxígeno e hidrógeno, también son llamados ácidos grasos de cadena corta (AGCC) o ácidos grasos volátiles; cuya cadena estructural está compuesta por menos de 7 moléculas de carbono; estos compuestos son utilizados como una de las alternativas al empleo de antibióticos promotores del crecimiento en la industria avícola (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Ricke, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Khan e Iqbal, 2016</xref>). Comercialmente los AO como el ácido propiónico, han sido utilizados por más de 30 años para reducir el crecimiento bacteriano y de hongos en el alimento, para preservar de manera higiénica la calidad del mismo; así como prevenir y controlar infecciones por <italic>Salmonella spp</italic> y <italic>E. coli K88</italic> en las aves y sus derivados (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Freitag, 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>). Por otro lado, a causa de la prohibición en el uso de antibióticos en los alimentos de animales por regulaciones en la comunidad Europa y Estados Unidos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Smith, 2011</xref>), los AO han demostrado ser una alternativa en la modulación de la microbiota entérica e inhibición de bacterias patógenas intestinales, como <italic>E coli</italic>, <italic>Salmonella Typhimurium</italic> y <italic>Campylobacter coli</italic>; además de promover la colonización de flora benéfica como los lactobacilos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Roth <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">Roth <italic>et al.,</italic> 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Bourassa <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Mortada <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>).</p>
			<p>Por otro lado, algunos estudios muestran el impacto positivo en los parámetros productivos, integridad intestinal, respuesta inmune y microbiota intestinal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13"><italic>Emami et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Polycarpo <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Araujo <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nguyen <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al-Mutairi <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>), beneficios que inicialmente han sido atribuidos al efecto que tienen sobre el ambiente del tracto gastrointestinal (TGI), en el proceso de digestión y como fuente de energía; pero principalmente como protección del mismo. Los AO se encuentran de manera natural en TGI de las aves; entre los que se incluyen ácido láctico en mayor proporción en el intestino delgado; mientras que los ácidos propiónico, acético y butírico se localizan mayormente en los sacos ciegos; esto es debido al proceso de fermentación (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Meimandiopur <italic>et al.,</italic> 2011</xref> ; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Khan e Iqbal, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Rhot <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>). Las propiedades químicas, los efectos en la reducción del pH y la eficacia de la inhibición microbiana de un ácido dependen de su valor pKa, que es el pH al cual los AO están disociados al 50%. El valor del pKa define el poder de acción que pueden tener los AO; mientras más bajo es su valor, es considerado con una mayor capacidad de acidificar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Freitag, 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Khan e Iqbal, 2016</xref>).</p>
			<p>La teoría más aceptada sobre el mecanismo de acción en la inhibición del crecimiento de bacterias por parte de los AO, considera su liposolubilidad en medios con pH ácido; un pH cercano a 4.5 mantiene la liposolubilidad del compuesto, mismo que les permite penetrar a la célula bacteriana y disociarse en su citoplasma que generan un desbalance metabólico que concluye con la muerte del microorganismo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Nakal y Siebert, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Immerseel <italic>et al.,</italic> 2006</xref>) El ácido propiónico combinado con el ácido fórmico al ser utilizados en el alimento, han demostrado sinergia en el control de <italic>Salmonella spp, Campylobacter spp</italic> y <italic>E. coli</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Roth <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref><italic>;</italic><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>); así como beneficios zootécnicos. La inclusión de ácido fórmico en combinación con ácido propiónico vía agua de bebida (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nhuyen <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>), mostraron resultados favorables en los parámetros en el pollo de engorda de 1 a 35 días de edad, donde incluyeron 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05 y 0.06 % de ácidos orgánicos.</p>
			<p>Sin embargo, la información no menciona los valores de pH. Otras investigaciones en pollos utilizaron una mezcla de ácidos orgánicos (ácido propiónico, ácido fórmico y ácido butírico), para acidificar el agua a un pH de 3 a 4.5; los resultados arrojaron beneficios en los parámetros productivos, microbiota intestinal, respuesta inmune, digestibilidad de nutrientes y calidad de la canal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ghulam <italic>et al.,</italic> 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref><italic>;</italic><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Polycarpo <italic>et al.,</italic></xref> 2017; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Araujo <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nguyen <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al-Mutairi <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>); sin embargo, la literatura disponible sobre el uso de estos AO utilizados en el agua de bebida y dirigidos a demostrar sus beneficios sobre el desempeño zootécnico y pH intestinales, son escasos.</p>
			<p>El objetivo del presente trabajo fue evaluar el desempeño zootécnico del pollo de engorda, a la adición de una mezcla de AO en el agua de bebida durante su vida productiva; así como el pH digestivo y morfología del duodeno, pH sanguíneo, resistencia a la tracción del yeyuno y amarillamiento de la piel.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
			<title>MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS</title>
			<sec>
				<title>Localización</title>
				<p>El trabajo se realizó en una granja avícola experimental localizada en el municipio de Charo, estado de Michoacán, a una altura de 1,940 metros sobre el nivel del mar, con una temperatura mínima anual de 16ºC y una máxima de 18°C; la precipitación pluvial máxima es de 800 mm y mínima de 600 mm (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Municipio de Charo, 2020</xref>).</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Animales</title>
				<p>Todos los procedimientos utilizados en el manejo de los animales fueron aprobados por el comité del cuidado y bienestar animal de la Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia de la UNAM.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Diseño experimental</title>
				<p>Se utilizaron 1080 pollitos de ambos sexos (50% machos y 50% hembras), de 1 día de edad de la estirpe Ross 308 de una incubadora comercial (El Avión), ubicada en Tepic, Nayarit., los cuales se mantuvieron hasta los 42 días de edad en los meses de abril y mayo. Fueron distribuidos aleatoriamente en tres tratamientos, con nueve réplicas de 40 aves. Los tratamientos consistieron en la administración de una mezcla de AO, al agua de bebida para llegar a diferentes pH, desde la llegada del pollito hasta el final de la prueba en forma continua. Los AO administrados fueron una mezcla comercial fabricado por Novus International (Acidomix® AFL, Querétaro, México), compuesta de una combinación de ácido fórmico 31%, ácido propiónico 19%, formato de amonio 26% y propionato de amonio 6%. Previo al experimento, se analizó la calidad del agua de la granja por parte de la “Comisión Nacional de Agua” (localizada en Morelia, Michoacán, México), para conocer, las condiciones fisicoquímicas de la fuente y corroborar su viabilidad para su uso en animales domésticos (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">cuadro 1</xref>). El pH del agua fue medido con un potenciómetro portátil Hanna HI-98127.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t1">
						<label>Cuadro 1</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Análisis Fisicoquímico del Agua* ParámetrosUnidades</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left">Parámetros</th>
									<th align="center">Unidades</th>
									<th align="center">Niveles admisibles en aves</th>
									<th align="center">Toma municipal</th>
									<th align="left">Grado de cumplimiento</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Temperatura Potencial hidrógeno</td>
									<td align="center">°C pH</td>
									<td align="center"> 6.5-8.5</td>
									<td align="center">25 8.0</td>
									<td align="left"> Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Conductividad eléctrica</td>
									<td align="right">µohms/cm</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">526</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Turbiedad</td>
									<td align="center">UTN</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">1.4</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Color</td>
									<td align="left">Pt-Co</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">5</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Oxígeno disuelto</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">6.4</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Demanda bioquímica de oxígeno</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">2.4</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Demanda química de oxígeno</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">5</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Sólidos sedimentables</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">0</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Sólidos totales</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">415</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Sólidos suspendidos totales</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">20</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Sólidos disueltos totales</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left">1000</td>
									<td align="left">395</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Nitratos</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="center">10</td>
									<td align="left">0.2</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Nitrogeno amoniacal</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="right">60-80</td>
									<td align="left">0.5</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Dureza total</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">118.9</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Dureza de calcio</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">82</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Dureza de magnesio</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">36.9</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Alcalinidad total</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">200</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Alcalinidad a la fenolftaleina</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">0</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Cloruros</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="center">200</td>
									<td align="left">46.7</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Sulfatos</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="center">125</td>
									<td align="left">24.2</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Carbonatos</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">0</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Bicarbonatos</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="center">60</td>
									<td align="left">200</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Calcio</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left">32.8</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Magnesio</td>
									<td align="center">mg/L</td>
									<td align="center">32</td>
									<td align="left">8.9</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Sodio</td>
									<td align="left">mg/L</td>
									<td align="center">0</td>
									<td align="left">66.3</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">Coliformes fecales</td>
									<td align="right">UFC/100ml</td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">0</td>
									<td align="left">Cumple</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN1">
								<p>*Comision Nacional del Agua</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Los tratamientos se describen, como:</p>
				<p>
					<list list-type="order">
						<list-item>
							<p>Un control sin AO ni promotor del crecimiento; se utilizó la red de agua potable del municipio de Charo, Michoacán para su consumo, el cual tenía un pH de 8.0 sin la adición de mezcla de AO.</p>
						</list-item>
						<list-item>
							<p>Agua de bebida del tratamiento contro más la adición de la mezcla de AO a razón de 1.0 litros por cada 1000 litros de agua, para establecer 0.128 moles y obtener un pH de 4.0</p>
						</list-item>
						<list-item>
							<p>Agua de bebida del tratamiento control más la adición de la mezcla de AO a razón de 0.3 litros por cada 1000 litros de agua, para establecer 0.0038 Moles y obtener un pH de 6.0</p>
						</list-item>
					</list>
				</p>
				<p>Para calcular la concentración molar de la combinación de los ácidos orgánicos utilizados (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">cuadro 2</xref>), se identificó el peso molecular de cada uno de ellos, y se expresaron en milimoles (mM) descritos por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Brown, 2002</xref>. Se obtuvo los gramos por kilo de la solución utilizada y se dividió entre el peso molecular para obtener los moles por kilo de la solución, el cual se dividió entre 1.1, que es la densidad específica de la mezcla de los ácidos utilizados, (considerar que un litro pesa más que un kilo). Se obtuvo la molaridad en gramos por litro de la mezcla de ácidos, lo que ayudó a calcular la dosis usada para bajar el pH a 4.0 y a 6.0 del agua con pH de 8.0. El cálculo se estableció mediante la adición a mil litros de agua del tratamiento control (pH de 8.0); cantidades crecientes hasta lograr el pH de 4.0 y de 6.0. Se encontró la dosis de 1.0 litros de la mezcla de los ácidos orgánicos utilizados para pH 4.0 y de 0.3 litro para pH de 6.0. Para conocer la cantidad de Moles utilizados, se obtuvo de la suma total de la mezcla de los ácidos de la molaridad multiplicada por la dosis usada dividida entre 1000. Así se obtuvo que para pH de 4.0 el valor fue de 0.128 y 0.0038 Moles para pH de 6.0.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t2">
						<label>Cuadro 2</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Cálculo de la concentración molar de la combinación de los ácidos orgánicos utilizados para obtener el pH deseado en el agua</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>Compuesto</bold></td>
									<td align="left"><bold>Peso Molecular en Milimoles*</bold></td>
									<td align="left"><bold>g por Kg de solución</bold></td>
									<td align="left"><bold>moles x Kg de solución</bold></td>
									<td align="left"><bold>Molaridad g x lt de solución</bold></td>
									<td align="left"><bold>pH 6 (0.3 lt AFL* / 1000 lt de agua)</bold></td>
									<td align="left"><bold>pH 4 (1.0 lt AFL* / 1000 lt de agua)</bold></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Ácido Propiónico</bold></td>
									<td align="center">74</td>
									<td align="center">190</td>
									<td align="center">2.567</td>
									<td align="center">2.336</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Ácido Fórmico</bold></td>
									<td align="center">46</td>
									<td align="center">310</td>
									<td align="center">6.739</td>
									<td align="center">6.127</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Formato de Amonio</bold></td>
									<td align="center">63</td>
									<td align="center">260</td>
									<td align="center">4.126</td>
									<td align="center">3.754</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Propionato de Amonio</bold></td>
									<td align="center">91</td>
									<td align="center">60</td>
									<td align="center">0.659</td>
									<td align="center">0.600</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>Total AO</bold></td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
									<td align="center">820</td>
									<td align="center">14.091</td>
									<td align="center">12.817</td>
									<td align="center">0.0038</td>
									<td align="center">0.0128</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN2">
								<p>Descritos por Brown (1) AFL. Producto utilizado</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Se utilizó una caseta de 11 m de ancho x 40 m de largo, con techo de lámina galvanizada; con una capacidad de 27 pisos cada uno de ellos, acondicionados con cama de viruta de madera; dos comederos de tolva de 45 cm de diámetro en su base con capacidad para 10 kilos cada uno; así como un bebedero tipo Plasson automático redondo, el cual estaba conectado a un garrafón con capacidad de 20 litros graduado; en el cual se adicionaba la cantidad descrita de AO para llegar a mantener el pH requerido diariamente y que servía además para evaluar el consumo de agua por ave. Las dietas fueron formuladas en forma similar para cada uno de los tratamientos con una presentación en harina; se utilizó como base maíz-soya, en tres etapas (0-21; 22-35 y 36-42 días de edad), donde se cubrió las necesidades establecidas para la estirpe del pollo de engorda, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Ávila, 2018</xref>), proporcionado a libre acceso (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">cuadro 3</xref>), sin la adición de antibióticos como promotores de crecimiento (APC).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t3">
						<label>Cuadro 3</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Análisis calculado de las dietas</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="center">Nutrientes</th>
									<th align="center">1-21 días</th>
									<th align="center">22-35 días</th>
									<th align="center">36-42 días</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Proteína Cruda (%)</td>
									<td align="center">22.00</td>
									<td align="center">20.1</td>
									<td align="center">18.5</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">EM. Kcal./Kg.</td>
									<td align="center">3025</td>
									<td align="center">3185</td>
									<td align="center">3210</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Lisina (%)</td>
									<td align="center">1.38</td>
									<td align="center">1.17</td>
									<td align="center">1.05</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Metionina (%)</td>
									<td align="center">0.64</td>
									<td align="center">0.59</td>
									<td align="center">0.52</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Metionina+Cistina (%)</td>
									<td align="center">1.00</td>
									<td align="center">0.94</td>
									<td align="center">0.83</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Treonina (%)</td>
									<td align="center">0.84</td>
									<td align="center">0.78</td>
									<td align="center">0.68</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Triptófano (%)</td>
									<td align="center">0.27</td>
									<td align="center">0.25</td>
									<td align="center">0.23</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Calcio (%)</td>
									<td align="center">1.0</td>
									<td align="center">0.94</td>
									<td align="center">0.85</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Fósforo Disponible (%)</td>
									<td align="center">0.46</td>
									<td align="center">0.40</td>
									<td align="center">0.38</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Sodio (%)</td>
									<td align="center">0.20</td>
									<td align="center">0.18</td>
									<td align="center">0.17</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>El programa de sanitario fue similar para todos los tratamientos; al primer día de edad en la planta incubadora se aplicó la vacuna contra Marek, y en la granja experimental se aplicaron dos vacunas contra la enfermedad de Newcastle, vía ocular cepa la Sota (al día 8 y 25 días de edad). Durante las primeras cuatro semanas las aves fueron criadas en una caseta equipada con criadoras automáticas infrarrojas de gas, y recibieron un programa de luz natural. El alimento y el agua de bebida se proporcionaron a libre acceso. A los 42 días de edad se resumieron los datos de registros de las aves mixtas (machos y hembras) de peso corporal (g), consumo de alimento acumulado (g), eficiencia alimenticia (g/g), consumo de agua (litros) y mortalidad (%). Se seleccionaron 18 machos de manera aleatoria por tratamiento (2 por réplica), para evaluar en aves vivas la pigmentación amarilla de la piel (en la vena de la grasa), con el fotocolorímetro de reflactancia CR-400 (Kónica Minolta Sensing, NJ, USA); bajo la escala CIELab del Comité Internacional de Colorimetría.</p>
				<p>De cada ave se obtuvo una muestra de sangre de la vena yugular, para evaluar el pH sanguíneo. Posteriormente la matanza de las aves se realizó de acuerdo a lo establecido en la Norma Oficial Mexicana, por separación de la cabeza del cuerpo, con un objeto cortante; a través de un solo movimiento firme y certero NOM-033-ZOO-1995, NORMA Oficial Mexicana Sacrificio Humanitario de los Animales domésticos y silvestres (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">NOM, 1995</xref>). Para evaluar el pH <italic>in situ</italic> del tracto gastrointestinal, el cual se realizó de manera inmediata posterior al sacrificio, con un potenciómetro marca Fisher Scientific modelo AB15/15+.</p>
				<p>La evaluación de la morfología histológica del duodeno, se realizó con cortes transversales de 5 cm del asa duodenal, los cuales se fijaron en formol al 10% para su procesamiento histológico y teñido por la técnica de hematoxilina y eosina. Una vez preparada la laminilla se midió en micras (), la longitud y el ancho de 5 vellosidades de cada muestra; además de la cripta de Lieberkuhn adyacente con apoyo del programa Motic Images Plus 2.0 (Routine Software Series, Motic Asia, Hong Kong). La fórmula estimada del área en duodeno fue, largo x ancho de la vellosidad a nivel medio de la misma (2), dividida entre 1000. Asimismo, fue evaluada la resistencia al rompimiento por tracción del yeyuno, con la ayuda de un dinamómetro digital (IMADA MV 110), en cortes de 10 cm previos al divertículo de Meckel; valores expresados en kilogramos-fuerza y transformados a la unidad internacional pascal por metro cuadrado.</p>
				<p>Las medias resultantes de los parámetros productivos y mortalidad, así como las demás variables, se analizaron bajo un diseño de análisis de varianza; se utilizó el modelo lineal general y cuando existieron diferencias significativas (p≤ 0.05), entre los tratamientos, se realizó la comparación de medias por la prueba de Tukey (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">SAS Institute Inc, 2012</xref>). Los resultados expresados en porcentajes fueron transformados a la proporción arco seno, para su análisis.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="results">
			<title>RESULTADOS</title>
			<p>Los resultados de los parámetros zootécnicos se muestran en el <xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">cuadro 4</xref>. Se encontró efecto (p≤ 0.05) mayor peso corporal (2.7%), en el T2 con respecto al T1 control. Por otra parte, se disminuyó el consumo de alimento (p≤ 0.01) en el tratamiento 3, en 3.1% respecto al T1 Control y 2.7%, con relación al T2; lo que mejoró significativamente (p≤ 0.01), en los valores de eficiencia alimenticia con relación al T1 en 5.9 % y en 3.8 % al T2 con pH de 4. El consumo de agua fue menor (p≤ 0.01) en el grupo control (T1), donde no se adicionaron los AO en el agua de bebida con relación a las aves que estuvieron consumiendo agua con AO (T2 y T3); lo que representó un incremento de 2.23 y 2.42 % respectivamente. No se presentaron efectos (p≥0.05) en el porcentaje de la mortalidad entre los tratamientos evaluados.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t4">
					<label>Cuadro 4</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Promedios y error estándar de los parámetros zootécnicos y mortalidad en el pollo de engorda con AO, en el agua de bebida a los 42 días de edad</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="center"><bold>AO</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Peso corporal</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Consumo de</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Eficiencia</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Consumo de</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Mortalidad</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center"><bold>(L/1000L)</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>(kg)</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>alimento (kg)</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>alimenticia</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>agua (L)</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>(%)</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">T1.- 0</td>
								<td align="center">2.46±0.011b</td>
								<td align="center">4.76±0.022<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.51±0.01<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.40±0.015<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">6.3±0.8<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">T2.- 0.3</td>
								<td align="center">2.53±0.007<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.62±0.016<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.54±0.0<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.57±0.029<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.4±1.5<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">T3.- 1.0</td>
								<td align="center">2.49±0.016<sup>ab</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.75±0.019<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.52±0.0<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.58±0.028<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.8±1.8<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center"><bold>PROMEDIO</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>2.50 ± 0.009</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>4.71± 0.018</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>0.52 ± 0.01</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>7.51 ± 0.024</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>5.8± 0.8</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center"><bold>Probabilidad</bold></td>
								<td align="center">0.006</td>
								<td align="center">0.001</td>
								<td align="center">0.001</td>
								<td align="center">0.001</td>
								<td align="center">0.919</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN3">
							<p> a, b. Literales distintas entre las columnas muestran diferencias significativas (p≤ 0.01)</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>Los valores del pH gastrointestinal no presentaron efectos significativos (p≥ 0.05), entre los tratamientos estudiados en los diferentes segmentos evaluados; como se muestra en el <xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">cuadro 5</xref>, se ve en general valores a nivel del promedio y/o por abajo, aquellas aves que consumieron agua con la adición de AO (T2 y T3).</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t5">
					<label>Cuadro 5</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Valores del pH gastrointestinal en el pollo de engorda con el uso de AO, en el agua de bebida a los 42 días de edad</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"><bold> AO (L/1000L)</bold></td>
								<td align="right"><bold>Buche</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Proventrículo</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Molleja</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Duodeno</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Yeyuno</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Íleon</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>Ciegos</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"><bold>T1.- 0</bold></td>
								<td align="right">5.3±0.1</td>
								<td align="right">3.1±0.2</td>
								<td align="right">3.2±0.2</td>
								<td align="right">5.8±0.0</td>
								<td align="right">6.0±0.1</td>
								<td align="right">7.0±0.1</td>
								<td align="right">6.3±0.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"><bold>T2.- 0.3</bold></td>
								<td align="right">4.8±0.2</td>
								<td align="center">3.1±0.3</td>
								<td align="center">3.1±0.2</td>
								<td align="center">5.6±0.1</td>
								<td align="center">5.8±0.1</td>
								<td align="center">6.7±0.1</td>
								<td align="center">6.0±0.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"><bold>T3.- 1.0</bold></td>
								<td align="right">5.0±0.3</td>
								<td align="center">2.9±0.3</td>
								<td align="center">2.6±0.3</td>
								<td align="center">5.7±0.0</td>
								<td align="center">5.7±0.2</td>
								<td align="center">6.8±0.2</td>
								<td align="center">6.0±0.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"><bold>PROMEDIO</bold></td>
								<td align="right"><bold>5.0 ± 0.1</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>3.1± 0.2</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>3.0 ± 0.1</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>5.7 ± 0.0</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>5.8± 0.1</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>6.8± 0.1</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>6.1 ± 0.1</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"><bold>Probabilidad</bold></td>
								<td align="right">0.189</td>
								<td align="center">0.857</td>
								<td align="center">0.219</td>
								<td align="center">0.099</td>
								<td align="center">0.347</td>
								<td align="center">0.325</td>
								<td align="center">0.331</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN4">
							<p> Promedios pH ± error estándar</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>Las mediciones histológicas del duodeno (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">cuadro 6</xref>), no mostraron diferencias (p≥ 0.05) en el largo de vellosidades y en la profundidad de criptas de Lieberkuhn, entre los tratamientos evaluados; en el ancho de las vellosidades se observaron diferencias (p≤ 0.01), con los valores más altos en el tratamiento 3, con diferencias de 23 y 42 micras, con relación al T1 y T2; este efecto influyó en los resultados del área digestiva calculada, con los valores más altos (p≤ 0.01), la morfología del tratamiento Control con pH de 8 y de 4.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t6">
					<label>Cuadro 6</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Mediciones histológicas de duodeno en el pollo de engorda con el uso de AO, en el agua </title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">Tratamientos</th>
								<th align="center">Largo (μ)</th>
								<th align="center">Ancho (μ)</th>
								<th align="center">Criptas (μ)</th>
								<th align="center">Área (μ2)/1000</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">AO (L/1000L)</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="4">Promedio ± Error estándar </th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="center">1500 ± 12</td>
								<td align="center">121 ± 5<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">169 ± 8</td>
								<td align="center">182 ± 8.0<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">T1.- 0</td>
								<td align="center">1493 ± 36</td>
								<td align="center">102 ± 5<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">150 ± 4</td>
								<td align="center">153 ± 8.2<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">T2.- 0.3</td>
								<td align="center">1422 ± 41</td>
								<td align="center">144 ± 7<sub>a</sub></td>
								<td align="center">153 ± 9</td>
								<td align="center">203 ± 8.9<sub>a</sub></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">T3.- 1.0</td>
								<td align="center"><bold>1476 ± 18</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>121 ± 4</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>158 ± 4</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>177 ± 5.4</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Probabilidad</td>
								<td align="center">0.182</td>
								<td align="center">0.001</td>
								<td align="center">0.134</td>
								<td align="center">0.001</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN5">
							<p>* a,b,c. Literales distintas marcan diferencias significativas (p≤ 0.01)</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>El pH sanguíneo fue mayor (p≤ 0.02) en el T1, en relación a los tratamientos 3 y 2 respectivamente, los cuales manifestaron menores pH sanguíneos; asimismo, la resistencia a la tracción del yeyuno mostraron efectos (p≤0.03), entre los tratamientos evaluados; siendo el tratamiento 1 el que mostró la resistencia más baja que los tratamiento 3 y 2 respectivamente, sin mostrar efectos (P≤0.05) entre los tratamientos evaluados en los valores de pigmentación amarilla en piel, como se observan en el <xref ref-type="table" rid="t7">cuadro 7</xref>.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t7">
					<label>Cuadro 7</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Promedios del pH sanguíneo, resistencia a la tracción del Yeyuno y pigmentación amarilla de la piel en el pollo de engorda con el uso de AO, en 42 días de edad</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">Tratamientos</th>
								<th align="center">Valores Sanguíneos pH</th>
								<th align="center">Resistencia del yeyuno Pascal/m<sup>2</sup></th>
								<th align="center">Amarillamiento Deltas</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">AO (L/1000L)</th>								
								<th align="center" colspan="3">Promedio ± error estándar</th>
								
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left">7.29 ± 0.05<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="left">2.60 ± 0.017<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">19.17 ± 1.76</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">T1.- 0</td>
								<td align="left">7.06 ± 0.02<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="left">3.37 ± 0.019<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">18.04 ± 1.99</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">T2.- 0.3</td>
								<td align="left">7.16 ± 0.03<sup>ab</sup></td>
								<td align="left">3.30 ± 0.023<sup>ab</sup></td>
								<td align="center">19.45 ± 0.72</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">T3.- 1.0</td>
								<td align="left"><bold>7.16 ± 0.03</bold></td>
								<td align="left"><bold>3.11 ± 0.014</bold></td>
								<td align="center"><bold>18.84 ± 0.909</bold></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center"><bold>Probabilidad</bold></td>
								<td align="center">0.002</td>
								<td align="center">0.033</td>
								<td align="center">0.812</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN6">
							<p> a, b = Literales distintas entre las columnas muestran diferencias significativas (p≤ 0.01)</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="discussion">
			<title>DISCUSIÓN</title>
			<p>Los beneficios zootécnicos que se obtienen con la adición de AO se ha comprobado con diferentes compuestos, como los ácidos fumárico, fórmico, acético y propiónico, (Ghulam <italic>et al.,</italic> 2013; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Broom, 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al-Mutairi <italic>et al</italic>., 2020</xref>); así como en la mezcla de éstos; donde la combinación del ácido fórmico con ácido acético y propionatos han demostrado tener un efecto positivo en el rendimiento productivo, morfología intestinal, respuesta inmune y en la microbiota intestinal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Adil <italic>et al.,</italic> 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Polycarpo <italic>et</italic></xref><italic>al.,</italic> 2017; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Araujo <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nguyen <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>). Históricamente, estos beneficios se han asociado de manera inicial a la modulación de la microflora nativa y patógena del tracto intestinal, demostrado por el efecto que tienen los AO en agua de bebida y alimento, para contrarrestar el efecto negativo de bacterias patógenas, como <italic>Salmonella spp</italic>, <italic>E. coli, Campylobacter spp</italic> y <italic>Clostridium spp</italic>., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Immersel <italic>et al.,</italic> 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Bourassa <italic>et al.,</italic> 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Mortada <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>), mediante la colonización del tracto digestivo por <italic>Lactobacillus</italic>. Se consideran que éstos son resistentes a pH ácidos, teniendo un papel de protección en el tracto gastro-intestinal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Jin <italic>et al.,</italic> 1998</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Broom (2015)</xref> menciona que en un medio ácido de pH 4.6 el efecto de los AO como antibacterianos es más efectivo, con base a evaluaciones realizadas <italic>in vitro,</italic> en donde concluyen que la concentración mínima inhibitoria para los AO puede variar con el tipo de bacteria y ácido utilizado. Otros estudios <italic>in vitro</italic> con cultivos de <italic>Escherichia coli,</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Dibner y Buttin, 2002</xref>), añaden diferentes ácidos, entre los que se incluyeron clorhídrico, fórmico, láctico e hidroxi-análogo de metionina (HMTBa), para acidificar el medio de cultivo a pH 4 y pH 7, demostró que el efecto antibacteriano es más eficiente con pH 4; además de hacer evidente la baja actividad microbicida del ácido clorhídrico. Al emplear un producto comercial que incluía ácido fórmico y propiónico en concentraciones de 50 mM de ácido fórmico, se pudo sensibilizar a las bacterias por un proceso osmótico (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Sánchez <italic>et al.,</italic> 2009</xref>); sin embargo, se puede deducir que es más importante el nivel de pH, como criterio en la dosificación de los ácidos que la concentración molar de éstos.</p>
			<p>Este comportamiento en los pollos del T3, contrasta con el papel primario de los argumentos de modulación microbiana mencionados, lo que sugiere como más importante el efecto que tienen los AO sobre el proceso digestivo, ya que las aves no fueron desafiadas a ningún patógeno, ni presentaron ningún proceso patológico durante el periodo de prueba. Primeramente, en el proceso digestivo, la acidificación del medio permite una mayor transformación del pepsinógeno en pepsina a nivel del proventrículo y molleja (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Cuca <italic>et al.,</italic> 2009</xref>) y la digestión proteica es más eficiente; de igual manera el trabajo a nivel del páncreas se ve mejorado mediante el incremento de sus secreciones, y en su caso mejor actividad de algunas enzimas exógenas, como pueden ser las fitasas y mananasas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">Rafacz <italic>et al.,</italic> 2005</xref>).</p>
			<p>
				<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Angel <italic>et al</italic>., (2013)</xref>) hacen referencia sobre un trabajo donde analizan el efecto del pH del agua sobre el pH del TGI, al comparar dos niveles (8.1 vs. 5.8), donde se tuvo un efecto sobre el ambiente ácido de cada uno de los segmentos del intestino, y como consecuencia el grupo con agua acidificada a pH 5.8, afecta de manera positiva la digestión de la materia seca; así como la digestibilidad ileal aparente de fósforo. Los autores explican que parte de la menor digestión en el pH alcalino, es por menor efectividad de las fitasas incluidas en la dieta. Cuando el pH aumenta por encima de 4, la eficiencia de éstas, tiende a disminuir por su pH óptimo de actuación y por la precipitación de los quelatos fitato-calcio. Por otro lado, la absorción de calcio es favorecida por la acidificación del medio intestinal (por mantener las sales de calcio en solución), los ácidos carboxílicos como el propiónico y fórmico, reaccionan con los carbonatos para formar sales solubles en agua y ácido carbónico (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Brown, 2002</xref>), que favorece el crecimiento y fortaleza del sistema óseo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Nourmohammadi, 2013</xref>).</p>
			<p>En el presente trabajo se observó una mayor resistencia en el rompimiento del yeyuno con una acidificación en el T3 a un pH de 6. Se han reportado los beneficios que tiene la mejor absorción de minerales; en primer lugar, el calcio para el caso del tejido óseo y de los minerales traza como zinc, cobre y magnesio; los cuales juegan un papel importante en la formación del tejido conectivo. Sin olvidar otras funciones que desempeñan de manera natural los AO en el metabolismo, como fuente de energía a las células del epitelio intestinal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Boroojeni <italic>et al.,</italic> 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Broom 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Yang <italic>et al.,</italic> 2019</xref>), y sus efectos benéficos en el sistema inmune del tracto gastrointestinal, como la activación de linfocitos y macrófagos; así como un mayor desarrollo del timo y bolsa de Fabricio (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ghulam <italic>et al.,</italic> 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Kim <italic>et al.,</italic> 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">Al-Mutairi <italic>et al.,</italic> 2020</xref>).</p>
			<p>Los resultados del presente estudio con respecto a la histo-morfología del intestino, no muestran una relación clara entre las diferencias de cada tratamiento con respecto a las longitudes evaluadas (largo, ancho y cripta), sin embargo al analizar el área calculada del duodeno, se apreció una menor superficie en el grupo con mejores resultados zootécnicos (T3), al respecto se tiene referencia que el efecto que tienen los AO en la morfología del intestino delgado ha sido demostrado por varios investigadores, los cuales en su mayoría han encontrado una mayor longitud de las vellosidades en diferentes segmentos del tracto gastrointestinal, con una correlación importante con peso corporal y eficiencia alimenticia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Nourmohammadi, 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami <italic>et al.,</italic> 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Yang <italic>et al.,</italic> 2019</xref>), sin embargo, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">García <italic>et al.,</italic> 2007</xref>, reportaron mayor altura de las vellosidades de los grupos adicionados con AO sin cambios en el área calculada de la vellosidad, pero sí con efecto significativo (P&lt;0.01) sobre eficiencia alimenticia y digestibilidad. Es importante señalar que una mayor altura de la vellosidad intestinal no es sinónimo de mayor superficie de absorción (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Yamauchi, 2007</xref>); las variaciones en el ancho suelen estar relacionada con el grado de celularidad, ya que a mayor ancho; mayor infiltración de células del tipo inflamatorio ubicado principalmente en la lámina propia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Maisonnier <italic>et al.,</italic> 2003</xref>). De manera que en el presente estudio las aves que fueron tratadas con agua de bebida acidificada con un pH de 6, mostraron una menor área calculada de las vellosidades, lo que coincide con los resultados zootécnicos del trabajo de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">García <italic>et al.</italic>, 2007</xref>; lo que sugiere poca celularidad, características de una estructura funcional y sin procesos inflamatorios. La acidificación en el agua de bebida, también afectó los niveles del pH sanguíneo, entre los tratamientos evaluados (p&lt;0.02); ya que los valores fueron menores en las aves que estuvieron con AO. Se ha demostrado la influencia que puede tener la alimentación sobre el pH sanguíneo, que aunque existe un mecanismo que promueve el equilibrio a la neutralidad. En el caso de los ácidos en solución permiten el paso de los hidrogeniones a través de las membranas biológicas, este fenómeno se basa en los mecanismos de absorción digestiva y los intercambios iónicos entre los compartimentos digestivos y sanguíneos (Sturkie, 2000; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Meschy, 2015</xref>). Esta posibilidad de paso de hidrogeniones abre una alternativa en el control de problemas de alcalosis metabólica causada por hiperventilación de las aves en estados de estrés térmico (Sturkie, 2000).</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="conclusions">
			<title>CONCLUSIONES E IMPLICACIONES</title>
			<p>La acidificación del agua de bebida con 0.3L/1000 L de AO (ácido fórmico 31%, ácido propiónico 19%, formato de amonio 26% y propionato de amonio 6%), tuvo un efecto positivo sobre el comportamiento productivo en el pollo de engorda; su efecto benéfico radica en facilitar de manera primaria el proceso de digestión, donde una acidificación moderada a un pH de 6 es suficiente para lograr un mejor peso corporal y eficiencia alimenticia. La acidificación en el agua de bebida con AO a 0.03 L/1000 L disminuyó el pH sanguíneo, por lo que abre una alternativa en el control de problemas de alcalosis metabólica, que puede ser causada por hiperventilación de las aves en estados de estrés térmico.</p>
		</sec>
	</body>
	<back>
		<ref-list>
			<title>LITERATURA CITADA</title>
			<ref id="B1">
				<mixed-citation>ADHIKARI P, Yadav S, Cosby DE, Cox NA, Jendza JA, Kim WK. 2020. Research Note: Effect of organic acid mixture on growth performance and <italic>Salmonella</italic> Typhimurium colonization in broiler chickens. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 99(5):2645-2649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.12.037</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>ADHIKARI</surname>
							<given-names>P</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yadav</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cosby</surname>
							<given-names>DE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cox</surname>
							<given-names>NA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jendza</surname>
							<given-names>JA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kim</surname>
							<given-names>WK</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Research Note: Effect of organic acid mixture on growth performance and Salmonella Typhimurium colonization in broiler chickens</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>99</volume>
					<issue>5</issue>
					<fpage>2645</fpage>
					<lpage>2649</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.psj.2019.12.037</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B2">
				<mixed-citation>ADIL S, Banday T, Bhat GA, Salahuddin M, Raquib M, Shanaz S. 2011 Response of broiler chicken to dietary supplementation of organic acids. <italic>Journal of Central European Agriculture</italic>. 12(3):498-508. ISSN: 1330-7142. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/12.3.947</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>ADIL</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Banday</surname>
							<given-names>T</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bhat</surname>
							<given-names>GA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Salahuddin</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Raquib</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Shanaz</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>Response of broiler chicken to dietary supplementation of organic acids</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Central European Agriculture</source>
					<volume>12</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>498</fpage>
					<lpage>508</lpage>
					<issn>1330-7142</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5513/JCEA01/12.3.947</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B3">
				<mixed-citation>AL-MUTAIRI HMS, Hussein EOS, El Nabi AR, Swelum AA, El-Hack MEA, Taha AE, Al- Mufarrej SI. 2020. Does the Consumption of Acidified Drinking Water Affect Growth Performance and Lymphoid Organs of Broilers?. <italic>Sustainability</italic>. <italic>12</italic>(8): 3093; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083093</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>AL-MUTAIRI</surname>
							<given-names>HMS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hussein</surname>
							<given-names>EOS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>El Nabi</surname>
							<given-names>AR</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Swelum</surname>
							<given-names>AA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>El-Hack</surname>
							<given-names>MEA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Taha</surname>
							<given-names>AE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Al- Mufarrej</surname>
							<given-names>SI</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Does the Consumption of Acidified Drinking Water Affect Growth Performance and Lymphoid Organs of Broilers?</article-title>
					<source>Sustainability</source>
					<volume>12</volume>
					<issue>8</issue>
					<fpage>3093</fpage>
					<lpage>3093</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su12083093</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B4">
				<mixed-citation>ANGEL R, Kim SW, Li W, Jimenez-Moreno E. 2013. Velocidad de paso y pH intestinal. Madrid; Memorias del XXIX Curso de Especialización FEDNA. España.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>ANGEL</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kim</surname>
							<given-names>SW</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Li</surname>
							<given-names>W</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jimenez-Moreno</surname>
							<given-names>E</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<source>Velocidad de paso y pH intestinal. Madrid</source>
					<series>Memorias del XXIX Curso de Especialización FEDNA</series>
					<publisher-loc>España</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B5">
				<mixed-citation>ARAUJO RGAC, Polycarpo GV, Barbieri A, Silva KM, Ventura G, Polycarpo VCC. 2018. Performance and economic viability of broiler chickens fed with probiotic and organic acids in an attempt to replace Growth-Promoting Antibiotics. <italic>Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science</italic>. 21(2): 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0912</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>ARAUJO</surname>
							<given-names>RGAC</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Polycarpo</surname>
							<given-names>GV</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Barbieri</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>KM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ventura</surname>
							<given-names>G</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Polycarpo</surname>
							<given-names>VCC</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Performance and economic viability of broiler chickens fed with probiotic and organic acids in an attempt to replace Growth-Promoting Antibiotics</article-title>
					<source>Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>21</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>8</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0912</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B6">
				<mixed-citation>AVILA E. 2018. “<italic>Alimentación avícola y del pollos de engorda”.</italic> En Ávila GE. <italic>Introducción a la zootecnia del pollo y la gallina</italic>. CDMX, México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 468 p. ISBN 978-607-02-9855-4.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>AVILA</surname>
							<given-names>E</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<source>Alimentación avícola y del pollos de engorda”. En Ávila GE. Introducción a la zootecnia del pollo y la gallina</source>
					<publisher-loc>CDMX, México</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México</publisher-name>
					<fpage>468</fpage>
					<lpage>468</lpage>
					<isbn>978-607-02-9855-4</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B7">
				<mixed-citation>BOROOJENI FG, Vahjen W, Mader A, Knorr F, Ruhnke I, Röhe I, Hafeez A, Villodre C, Männer K, Zentek J. 2014. The effects of different thermal treatments and organic acid levels on nutrient digestibility in broilers. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 93: 1440-1452. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03563</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>BOROOJENI</surname>
							<given-names>FG</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Vahjen</surname>
							<given-names>W</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mader</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Knorr</surname>
							<given-names>F</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ruhnke</surname>
							<given-names>I</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Röhe</surname>
							<given-names>I</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hafeez</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Villodre</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Männer</surname>
							<given-names>K</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zentek</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>The effects of different thermal treatments and organic acid levels on nutrient digestibility in broilers</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>93</volume>
					<fpage>1440</fpage>
					<lpage>1452</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps.2013-03563</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B8">
				<mixed-citation>BOURASSA DV, Wilson KM, Ritz CR, Kiepper BK, Buhr RJ. 2018. Evaluation of the addition of organic acids in the feed and/or water for broilers and the subsequent recovery of <italic>Salmonella</italic> Typhimurium from litter and ceca1. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 97(1): 64-73. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex289</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>BOURASSA</surname>
							<given-names>DV</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wilson</surname>
							<given-names>KM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ritz</surname>
							<given-names>CR</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kiepper</surname>
							<given-names>BK</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Buhr</surname>
							<given-names>RJ</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Evaluation of the addition of organic acids in the feed and/or water for broilers and the subsequent recovery of Salmonella Typhimurium from litter and ceca1</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>97</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>64</fpage>
					<lpage>73</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pex289</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B9">
				<mixed-citation>BROOM LJ. 2015. Organic acids for improving intestinal health of poultry. <italic>World's Poultry Science Journal</italic>. 71(4), 630-642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933915002391</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>BROOM</surname>
							<given-names>LJ</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<article-title>Organic acids for improving intestinal health of poultry</article-title>
					<source>World's Poultry Science Journal</source>
					<volume>71</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>630</fpage>
					<lpage>642</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/S0043933915002391</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B10">
				<mixed-citation>BROWN WH.2002. <italic>Química Orgánica</italic>. 2ª ed. Ciudad de México, México: ed. Patria. Pp. 313-320. ISBN 9789702602088.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>BROWN</surname>
							<given-names>WH</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2002</year>
					<source>Química Orgánica</source>
					<edition>2</edition>
					<publisher-loc>Ciudad de México, México</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>Patria</publisher-name>
					<fpage>313</fpage>
					<lpage>320</lpage>
					<isbn>9789702602088</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B11">
				<mixed-citation>CUCA GM, Ávila GE, Pro MA. 2009<italic>. “</italic> 
 <italic>La alimentación aviar es crítica</italic>
 <italic>”.</italic> En Cuca GM. <italic>Alimentación de las aves</italic>. Edo. México, México: Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo. Pp.10. ISBN: 978-607-12-0038-9.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>CUCA</surname>
							<given-names>GM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ávila</surname>
							<given-names>GE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pro</surname>
							<given-names>MA</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2009</year>
					<chapter-title>La alimentación aviar es crítica</chapter-title>
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Cuca</surname>
							<given-names>GM</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<source>Alimentación de las aves</source>
					<publisher-loc>Edo. México, México</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo</publisher-name>
					<fpage>10</fpage>
					<lpage>10</lpage>
					<isbn>978-607-12-0038-9</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B12">
				<mixed-citation>DIBNER J, Buttin P. 2002. Use of organic acid as a model to study the impact of gut microflora on nutrition and metabolism. <italic>Applied Poultry Research</italic>. 11:453-463. ISSN: 1056-6171. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/11.4.453</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>DIBNER</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Buttin</surname>
							<given-names>P</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2002</year>
					<article-title>Use of organic acid as a model to study the impact of gut microflora on nutrition and metabolism</article-title>
					<source>Applied Poultry Research</source>
					<volume>11</volume>
					<fpage>453</fpage>
					<lpage>463</lpage>
					<issn>1056-6171</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/japr/11.4.453</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B13">
				<mixed-citation>EMAMI NK, Daneshmand A, Naeini ZS, Graystone EN, Broom LJ. 2017. Effects of commercial organic acid blends on male broilers challenged with <italic>E. coli</italic> K88: Performance, microbiology, intestinal morphology, and immune response. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 96(9); 3254-3263. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex106</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>EMAMI</surname>
							<given-names>NK</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Daneshmand</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Naeini</surname>
							<given-names>ZS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Graystone</surname>
							<given-names>EN</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Broom</surname>
							<given-names>LJ</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Effects of commercial organic acid blends on male broilers challenged with E. coli K88: Performance, microbiology, intestinal morphology, and immune response</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>96</volume>
					<issue>9</issue>
					<fpage>3254</fpage>
					<lpage>3263</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pex106</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B14">
				<mixed-citation>FREITAG M. 2007. Organic acids and salts promote performance and health in animal husbandry. Christian Lücktädt Editor, Acidifiers in Animal Nutrition 1st ed. United Kingdom. Nottingham University Press. Pp.1-7. ISBN-978-189904-3477.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>FREITAG</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2007</year>
					<source>Organic acids and salts promote performance and health in animal husbandry</source>
					<series>Acidifiers in Animal Nutrition</series>
					<publisher-loc>United Kingdom</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>Nottingham University Press</publisher-name>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>7</lpage>
					<isbn>978-189904-3477</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B15">
				<mixed-citation>GARCÍA V, Catalá-Gregory P, Hernandez F, Megías M, Madrid J. 2007. Effect of formic acid and plant extracts on growth, nutrient digestibility, intestine mucosa morphology and meat yield broilers. <italic>Journal Applied Poultry Research</italic>. 16(4): 555-562. ISSN: 1056-6171. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2006-00116</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>GARCÍA</surname>
							<given-names>V</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Catalá-Gregory</surname>
							<given-names>P</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hernandez</surname>
							<given-names>F</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Megías</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Madrid</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2007</year>
					<article-title>Effect of formic acid and plant extracts on growth, nutrient digestibility, intestine mucosa morphology and meat yield broilers</article-title>
					<source>Journal Applied Poultry Research</source>
					<volume>16</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>555</fpage>
					<lpage>562</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/japr.2006-00116</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B16">
				<mixed-citation>GHULAM A, Sohail HK, Habibubur R. 2013. Effects of formic acid administration in the drinking water on production performance, egg quality and immune system in the layers during hot season. <italic>Avian Biology Research</italic>. 6(3):227-232. ISSN: 1758-1567. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815513X13740707043279</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>GHULAM</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sohail</surname>
							<given-names>HK</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Habibubur</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Effects of formic acid administration in the drinking water on production performance, egg quality and immune system in the layers during hot season</article-title>
					<source>Avian Biology Research</source>
					<volume>6</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>227</fpage>
					<lpage>232</lpage>
					<issn>1758-1567</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3184/175815513X13740707043279</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B17">
				<mixed-citation>IMMERSEEL V, Russell JB, Flythe MD, Gantois I, Timbermont L, Pasmans F, Ducatelle R. 2006. The use of organic acids to combat Salmonella in poultry: a mechanistic explanation of the efficacy. <italic>Avian Pathology</italic>. 35(3):182-188. ISSN: 0307-9457. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450600711045</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>IMMERSEEL</surname>
							<given-names>V</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Russell</surname>
							<given-names>JB</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Flythe</surname>
							<given-names>MD</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gantois</surname>
							<given-names>I</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Timbermont</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pasmans</surname>
							<given-names>F</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ducatelle</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<article-title>The use of organic acids to combat Salmonella in poultry: a mechanistic explanation of the efficacy</article-title>
					<source>Avian Pathology</source>
					<volume>35</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>182</fpage>
					<lpage>188</lpage>
					<isbn>0307-9457</isbn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/03079450600711045</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B18">
				<mixed-citation>JIN LZ, Ho YW, Abdullah N, Jalaludin S. 1998. Acid and bile tolerance of lactobacillus isolated from chicken intestine. <italic>Letter Applied Microbiology</italic>. 27(3):183-185. ISSN: 3255-8254. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-765X.1998.00405.x</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>JIN</surname>
							<given-names>LZ</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ho</surname>
							<given-names>YW</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Abdullah</surname>
							<given-names>N</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jalaludin</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1998</year>
					<article-title>Acid and bile tolerance of lactobacillus isolated from chicken intestine</article-title>
					<source>Letter Applied Microbiology</source>
					<volume>27</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>183</fpage>
					<lpage>185</lpage>
					<issn>3255-8254</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1046/j.1472-765X.1998.00405.x</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B19">
				<mixed-citation>KHAN HS, Iqbal J. 2016. Recent advances in the role of organic acids in poultry nutrition. <italic>Journal of Applied Animal Research</italic>. 44(1):359-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2015.1079527</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>KHAN</surname>
							<given-names>HS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Iqbal</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2016</year>
					<article-title>Recent advances in the role of organic acids in poultry nutrition</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Applied Animal Research</source>
					<volume>44</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>359</fpage>
					<lpage>369</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/09712119.2015.1079527</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B20">
				<mixed-citation>KIM MH, Kang SG, Park JH, Yanagisawa M, Kim CH. 2013. Short-chain fatty acids activate GPR41 and GPR43 on intestinal epithelial cells to promote inflammatory responses in mice. <italic>Gastroenterology</italic>. 145(2):6-406. ISSN: 0016-5085. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.056</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>KIM</surname>
							<given-names>MH</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kang</surname>
							<given-names>SG</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Park</surname>
							<given-names>JH</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yanagisawa</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kim</surname>
							<given-names>CH</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Short-chain fatty acids activate GPR41 and GPR43 on intestinal epithelial cells to promote inflammatory responses in mice</article-title>
					<source>Gastroenterology</source>
					<volume>145</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>6</fpage>
					<lpage>406</lpage>
					<issn>0016-5085</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.056</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B21">
				<mixed-citation>MAISONNIER S, Gomez J, Brée C, Baeza E, Carré B. 2003. Effects of microflora status, dietary bile salts and guar gum on lipid digestibility, intestinal bile salts and histomorphology in broiler chickens. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 82(5):805-814. ISSN: 0032-5791. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.5.805</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>MAISONNIER</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gomez</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Brée</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Baeza</surname>
							<given-names>E</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Carré</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<article-title>Effects of microflora status, dietary bile salts and guar gum on lipid digestibility, intestinal bile salts and histomorphology in broiler chickens</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>82</volume>
					<issue>5</issue>
					<fpage>805</fpage>
					<lpage>814</lpage>
					<issn>0032-5791</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/ps/82.5.805</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B22">
				<mixed-citation>MEIMANDIOPUR A, Soleimanifarjam A, Azhar A, Hair-Bejo K, Shuhaimi M, Nateghi M, Yazid AM. 2011. Age Effect on short chain fatty acids concentrations and pH values in the gastrointestinal tract of broiler chicken. <italic>Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde</italic>. 75(3):164-168. ISSN: 0003-9098. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.european-poultry-science.com/Age-effects-on-short-chain-fatty-acids-concentrations-and-pH-values-in-the-gastrointestinal-tract-of-broiler-chickens,QUlEPTQyMjAxMzcmTUlEPTE2MTAxNA.html">https://www.european-poultry-science.com/Age-effects-on-short-chain-fatty-acids-concentrations-and-pH-values-in-the-gastrointestinal-tract-of-broiler-chickens,QUlEPTQyMjAxMzcmTUlEPTE2MTAxNA.html</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>MEIMANDIOPUR</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Soleimanifarjam</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Azhar</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hair-Bejo</surname>
							<given-names>K</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Shuhaimi</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nateghi</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yazid</surname>
							<given-names>AM.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>Age Effect on short chain fatty acids concentrations and pH values in the gastrointestinal tract of broiler chicken</article-title>
					<source>Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde</source>
					<volume>75</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>164</fpage>
					<lpage>168</lpage>
					<issn>0003-9098</issn>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.european-poultry-science.com/Age-effects-on-short-chain-fatty-acids-concentrations-and-pH-values-in-the-gastrointestinal-tract-of-broiler-chickens,QUlEPTQyMjAxMzcmTUlEPTE2MTAxNA.html">https://www.european-poultry-science.com/Age-effects-on-short-chain-fatty-acids-concentrations-and-pH-values-in-the-gastrointestinal-tract-of-broiler-chickens,QUlEPTQyMjAxMzcmTUlEPTE2MTAxNA.html</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B23">
				<mixed-citation>MESCHY F. Balance Electrolítico y Productividad en Animales. XIV Curso de Especialización: Avances en nutrición y Alimentación animal, FEDNA España. 95-108 p. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.fundacionfedna.org/publicaciones_1998">http://www.fundacionfedna.org/publicaciones_1998</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="webpage">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>MESCHY</surname>
							<given-names>F.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<source>Balance Electrolítico y Productividad en Animales</source>
					<comment>XIV Curso de Especialización: Avances en nutrición y Alimentación animal</comment>
					<publisher-name>FEDNA</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>España</publisher-loc>
					<fpage>95</fpage>
					<lpage>108</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.fundacionfedna.org/publicaciones_1998">http://www.fundacionfedna.org/publicaciones_1998</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B24">
				<mixed-citation>MORTADA M, Cosby DE, Shanmugasundaram R, Selvaraj RK. 2020. In vivo and in vitro assessment of commercial probiotic and organic acid feed additives in broilers challenged with <italic>Campylobacter coli</italic>. <italic>Journal of Applied Poultry Research</italic>. 29(2): 435-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2020.02.001</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>MORTADA</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cosby</surname>
							<given-names>DE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Shanmugasundaram</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Selvaraj</surname>
							<given-names>RK</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>In vivo and in vitro assessment of commercial probiotic and organic acid feed additives in broilers challenged with Campylobacter coli</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Applied Poultry Research</source>
					<volume>29</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>435</fpage>
					<lpage>446</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.japr.2020.02.001</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B25">
				<mixed-citation>Municipio de Charo. 2020. Medio físico del municipio de Charo, Michoacán. <comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.charo.gob.mx/tu-municipio/medio-fisico">https://www.charo.gob.mx/tu-municipio/medio-fisico</ext-link>
					</comment>. Consultado en 2020.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Municipio de Charo</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<source>Medio físico del municipio de Charo</source>
					<publisher-loc>Michoacán</publisher-loc>
					<comment>
						<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.charo.gob.mx/tu-municipio/medio-fisico">https://www.charo.gob.mx/tu-municipio/medio-fisico</ext-link>
					</comment>
					<date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2020-00-00">2020</date-in-citation>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B26">
				<mixed-citation>NAKAI S, Siebert K. 2003. Validation of bacterial growth inhibition models based on molecular properties of organic acids. <italic>International Journal Food Microbiology</italic>. 86(3):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00551-2</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>NAKAI</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Siebert</surname>
							<given-names>K</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<article-title>Validation of bacterial growth inhibition models based on molecular properties of organic acids</article-title>
					<source>International Journal Food Microbiology</source>
					<volume>86</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>7</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00551-2</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B27">
				<mixed-citation>NGUYEN GH, Lee KY, Mohammadigheisar M, Kim IH. 2018. Evaluation of the blend of organic acids and medium-chain fatty acids in matrix coating as antibiotic growth promoter alternative on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, excreta microflora, and carcass quality in broilers. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 97(12): 4351-4358. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey339</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>NGUYEN</surname>
							<given-names>GH</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lee</surname>
							<given-names>KY</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mohammadigheisar</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kim</surname>
							<given-names>IH</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Evaluation of the blend of organic acids and medium-chain fatty acids in matrix coating as antibiotic growth promoter alternative on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, excreta microflora, and carcass quality in broilers</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>97</volume>
					<issue>12</issue>
					<fpage>4351</fpage>
					<lpage>4358</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pey339</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B28">
				<mixed-citation>NOM-033-ZOO-1995. 1995. Sacrificio humanitario de los Animales. Domésticos y Silvestres. Diario Oficial de la Federación, Inciso 7.4.2.2. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5405210&amp;fecha=26/08/2015">http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5405210&amp;fecha=26/08/2015</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="legal-doc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>NOM-033-ZOO-1995</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>1995</year>
					<article-title>Sacrificio humanitario de los Animales. Domésticos y Silvestres</article-title>
					<source>Diario Oficial de la Federación</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5405210&amp;fecha=26/08/2015">http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5405210&amp;fecha=26/08/2015</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B29">
				<mixed-citation>NOURMOHAMMADI R, Afzali N. 2013. Effect of citric acid and microbial phytase on small intestinal morphology. <italic>Italian Journal Animal Science</italic>. 12(1):44-47. ISSN: 1828-051X. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2013.e7</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>NOURMOHAMMADI</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Afzali</surname>
							<given-names>N</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Effect of citric acid and microbial phytase on small intestinal morphology</article-title>
					<source>Italian Journal Animal Science</source>
					<volume>12</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>44</fpage>
					<lpage>47</lpage>
					<issn>1828-051X</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4081/ijas.2013.e7</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B30">
				<mixed-citation>POLYCARPO GV, Andretta I, Kipper M, Cruz-Polycarpo VC, Dadalt JC, Rodrigues PHM, Albuqueque R. 2017. Meta-analytic study of organic acids as an alternative performance- enhancing feed additive to antibiotics for broiler chickens. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 96(10): 3645- 3653. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex178 </mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>POLYCARPO</surname>
							<given-names>GV</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Andretta</surname>
							<given-names>I</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kipper</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cruz-Polycarpo</surname>
							<given-names>VC</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Dadalt</surname>
							<given-names>JC</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rodrigues</surname>
							<given-names>PHM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Albuqueque</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Meta-analytic study of organic acids as an alternative performance- enhancing feed additive to antibiotics for broiler chickens</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>96</volume>
					<issue>10</issue>
					<fpage>3645</fpage>
					<lpage> 3653</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pex178</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B31">
				<mixed-citation>RAFACZ-LIVINGTON KA, Parsons CM, Jungkt RA. 2005. The effects of various organic acids on phytate phosphorus utilization in chicks. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 84(9):1356-1362. ISSN: 0032-5791. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.9.1356</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>RAFACZ-LIVINGTON</surname>
							<given-names>KA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Parsons</surname>
							<given-names>CM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Jungkt</surname>
							<given-names>RA</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<article-title>The effects of various organic acids on phytate phosphorus utilization in chicks</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>84</volume>
					<issue>9</issue>
					<fpage>1356</fpage>
					<lpage>1362</lpage>
					<issn>0032-5791</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/ps/84.9.1356</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B32">
				<mixed-citation>RICKE S. 2003. Perspectives on the use of organic acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobials. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 82:632-639. ISNN:0032-5791, https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.632</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>RICKE</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<article-title>Perspectives on the use of organic acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobials</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>82</volume>
					<fpage>632</fpage>
					<lpage>639</lpage>
					<issn>0032-5791</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/ps/82.4.632</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B33">
				<mixed-citation>ROTH N, Hofacre C, Zitz U, Mathis GF, Molder K, Doupovec B, Berghouse Doming KJ. 2019. Prevalence of antibiotic-resistant <italic>E. coli</italic> in broilers challenged with a multi-resistant <italic>E. coli</italic> strain and received ampicillin, an organic acid-based feed additive or a synbiotic preparation. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 98(6): 2598-2607. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez004</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>ROTH</surname>
							<given-names>N</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hofacre</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zitz</surname>
							<given-names>U</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mathis</surname>
							<given-names>GF</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Molder</surname>
							<given-names>K</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Doupovec</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Berghouse Doming</surname>
							<given-names>KJ</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli in broilers challenged with a multi-resistant E. coli strain and received ampicillin, an organic acid-based feed additive or a synbiotic preparation</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>98</volume>
					<issue>6</issue>
					<fpage>2598</fpage>
					<lpage>2607</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pez004</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B34">
				<mixed-citation>ROTH N , Mayrhofer S, Gierus M, Weingut C, Schwarz Doupovec B, Berrios R, Domig JK. 2017. Effect of an organic acids-based feed additive and enrofloxacin on the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant <italic>E. coli</italic> in cecum of broilers. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 96(11):4053-4060. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex232</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>ROTH</surname>
							<given-names>N</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mayrhofer</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gierus</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Weingut</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Schwarz Doupovec</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Berrios</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Domig</surname>
							<given-names>JK</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Effect of an organic acids-based feed additive and enrofloxacin on the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli in cecum of broilers</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>96</volume>
					<issue>11</issue>
					<fpage>4053</fpage>
					<lpage>4060</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pex232</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B35">
				<mixed-citation>SÁNCHEZ-HERRERA I, Posadas HE, Sánchez RE, Fuente MB, Hernández EJ, Laparra VJL, Avila GE. 2009. Efecto del butirato de sodio en dietas para gallinas sobre el comportamiento productivo, calidad del huevo y vellosidades intestinales. <italic>Veterinaria México</italic>. 40(4):397-403. ISSN: 0301-5092. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0301-50922009000400006">http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0301-50922009000400006</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>SÁNCHEZ-HERRERA</surname>
							<given-names>I</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Posadas</surname>
							<given-names>HE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sánchez</surname>
							<given-names>RE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Fuente</surname>
							<given-names>MB</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hernández</surname>
							<given-names>EJ</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Laparra</surname>
							<given-names>VJL</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Avila</surname>
							<given-names>GE</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2009</year>
					<article-title>Efecto del butirato de sodio en dietas para gallinas sobre el comportamiento productivo, calidad del huevo y vellosidades intestinales</article-title>
					<source>Veterinaria México</source>
					<volume>40</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>397</fpage>
					<lpage>403</lpage>
					<issn>0301-5092</issn>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0301-50922009000400006">http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0301-50922009000400006</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B36">
				<mixed-citation>SAS Institute. 2010. <italic>Statistical Analyses Software. SAS/STAT®</italic> version 9.0.2, Cary, N.C., USA: SAS Institute Inc., ISBN: 978-1-60764-599-3. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.sas.com/en_us/software/analytics/stat.html#">http://www.sas.com/en_us/software/analytics/stat.html#</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="software">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>SAS Institute</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2010</year>
					<source>Statistical Analyses Software. SAS/STAT®</source>
					<version>9.0.2</version>
					<publisher-loc>Cary, N.C., USA</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>SAS Institute Inc</publisher-name>
					<isbn>978-1-60764-599-3</isbn>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.sas.com/en_us/software/analytics/stat.html#">http://www.sas.com/en_us/software/analytics/stat.html#</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B37">
				<mixed-citation>SMITH JA. 2011. Experiences with drug-free broiler production. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 90:2670- 2678. ISSN:0032-5791. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01032</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>SMITH</surname>
							<given-names>JA</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>Experiences with drug-free broiler production</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>90</volume>
					<fpage>2670</fpage>
					<lpage> 2678</lpage>
					<issn>0032-5791</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps.2010-01032</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B38">
				<mixed-citation>WHITTOW G. 2000. Sturkie´s Avian Physiology. 5th ed. San Diego, California: Ed. Academic Press. Pp 298. ISBN: 9780127476056</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>WHITTOW</surname>
							<given-names>G</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2000</year>
					<source>Sturkie´s Avian Physiology</source>
					<edition>5</edition>
					<publisher-loc>San Diego, California</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>
					<fpage>298</fpage>
					<lpage>298</lpage>
					<isbn>9780127476056</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B39">
				<mixed-citation>YAMAUCHI K. 2007. Review of a histological intestinal approach to assesing the intestinal function in chickens and pigs. <italic>Animal Science Journal</italic>. 78(4):356-370. ISSN: 1525-3163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00448.x</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>YAMAUCHI</surname>
							<given-names>K</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2007</year>
					<article-title>Review of a histological intestinal approach to assesing the intestinal function in chickens and pigs</article-title>
					<source>Animal Science Journal</source>
					<volume>78</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>356</fpage>
					<lpage>370</lpage>
					<issn>1525-3163</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00448.x</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B40">
				<mixed-citation>YANG X, Liu Y, Yan F, Yang C, Yang X. 2019. Effects of encapsulated organic acids and essential oils on intestinal barrier, microbial count, and bacterial metabolites in broiler chickens. <italic>Poultry Science</italic>. 98(7): 2858-2865. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez031</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>YANG</surname>
							<given-names>X</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Liu</surname>
							<given-names>Y</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yan</surname>
							<given-names>F</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yang</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yang</surname>
							<given-names>X</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Effects of encapsulated organic acids and essential oils on intestinal barrier, microbial count, and bacterial metabolites in broiler chickens</article-title>
					<source>Poultry Science</source>
					<volume>98</volume>
					<issue>7</issue>
					<fpage>2858</fpage>
					<lpage>2865</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps/pez031</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
		</ref-list>
		<fn-group>
			<fn fn-type="other" id="fn1">				
				<p>Clave:2020-46.</p>
			</fn>
		</fn-group>
	</back>
	<sub-article article-type="translation" id="s1" xml:lang="en">
		<front-stub>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Original Article</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Use of organic acids in water and its effect on productive performance in broiler chicks</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<abstract>
				<title>ABSTRACT</title>
				<p>In order to evaluate the productive performance, gut health, pH, digestive morphology, blood pH, jejunum resistance (JR) and skin pigmentation (SP) on the employment of an additional mixture of organic acids (OA) into the water, in broilers from 1 to 42 days of age, 1080 chickens were used, distributed in three treatments with nine repetitions of 40 birds. The treatments used: non-acidified drinking water (pH 8) control group (T1), acidification with an OA mixture (formic acid 31%, propionic acid 19 %, ammonium format 26% and ammonium propionate 6%) in a dose of 1.0 L/1000 L of water (T2) to obtain a pH of 4, and 0.3 L / 1000 L of water (T3) for a pH of 6. The results showed (p≤ 0.01) higher body weight, lower feed intake, and better feed efficiency for the birds from T3. There were no differences (p≥ 0.05) on the values of digestive pH, SP, and intestinal morphology; only showed effects (p≤ 0.01) in the width of villi and in the digestive area. Blood pH and JR showed effects (p≤0.01) among treatments. It is concluded that the acidification of the drinking water in broiler chickens, with the OA mixture at 0.3 L/1000 L is sufficient to obtain better performance.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="en">
				<title>Keywords:</title>
				<kwd>Broilers</kwd>
				<kwd>organic acids</kwd>
				<kwd>performance</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
		</front-stub>
		<body>
			<sec sec-type="intro">
				<title>INTRODUCTION</title>
				<p>The compounds known as organic acids (OA), used in the livestock industry, are aliphatic carboxylic acids formed by carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, they are also called short chain fatty acids (SCFA) or volatile fatty acids; whose structural chain is composed of less than 7 carbon molecules. These compounds are used as one of the alternatives to the use of growth-promoting antibiotics in the poultry industry (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Ricke, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Khan and Iqbal, 2016</xref>). Commercially, OAs such as propionic acid have been used for more than 30 years to reduce bacterial and fungal growth in food, in order to hygienically preserve its quality; as well as preventing and controlling infections by Salmonella spp and E. coli K88 in birds and their derivatives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Freitag, 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>). On the other hand, due to the prohibition on antibiotic use in animal feed by regulations in the European community and the United States (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Smith, 2011</xref>), OAs have proven to be an alternative in f the enteric microbiota modulation and inhibition from intestinal pathogenic bacteria, such as E coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Campylobacter coli; in addition to promoting the colonization of beneficial flora such as lactobacilli (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Roth et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">Roth et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Bourassa et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Mortada et al., 2020</xref>).</p>
				<p>On the other hand, some studies show the positive impact on the productive parameters, intestinal integrity, immune response and intestinal microbiota (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Polycarpo et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Araujo et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nguyen et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari et al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al- Mutairi et al., 2020</xref>), benefits that have initially been attributed to the effect they have on the environment of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), in the digestion process and as a source of energy; but mainly as protection of the same. OAs are found naturally in GIT of birds; which include lactic acid in a higher proportion in the small intestine; while propionic, acetic and butyric acids are found mainly in the blind bags; this is due to the fermentation process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Meimandiopur et al., 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Khan and Iqbal, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Rhot et al., 2017</xref>). The chemical properties, the pH-lowering effects, and the microbial inhibition effectiveness of an acid depend on its pKa value, which is the pH at which OAs are 50% dissociated. The pKa value defines the power of action that OAs can have; the lower its value, it is considered to have a greater capacity to acidify (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Freitag, 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Khan and Iqbal, 2016</xref>).</p>
				<p>The most accepted theory on the action mechanism in the bacterial growth inhibition by OAs considers their liposolubility in media with acidic pH. A pH close to 4.5 maintains the compound liposolubility, which allows them to penetrate the bacterial cell and dissociate in its cytoplasm, generating a metabolic imbalance that ends with the microorganism death (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Nakal and Siebert, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Immerseel et al., 2006</xref>). Propionic acid combined with formic acid when used in food, have shown synergy in the control of Salmonella spp, Campylobacter spp and E. coli (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Roth et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari et al., 2020</xref>); as well as zootechnical benefits. The inclusion of formic acid in combination with propionic acid via drinking water (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nhuyen et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari et al., 2020</xref>), showed favorable results in the parameters in broilers from 1 to 35 days of age, where included 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, and 0.06% organic acids.</p>
				<p>However, the information does not mention pH values. Other investigations in chickens used a mixture of organic acids (propionic acid, formic acid and butyric acid), to acidify the water to a pH of 3 to 4.5; The results showed benefits in the productive parameters, intestinal microbiota, immune response, nutrient digestibility and carcass quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ghulam et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Polycarpo et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Araujo et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nguyen et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari et al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al-Mutairi et al., 2020</xref>); however, the literature available on the use of these OAs used in drinking water and aimed at demonstrating their benefits on zootechnical performance and intestinal pH is scarce.</p>
				<p>The objective of the present work was to evaluate the zootechnical performance of the broiler chicken, to the addition of an OA mixture in the drinking water during its productive life; as well as the digestive pH and morphology of the duodenum, blood pH, resistance to jejunum traction and yellowing of the skin.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
				<title>MATERIAL AND METHODS</title>
				<sec>
					<title>Location</title>
					<p>The work was carried out in an experimental poultry farm located in Charo municipality, Michoacán state, at an altitude of 1,940 meters above sea level, with a minimum annual temperature of 16 ºC and a maximum of 18 °C; the maximum rainfall is 800 mm and the minimum is 600 mm (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Municipio de Charo, 2020</xref>).</p>
					<p><bold>Animals</bold></p>
					<p>All the procedures used in the handling of animals were approved by the animal care and welfare committee of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics Faculty from UNAM. </p>
					<p><bold>Experimental design</bold></p>
					<p>1080 chicks of both sexes were used (50% male and 50% female), 1 day old of the Ross 308 lineage from a commercial incubator (El Avión), located in Tepic, Nayarit, which were kept until 42 days of age in the months of April and May. They were randomly distributed in three treatments, with nine replications of 40 birds. The treatments consisted in the administration of a mixture of OA, to the drinking water to reach different pH, from the arrival of the chick to the end of the test in a continuous way. The OAs administered were a commercial mixture manufactured by Novus International (Acidomix® AFL, Querétaro, Mexico), composed of a combination of 31% formic acid, 19% propionic acid, 26% ammonium format and 6% ammonium propionate. Prior to the experiment, the water quality of the farm was analyzed by the &quot;National Water Commission&quot; (located in Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico), to know source physicochemical conditions and to corroborate its viability for its use in domestic animals (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t8">Table 1</xref>). The pH of the water was measured with a Hanna HI-98127 portable potentiometer.</p>
					<p>
						<table-wrap id="t8">
							<label>Table 1</label>
							<caption>
								<title>Water physicochemical analysis*</title>
							</caption>
							<table>
								<colgroup>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
								</colgroup>
								<thead>
									<tr>
										<th align="left"> Parameters</th>
										<th align="center"> Units</th>
										<th align="center">Admissible levels in birds</th>
										<th align="left"> Municipal intake</th>
										<th align="left"> Compliance degree</th>
									</tr>
								</thead>
								<tbody>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Temperature</td>
										<td align="center">°C</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">25</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Hydrogen potential</td>
										<td align="center">pH</td>
										<td align="right">6.5-8.5</td>
										<td align="left">8.0</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Electrical conductivity</td>
										<td align="center">µohms/cm</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">526</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Turbidity</td>
										<td align="center">UTN</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">1.4</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Color</td>
										<td align="center">Pt-Co</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">5</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Dissolved oxygen</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">6.4</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Biochemical oxygen demand</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">2.4</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Chemical oxygen demand</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">5</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Settleable solids</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">0</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Total solids</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">415</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Total suspended solids</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">20</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Total dissolved solids</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">1000</td>
										<td align="left">395</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Nitrates</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">10</td>
										<td align="left">0.2</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Ammoniacal nitrogen</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="right">60-80</td>
										<td align="left">0.5</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Total hardness</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">118.9</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Calcium hardness</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">82</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Magnesium Hardness</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">36.9</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Total alkalinity</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">200</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Alkalinity to phenolphthalein</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">0</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Chlorides</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">200</td>
										<td align="left">46.7</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Sulfates</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">125</td>
										<td align="left">24.2</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Carbonates</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">0</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Bicarbonates</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">60</td>
										<td align="left">200</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Calcium</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left">32.8</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Magnesium</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">32</td>
										<td align="left">8.9</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Sodium</td>
										<td align="center">mg/L</td>
										<td align="center">0</td>
										<td align="left">66.3</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">Fecal coliforms</td>
										<td align="center">UFC/100ml</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">0</td>
										<td align="left">Complies</td>
									</tr>
								</tbody>
							</table>
							<table-wrap-foot>
								<fn id="TFN7">
									<p>*National Water Comission</p>
								</fn>
							</table-wrap-foot>
						</table-wrap>
					</p>
					<p>Treatments are described, such as:</p>
					<p>
						<list list-type="order">
							<list-item>
								<p>A control without OA or growth promoter; the drinking water network from Charo municipality, Michoacán was used for its consumption, which had a pH of 8.0 without the addition of the OA mixture.</p>
							</list-item>
							<list-item>
								<p>Drinking water from the control treatment plus the addition of the OA mixture at a rate of 1.0 liters per 1000 liters of water, to establish 0.128 moles and obtain a pH of 4.0</p>
							</list-item>
							<list-item>
								<p>Drinking water from the control treatment plus the addition of the OA mixture at a rate of 0.3 liters per 1000 liters of water, to establish 0.0038 Moles and obtain a pH of 6.0</p>
							</list-item>
						</list>
					</p>
					<p>To calculate the molar concentration of organic acid combination used (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t9">Table 2</xref>), the molecular weight of each of them was identified, and they were expressed in millimoles (mM) described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Brown, 2002</xref>. The grams per kilo of the solution used and divided by the molecular weight to obtain the moles per kilo of the solution, which was divided by 1.1, which is the specific density of acid mixture, (consider that a liter weighs more than a kilo). The molarity in grams per liter of the acid mixture was obtained, which helped to calculate the dose used to lower the pH to 4.0 and 6.0 of the water with a pH of 8.0. The calculation was established by adding a thousand liters of water from the control treatment (pH of 8.0); increasing amounts until pH 4.0 and 6.0 are achieved. The dose of 1.0 liters of the mixture of organic acids used for pH 4.0 and 0.3 liter for pH 6.0 was found. To know the amount of moles used, it was obtained from the total sum of molarity acid mixture multiplied by the dose used divided by 1000. Thus, it was obtained that for pH 4.0 the value was 0.128 and 0.0038 mol for pH of 6.0.</p>
					<p>
						<table-wrap id="t9">
							<label>Table 2</label>
							<caption>
								<title>Calculation of the molar concentration of organic acid combination used to obtain the desired pH in water</title>
							</caption>
							<table>
								<colgroup>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
								</colgroup>
								<tbody>
									<tr>
										<td align="left"><bold>Compound</bold></td>
										<td align="center"><bold>Molecular weight in Millimoles * </bold></td>
										<td align="center"><bold>g per Kg of solution </bold></td>
										<td align="center"><bold>Moles x Kg of solution </bold></td>
										<td align="center"><bold>Molarity g x lt of solution </bold></td>
										<td align="center"><bold>pH 6 (0.3 lt AFL* / 1000 lt of water)</bold></td>
										<td align="center"><bold>pH 4 (1.0 lt AFL* / 1000 lt of water)</bold></td>
									</tr>								
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Propionic</td>
										<td align="center">74</td>
										<td align="center">190</td>
										<td align="center">2.567</td>
										<td align="center">2.336</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Acid</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Formic Acid</td>
										<td align="center">46</td>
										<td align="center">310</td>
										<td align="center">6.739</td>
										<td align="center">6.127</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Ammonium</td>
										<td align="center">63</td>
										<td align="center">260</td>
										<td align="center">4.126</td>
										<td align="center">3.754</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Format</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Ammonium</td>
										<td align="center">91</td>
										<td align="center">60</td>
										<td align="center">0.659</td>
										<td align="center">0.600</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Propionate</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">total OA</td>
										<td align="left"> </td>
										<td align="center">820</td>
										<td align="center">14.091</td>
										<td align="center">12.817</td>
										<td align="center">0.0038</td>
										<td align="right">0.0128</td>
									</tr>
								</tbody>
							</table>
							<table-wrap-foot>
								<fn id="TFN8">
									<p>Described by Brown (1) AFL. Product used</p>
								</fn>
							</table-wrap-foot>
						</table-wrap>
					</p>
					<p>A house 11 m wide x 40 m long was used, with a galvanized sheet roof; with a capacity of 27 floors each, fitted with a bed of wood shavings; two hopper feeders with a diameter of 45 cm at the base with a capacity of 10 kilos each; as well as a round automatic Plasson type drinker, which was connected to a 20-liter graduated jug with a capacity; in which the described amount of OA was added to maintain the pH required daily and which also served to evaluate water consumption per bird. The diets were formulated in a similar way for each of the treatments with a flour presentation; Corn-soybean was used as a base, in three stages (0-21; 22-35 and 36-42 days of age), where the established needs for the broiler lineage were covered (Ávila, 2018), provided to free access (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t10">Table 3</xref>), without the addition of antibiotics as growth promoters (AGP).</p>
					<p>Los tratamientos se describen, como:</p>
					<p>
						<table-wrap id="t10">
							<label>Table 3</label>
							<caption>
								<title>Calculated analysis of the diets</title>
							</caption>
							<table>
								<colgroup>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
								</colgroup>
								<thead>
									<tr>
										<th align="center">Nutrients</th>
										<th align="center">1-21 days</th>
										<th align="center">22-35 days</th>
										<th align="center">36-42 days</th>
									</tr>
								</thead>
								<tbody>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Crude Protein (%)</td>
										<td align="center">22.00</td>
										<td align="center">20.1</td>
										<td align="center">18.5</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">EM. Kcal./Kg.</td>
										<td align="center">3025</td>
										<td align="center">3185</td>
										<td align="center">3210</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Lysine (%)</td>
										<td align="center">1.38</td>
										<td align="center">1.17</td>
										<td align="center">1.05</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Methionine (%)</td>
										<td align="center">0.64</td>
										<td align="center">0.59</td>
										<td align="center">0.52</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Methionine + Cystine (%)</td>
										<td align="center">1.00</td>
										<td align="center">0.94</td>
										<td align="center">0.83</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Threonine (%)</td>
										<td align="center">0.84</td>
										<td align="center">0.78</td>
										<td align="center">0.68</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Tryptophan (%)</td>
										<td align="center">0.27</td>
										<td align="center">0.25</td>
										<td align="center">0.23</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Calcium (%)</td>
										<td align="center">1.0</td>
										<td align="center">0.94</td>
										<td align="center">0.85</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Available Phosphorus (%)</td>
										<td align="center">0.46</td>
										<td align="center">0.40</td>
										<td align="center">0.38</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">Sodium (%)</td>
										<td align="center">0.20</td>
										<td align="center">0.18</td>
										<td align="center">0.17</td>
									</tr>
								</tbody>
							</table>
						</table-wrap>
					</p>
					<p>The sanitary program was similar for all treatments. On the first day of age in the hatchery the vaccine against Marek was applied, and in the experimental farm two vaccines were applied against Newcastle disease, using La Sota strain administered ocularly (at day 8 and 25 days of age). During the first four weeks the birds were raised in a house equipped with automatic infrared gas brooders, and received a program of natural light. Food and drinking water were freely available.</p>
					<p>At 42 days of age, the data from the records of the mixed birds (males and females) of body weight (g), accumulated feed consumption (g), feed efficiency (g/g), and water consumption (liters) were summarized. and mortality (%). 18 males were randomly selected per treatment (2 per replicate), to evaluate the yellow skin pigmentation (in the fat vein) in live birds, with the CR-400 reflactance photocolorimeter (Kónica Minolta Sensing, NJ, USES); under the CIELab scale of the International Committee for Colorimetry.</p>
					<p>A blood sample was obtained from each bird from the jugular vein, to evaluate the blood pH. Subsequently, birds´ slaughter was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Official Mexican Standard, by separating the head from the body, with a sharp object; through a single firm and accurate movement NOM-033-ZOO-1995, Official Mexican NORMA Humanitarian Sacrifice of Domestic and Wild Animals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">NOM, 1995</xref>). To evaluate the pH in situ of the gastrointestinal tract, which was performed immediately after sacrifice, with a Fisher Scientific brand potentiometer model AB15/15 +.</p>
					<p>The evaluation of the histological morphology of the duodenum was performed with 5 cm cross sections of the duodenal loop, which were fixed in 10% formalin for histological processing and stained by the hematoxylin and eosin technique. Once the slide was prepared, the length and width of 5 villi of each sample were measured in microns (); in addition to the adjacent Lieberkuhn crypt supported by the Motic Images Plus 2.0 program (Routine Software Series, Motic Asia, Hong Kong). The estimated formula of the area in the duodenum was, length x width of the villi at the middle level of the same (2), divided by 1000. Likewise, the resistance to rupture by traction of the jejunum was evaluated, with the help of a digital dynamometer (IMADA MV 110), in 10 cm sections prior to Meckel's diverticulum; Values expressed in kilograms-force and transformed to the international unit Pascal per square meter.</p>
					<p>The means resulting from the productive parameters and mortality, as well as the other variables, were analyzed under an analysis of variance design. The general linear model was used and when there were significant differences (p≤ 0.05), between the treatments, the comparison of means was performed by the Tukey test (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">SAS Institute Inc, 2012</xref>). The results expressed in percentages were transformed to the arc-sine proportion, for their analysis.</p>
				</sec>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="results">
				<title>RESULTS</title>
				<p>The results of the zootechnical parameters are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t11">Table 4</xref>. An effect was found (p≤ 0.05) of greater body weight (2.7%), in T2 with respect to the control T1. On the other hand, food consumption decreased (p≤ 0.01) in treatment 3, by 3.1% compared to T1 Control and 2.7%, compared to T2; which improved significantly (p≤ 0.01), in the feeding efficiency values in relation to T1 in 5.9% and in 3.8% to T2 with pH of 4. Water consumption was lower (p≤ 0.01) in the control group (T1), where the OA were not added to the drinking water in relation to the birds that were consuming water with OA (T2 and T3); which represented an increase of 2.23 and 2.42% respectively. There were no effects (p≥0.05) in the percentage of mortality between the evaluated treatments.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t11">
						<label>Table 4</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Means and standard error of zootechnical parameters and mortality in broilers with OA, in drinking water at 42 days of age</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>OA (L/1000L)</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Body weight (kg)</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Feed consumption (kg)</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Feed efficiency</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Water consumption (L)</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Mortality (%)</bold></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>T1.- 0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">2.46±0.011b</td>
									<td align="center">4.76±0.022a</td>
									<td align="center">0.51±0.01b</td>
									<td align="center">7.40±0.015<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">6.3±0.8<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>T2.- 0.3</bold></td>
									<td align="center">2.53±0.007<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.62±0.016<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.54±0.0<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.57±0.029<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.4±1.5<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>T3.- 1.0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">2.49±0.016<sup>ab</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.75±0.019<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.52±0.0<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.58±0.028<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.8±1.8<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>AVERAGE</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>2.50 ± 0.009</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>4.71± 0.018</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>0.52 ± 0.01</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>7.51 ± 0.024</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>5.8± 0.8</bold></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center"><bold>Probability</bold></td>
									<td align="center">0.006</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
									<td align="center">0.919</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN9">
								<p>a, b. Different literals between the columns show significant differences (p≤ 0.01)</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>The gastrointestinal pH values did not show significant effects (p≥ 0.05), among the treatments studied in the different evaluated segments. As shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t12">table 5</xref>, in general values are seen at the level of the average and/or below, those birds that consumed water with the addition of OA (T2 and T3).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t12">
						<label>Table 5</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Gastrointestinal pH values in broilers with the use of OA, in drinking water at 42 days of age</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Crop</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Proventriculus</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Gizzard</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Duodenum</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Jejunum</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Íleon</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>Cecum</bold></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>OA (L/1000L)</bold></td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="left"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T1.- 0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">5.3±0.1</td>
									<td align="center">3.1±0.2</td>
									<td align="center">3.2±0.2</td>
									<td align="center"> 5.8±0.0</td>
									<td align="center"> 6.0±0.1</td>
									<td align="center"> 7.0±0.1</td>
									<td align="center"> 6.3±0.2</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T2.- 0.3</bold></td>
									<td align="center">4.8±0.2</td>
									<td align="center">3.1±0.3</td>
									<td align="center">3.1±0.2</td>
									<td align="center">5.6±0.1</td>
									<td align="center">5.8±0.1</td>
									<td align="center">6.7±0.1</td>
									<td align="center">6.0±0.1</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T3.- 1.0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">5.0±0.3</td>
									<td align="center">2.9±0.3</td>
									<td align="center">2.6±0.3</td>
									<td align="center">5.7±0.0</td>
									<td align="center">5.7±0.2</td>
									<td align="center">6.8±0.2</td>
									<td align="center">6.0±0.1</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>AVERAGE</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>5.0 ± 0.1</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>3.1± 0.2</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>3.0 ± 0.1</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>5.7 ± 0.0</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>5.8± 0.1</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>6.8± 0.1</bold></td>
									<td align="center"><bold>6.1 ± 0.1</bold></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Probability</bold></td>
									<td align="center">0.189</td>
									<td align="center">0.857</td>
									<td align="center">0.219</td>
									<td align="center">0.099</td>
									<td align="center">0.347</td>
									<td align="center">0.325</td>
									<td align="center">0.331</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN10">
								<p>PH average ± standard error</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Histological measurements of the duodenum (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t13">Table 6</xref>) did not show differences (p≥0.05) in the length of villi and in the depth of Lieberkuhn crypts, between the evaluated treatments. In the width of the villi, differences were observed (p≤ 0.01), with the highest values in treatment 3, with differences of 23 and 42 microns, in relation to T1 and T2; This effect influenced the results of the calculated digestive area, with the highest values (p≤ 0.01), the morphology of the Control treatment with pH of 8 and 4.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t13">
						<label>Table 6</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Histological measurements of the duodenum in broilers with the use of OA, in drinking water at 42 days of age.</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left">Treatments </th>
									<th align="center">Length (μ) </th>
									<th align="center">Width (μ) </th>
									<th align="center">Crypts (μ) </th>
									<th align="center">Area (μ2 )/1000 </th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="left">OA (L/1000L) </th>
									<th align="center" colspan="4">Average ± standard error </th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">1500 ± 12</td>
									<td align="center">121 ± 5b</td>
									<td align="center">169 ± 8</td>
									<td align="center">182 ± 8.0a</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T1.- 0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">1493 ± 36</td>
									<td align="center">102 ± 5c</td>
									<td align="center">150 ± 4</td>
									<td align="center">153 ± 8.2b</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T2.- 0.3</bold></td>
									<td align="center">1422 ± 41</td>
									<td align="center">144 ± 7a</td>
									<td align="center">153 ± 9</td>
									<td align="center">203 ± 8.9a</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T3.- 1.0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">1476 ± 18</td>
									<td align="center">121 ± 4</td>
									<td align="center">158 ± 4</td>
									<td align="center">177 ± 5.4</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Probability</bold></td>
									<td align="center">0.182</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
									<td align="center">0.134</td>
									<td align="center">0.001</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN11">
								<p>* * a, b, c. Different literals mark significant differences (p≤ 0.01)</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Blood pH was higher (p≤ 0.02) in T1, in relation to treatments 3 and 2 respectively, which showed lower blood pH; likewise, the jejunum tensile strength showed effects (p≤0.03), among the evaluated treatments; being treatment 1 the one that showed the lowest resistance than treatments 3 and 2 respectively, without showing effects (P≤0.05) among the treatments evaluated in the values of yellow pigmentation in skin, as observed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t14">table 7</xref>.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t14">
						<label>Table 7</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Averages of blood pH, jejunum tensile strength and yellow skin pigmentation in broilers with OA use, at 42 days of age</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left"> Treatments</th>
									<th align="center">Blood Values pH</th>
									<th align="center">Jejunum resistance Pascal/m<sup>2</sup></th>
									<th align="center">Yellowing Deltas</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="left"> OA (L/1000L)</th>								
									<th align="center" colspan="3"> Average ± standard error</th>
									
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"> </td>
									<td align="center">7.29 ± 0.05b</td>
									<td align="center">2.60 ± 0.017b</td>
									<td align="center">19.17 ± 1.76</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T1.- 0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">7.06 ± 0.02a</td>
									<td align="center">3.37 ± 0.019a</td>
									<td align="center">18.04 ± 1.99</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T2.- 0.3</bold></td>
									<td align="center">7.16 ± 0.03ab</td>
									<td align="center">3.30 ± 0.023ab</td>
									<td align="center">19.45 ± 0.72</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>T3.- 1.0</bold></td>
									<td align="center">7.16 ± 0.03</td>
									<td align="center">3.11 ± 0.014</td>
									<td align="center">18.84 ± 0.909</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left"><bold>Probabilityd</bold></td>
									<td align="center">0.002</td>
									<td align="center">0.033</td>
									<td align="center">0.812</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN12">
								<p><sup>a, b</sup> = Different literals between the columns show significant differences (p≤ 0.01)</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="discussion">
				<title>DISCUSSION</title>
				<p>The zootechnical benefits obtained with the addition of OA have been verified with different compounds, such as fumaric, formic, acetic and propionic acids, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ghulam et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Broom, 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al-Mutairi et al., 2020</xref>); as well as in the mixture of these; where the formic acid combination with acetic acid and propionates has been shown to have a positive effect on productive performance, intestinal morphology, immune response and on the intestinal microbiota (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Adil et al., 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Polycarpo et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Araujo et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Nguyen et al., 2018</xref>). Historically, these benefits have been initially associated with the native and pathogenic microflora modulation of the intestinal tract, demonstrated by the effect that OAs have in drinking water and food, to counteract the negative effect of pathogenic bacteria, such as <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. , E. coli, <italic>Campylobacter</italic> spp and <italic>Clostridium</italic> spp., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Immersel et al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Adhikari et al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Bourassa et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Mortada et al., 2020</xref>), through colonization of the digestive tract by Lactobacillus. These are considered to be resistant to acidic pH, having a protective role in the gastro-intestinal tract (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Jin et al., 1998</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Broom (2015)</xref> mentions that in an acid medium of pH 4.6 the effect of OAs as antibacterials is more effective, based on evaluations carried out in vitro, where they conclude that the minimum inhibitory concentration for OAs may vary with the type of bacteria and acid used. Other in vitro studies with Escherichia coli cultures, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Dibner and Buttin, 2002</xref>), add different acids, including hydrochloric, formic, lactic and hydroxy-methionine analog (HMTBa), to acidify the culture medium to pH 4 and pH 7, showed that the antibacterial effect is more efficient with pH 4; in addition to making evident the low microbicidal activity of hydrochloric acid. By using a commercial product that included formic and propionic acid in concentrations of 50 mM formic acid, bacteria could be sensitized by an osmotic process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Sánchez et al., 2009</xref>); however, it can be deduced that the pH level is more important as a criterion in the dosage of acids than their molar concentration.</p>
				<p>This behavior in chickens of T3, contrasts with the primary role of the aforementioned microbial modulation arguments, which suggests as more important the effect that OAs have on the digestive process, since the birds were not challenged to any pathogens, nor did they present no pathological process during the test period. First, in the digestive process, the medium acidification allows a greater transformation of pepsinogen into pepsin at the proventriculus and gizzard level (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Cuca et al., 2009</xref>) and protein digestion is more efficient; in the same way, the work at pancreas level is improved by increasing its secretions, and in its case, better activity of some exogenous enzymes, such as phytases and mananasses (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">Rafacz et al., 2005</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Angel et al., (2013)</xref> refer to a work where they analyze the pH water effect on GIT pH, when comparing two levels (8.1 vs. 5.8), where an effect was had on the acidic environment of each one of the intestine segments, and as a consequence the group with acidified water at pH 5.8, positively affects the digestion of dry matter; as well as the apparent ileal phosphorus digestibility. The authors explain that part of the lower digestion at alkaline pH is due to the lower effectiveness of the phytases included in the diet. When the pH rises above 4, their efficiency tends to decrease due to their optimal operating pH and due to the precipitation of phytate-calcium chelates. On the other hand, calcium absorption is favored by acidification of the intestinal environment (by keeping calcium salts in solution), carboxylic acids such as propionic and formic, react with carbonates to form soluble salts in water and carbonic acid ( <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Brown, 2002</xref>), which favors the growth and strength of the bone system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Nourmohammadi, 2013</xref>).</p>
				<p>In the present work, a greater resistance in jejunal rupture was observed with acidification in T3 at a pH of 6. The benefits of better mineral absorption have been reported; firstly, calcium for the case of bone tissue and trace minerals such as zinc, copper and magnesium; which play an important role in the connective tissue formation. Without forgetting other functions that OAs play in a natural way in metabolism, as a source of energy to intestinal epithelium cells (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Boroojeni et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Broom 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Yang et al., 2019</xref>), and their beneficial effects on the immune system of the gastrointestinal tract, such as the activation of lymphocytes and macrophages; as well as a greater development of the thymus and Fabricius bursa (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ghulam et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Kim et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Al-Mutairi et al., 2020</xref>).</p>
				<p>The results of the present study with respect to the intestine histo-morphology, do not show a clear relationship between the differences of each treatment with respect to the evaluated lengths (length, width and crypt), however when analyzing the calculated area of the duodenum, A smaller surface area was appreciated in the group with better zootechnical results (T3), in this regard it is noted that the effect that OAs have on the morphology of the small intestine has been demonstrated by several researchers, most of whom have found a greater length of the villi in different segments of the gastrointestinal tract, with an important correlation with body weight and feeding efficiency (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Nourmohammadi, 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Emami et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Yang et al., 2019</xref>), however, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">García et al., 2007</xref>, reported greater height of the villi in the groups added with OA without changes in the calculated area of the villi, but with a significant effect (P &lt;0.01) on efficiency to nutritional and digestibility. It is important to point out that a greater height of the intestinal villi is not synonymous with a greater absorption surface (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Yamauchi, 2007</xref>); the variations in the width are usually related to cellularity degree, since the greater the width; greater infiltration of inflammatory cells located mainly in the lamina propria (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Maisonnier et al., 2003</xref>). So in the present study, the birds that were treated with acidified drinking water with a pH of 6, showed a lower calculated area of the villi, which coincides with the zootechnical results of the work of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">García et al., 2007</xref>; which suggests little cellularity, characteristics of a functional structure and no inflammatory processes. Acidification in drinking water also affected blood pH levels among the evaluated treatments (p &lt;0.02); since the values were lower in the birds that were with OA. The influence that food can have on blood pH has been shown, although there is a mechanism that promotes balance to neutrality. In the case of acids in solution, they allow the passage of hydrogen ions through biological membranes, this phenomenon is based on the mechanisms of digestive absorption and ionic exchanges between the digestive and blood compartments (Sturkie, 2000; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Meschy, 2015</xref>). This possibility of the passage of hydrogen ions opens up an alternative in the control of metabolic alkalosis problems caused by birds’ hyperventilation in heat stress states (Sturkie, 2000).</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="conclusions">
				<title>CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS</title>
				<p>The acidification of drinking water with 0.3L/1000 L of OA (formic acid 31%, propionic acid 19%, ammonium format 26% and ammonium propionate 6%), had a positive effect on the productive behavior in the chicken of fattening; Its beneficial effect lies in primarily facilitating the digestion process, where moderate acidification at a pH of 6 is sufficient to achieve better body weight and feed efficiency. The acidification in the drinking water with OA at 0.03 L/1000 L decreased the blood pH, thus opening an alternative in the control of metabolic alkalosis problems, which can be caused by birds’ hyperventilation in heat stress states.</p>
			</sec>
		</body>
	</sub-article>
</article>