agriculture
Article
The Effect of Humic Substances on the Meat Quality in the
Fattening of Farm Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus)
Branislav Gálik 1 , Cyril Hrnčár 2, *, Martin Gašparovič 3 , Michal Rolinec 1 , Ondrej Hanušovský 1 ,
Miroslav Juráček 1 , Milan Šimko 1 , Luboš Zábranský 4 and Anton Kovacik 5
Citation: Gálik, B.; Hrnčár, C.;
Gašparovič, M.; Rolinec, M.;
Hanušovský, O.; Juráček, M.; Šimko,
M.; Zábranský, L.; Kovacik, A. The
Effect of Humic Substances on the
Meat Quality in the Fattening of
Farm Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus).
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020295
Academic Editors: Károly Dublecz,
Lidija Peric and Vincenzo Tufarelli
Received: 16 December 2022
Revised: 16 January 2023
Accepted: 23 January 2023
Published: 26 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020295
1 Institute of Nutrition and Genomics, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of
Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, SK-949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
2 Institute of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture
in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, SK-949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
3 Slovak Breeders Union Bratislava, Krizna 44, 824 76 Bratislava, Slovakia
4 Department of Animal Husbandry Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Technology, University of South
Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, Studentska 1668, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
5 Institute of Applied Biology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Slovak University of Agriculture in
Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, SK-949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
* Correspondence: cyril.hrncar@uniag.sk; Tel.: +421-37-6414-774
Abstract: Background: The effects of humic substances (HSs) on the carcass characteristics and
meat quality traits of breast and thigh muscles were studied. Methods: In total, 200 pheasants were
allocated to 4 treatments, each containing 50 birds. The control birds were fed a diet without additives
(0% HS); the other treatment birds were fed diets containing HSs at 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0% from 1 to
90 days of age. At the end of the experiment, several carcass characteristics were measured and
breast and thigh muscle samples were taken to determine the composition of several nutrients by
standard laboratory methods and procedures. Results: The carcass weights of both males and females
increased significantly (p < 0.05) in the 0.50 HS and 0.75 HS groups after supplementation with HSs.
The same effect of humic substances in the 0.50 and 0.75 HS groups was found in the weight of breast
and thighs (p < 0.05). Significantly (p < 0.05), the highest carcass yield in males and females was
found in the 0.50 HS group. Conclusions: Feeding with a diet containing HSs can have a beneficial
influence on the carcass parameters, decrease the crude fat content in the meat and change the profile
of bioactive fatty acids in the breast and thigh muscles of broiler pheasants.
Keywords: pheasant; humic substances; carcass performance; meat quality; fatty acids
1. Introduction
Pheasant meat (Phasianus colchicus) production can be ensured by two sources: hunting
and farming [1,2]. Due to the growing interest in healthy animal products, markets demand
pheasant meat for its high nutritional value, high-quality protein content and low fat
content [3,4].
Humates or humic substances (HSs) are natural substances that have been used in
agriculture for many years for their positive impact and nutritional benefits for domestic
animals. The active components of HSs contain humic acid (HA), humus, ulmic acid,
fulvic acid, humin and other microelements, with the potential to stimulate growth by
improving the uptake of micronutrients [5–7]. Humic substances are characterized by their
immunostimulant, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties thanks to their ability to
form a protective film on the mucous epithelium of the intestine against infections and
toxins [8].
Humic acids (HAs) are natural organic compounds that are formed as a result of
the chemical and biological decomposition of organic matter and the synthetic activity of
microorganisms. At present, HAs are used mainly in agriculture, industry, environmental
protection and medicine [9–14].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 2 of 10

During recent years, the addition of HA at a determined amount in feed mixtures or

drinking water has been shown to improve the performance of poultry [15]. For this reason,
HAs are widely used in the position of an alternative growth stimulator for antibiotics [16–20].
A few works have investigated the effect of the addition of HAs as a growth stimulator in
poultry nutrition and obtained positive results [21–23].
Several authors have reported the effect of HSs on poultry meat production [24–27].
Semjon et al. [25] and Jad’uttová [26] compared the effect of 0.8 and 1.0% additions of
natural HSs to feed mixture pellets on the meat quality of broilers. Ozturk et al. [28] and
Ozturk et al. [29] noted a positive effect of HSs on the carcass characteristics and meat
quality. The addition of HSs to broiler diets and the effect on growth, carcass yield and
meat quality has been monitored by Nagaraju et al. [30] and Ozturk et al. [31].
It has been shown that, despite their common properties, there are differences in HA
effects resulting from the nature of the original substance and the method of isolation.
However, these effects of HSs may be variable because of differences in the inclusion level
and form (water or feed mixture), in the characteristics (e.g., chain length and composition
or hydrophobicity) and in the origin (e.g., plant, soil, peat or coal) of organic acids, including
humic acid and/or the digestibility of the diet used [28,29,31–33].
In Slovakia, the consumption of pheasant meat is ensured only by hunting pheasants.
Therefore, the aim of our study was oriented to analyze the effect of HSs, including HA, on
the carcass parameters and nutritional value of pheasant meat that had been fattened up to
90 days of age. The research hypothesis was that the addition of humic acid to the feed
mixture would have the ability to influence the meat quality of pheasants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals and Housing
Broiler pheasants were housed in pens on deep litter. Each group was housed sepa-
rately with the same microclimatic conditions until the age of 42 days. In the following
period, the birds were acclimatized and placed in outdoor, partially covered aviaries. Dur-
ing the experiment, the broiler pheasants were healthy with excellent body conditions.
The conditions of animal care and manipulations were realized by workers with essential
experience and the use corresponded with the instructions of the Ethics Committee of the
Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (Protocol No. 48/2013).

2.2. Feeding
In total, 200 1-day-old pheasants were housed in 4 groups of 50 per pen (1 group
consisted of 10 pieces with 5 replications) and assigned to 4 treatments: 1 = basal diet
without humic acids; 2 = basal diet with 0.50% humic acids in the feed mixture; 3 = basal
diet with 0.75% humic acids in the feed mixture; and 4 = basal diet with 1.00% humic acids
in the feed mixture. Humic acids in a powder form were added to the total feed mixture
during the manufacturing. The experiment lasted 90 days.
The broiler pheasants in all groups were fed standard fattening complete feed mixtures:
a starter from day 1 to day 35 and a grower from day 36 to day 90 of the fattening. The
nutrient composition of the analyzed feed mixtures is presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The broiler pheasants in all groups had available drinking water and feed mixtures ad
libitum. The birds of the experimental groups received HSs (Humac Ltd. Košice, Slovak
Republic) with an 85% dry matter content; there was a minimum of 62% humic acid in
the dry matter, a minimum of 48% free humic acids in the dry matter, a minimum of 9%
fulvonic acids in the dry matter and a minimum of 9% minerals in the dry matter.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 3 of 10

Table 1. Nutrient composition of diet: starter.

Nutrient Unit Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Crude protein % 29.00 28.09 28.35 28.62
Crude fat % 1.63 1.82 1.80 1.80
Crude fiber % 3.90 4.66 3.53 3.72
Crude ash % 7.27 8.73 7.90 7.70
Ca g/kg 11.88 17.93 16.23 16.94
P g/kg 9.53 9.81 9.83 10.44
Mg g/kg 3.48 3.66 3.47 4.22
Na g/kg 1.61 1.99 1.83 2.77
K g/kg 14.66 12.77 12.79 9.80
Cu mg/kg 17.21 17.26 21.72 12.67
Fe mg/kg 217.46 297.51 296.96 311.81
Mn mg/kg 45.37 51.90 49.33 56.25
Zn mg/kg 115.10 125.40 112.40 90.20

Table 2. Nutrient composition of diet: grower.

Nutrient Unit Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Crude protein % 24.74 26.62 26.17 26.11
Crude fat % 1.89 1.89 1.86 1.67
Crude fiber % 3.25 3.49 2.91 2.85
Crude ash % 9.62 9.40 9.06 7.86
Ca g/kg 18.65 18.15 16.97 16.06
P g/kg 9.65 10.05 9.92 9.52
Mg g/kg 3.86 3.88 3.73 4.02
Na g/kg 3.77 3.51 2.88 3.21
K g/kg 12.98 13.15 12.92 9.12
Cu mg/kg 17.43 17.10 18.46 13.44
Fe mg/kg 273.41 306.39 313.26 314.64
Mn mg/kg 53.58 56.45 51.90 53.69
Zn mg/kg 127.90 113.30 99.60 89.70

2.3. Slaughter and Carcass Analysis

At the end of fattening, 10 representative (with a body weight closest to the group average
weight) broiler pheasants (5 males and 5 females) from each group were slaughtered after a
12 hour feed mixture withdrawal. The breast, thighs, back, wings, neck, heart, gizzard (empty
gizzard), liver (without a gall bladder) and abdominal weights were separated and weighed.
Subsequently, we calculated the percentages of the body parts and edible giblets to the body
weight. The results obtained were used to calculate the carcass yield.

2.4. Sampling and Laboratory Analysis

The samples of muscle were manually obtained from the breast (musculus pectoralis
major) and thigh (musculus biceps femoris) muscles after the slaughter of broiler pheasants at
90 days of age during dissection (10 samples per each group). The nutrient composition of
the diet and meat was determined by standard laboratory methods and procedures [34]. The
content of metabolizable energy was calculated according to the WPSA methodology [35].
The content of the dry matter was determined by drying the sample with the gravi-
metric method. The crude protein was determined by the Kjeldahl method, the crude
fat was determined by extraction and the gravimetric method according to the Soxhlet
principle and the crude ash was determined by a complete combustion of the sample in
a muffle furnace at 530 ± 20 ◦ C (4–6 hours). The laboratory analysis of the nutritional
composition of the broiler pheasant meat was carried out in the Laboratory of Quality and
Nutritive Value of Feeds at the Institute of Nutrition and Genomics at the Slovak University
of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovakia.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 4 of 10

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The differences among the pheasant groups were analyzed with a one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) by using the statistical program JASP 0.8.6 [36]. The results were
evaluated using Duncan’s multiple range test [37].

3. Results
The effect of the dietary inclusion of HSs on the carcass traits of pheasant broilers is
presented in Tables 3 and 4. From the results, we confirmed that the diet affected a few
carcass traits. In accordance with the higher carcass weight of the HS pheasants, the highest
weights of body components were observed in the pheasant broilers of both sexes offered
the 0.50 HS diet, followed by pheasants in the 0.75 HS and 1.0 HS groups. The control
pheasant broilers had the lowest carcass characteristics.

Table 3. The effect of HSs on the carcass characteristics of pheasants.

Parameter Sex Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Initial weight (g) Male 22.31 ± 1.89 22.46 ± 1.91 22.38 ± 1.88 22.33 ± 1.89
Female 21.84 ± 1.86 21.88 ± 1.87 21.73 ± 1.83 21.93 ± 1.88
Final weight (g) Male 1025.97 ± 53.58 b 1201.38 ± 56.12 a 1166.89 ± 55.18 a 1045.34 ± 54.55 b
Female 861.87 ± 33.18 b 934.51 ± 35.77 a 926.02 ± 35.21 a 876.59 ± 33.85 b
Carcass weight (g) Male 717.26 ± 34.68 b 841.16 ± 87.51 a 816.01 ± 83.85 a 731.34 ± 67.46 b
Female 602.06 ± 28.20 b 653.51 ± 62.04 a 646.86 ± 48.96 a 613.10 ± 59.54 b
Breast (g) Male 203.26 ± 11.04 b 279.60 ± 18.29 a 270.59 ± 26.35 a 240.54 ± 34.52 a
Female 155.22 ± 12.86 b 223.96 ± 13.99 a 220.90 ± 14.23 a 209.19 ± 14.16 a
Thigh (g) Male 204.06 ± 10.30 b 246.21 ± 27.80 a 244.64 ± 28.57 a 216.18 ± 14.63 b
Female 164.30 ± 9.48 188.60 ± 10.38 186.04 ± 10.33 171.61 ± 10.09
Wing (g) Male 89.80 ± 4.29 b 105.48 ± 4.89 a 101.92 ± 4.76 a 91.27 ± 4.42 b
Female 69.48 ± 3.76 75.94 ± 3.82 74.97 ± 3.77 70.99 ± 3.81
Back (g) Male 119.85 ± 5.22 b 140.81 ± 5.57 a 136.19 ± 5.42 a 121.84 ± 5.41 b
Female 95.13 ± 4.03 b 109.39 ± 4.22 a 107.96 ± 4.17 a 102.14 ± 4.11 b
Neck (g) Male 16.43 ± 1.88 b 19.59 ± 1.92 a 18.84 ± 1.87 a 16.68 ± 1.89 b
Female 11.62 ± 1.12 12.94 ± 1.18 12.61 ± 1.14 11.83 ± 1.16
Gizzard (g) Male 19.79 ± 1.45 b 24.14 ± 1.56 a 22.93 ± 1.51 a 20.48 ± 1.46 b
Female 17.34 ± 1.31 19.34 ± 1.39 18.95 ± 1.38 17.90 ± 1.34
Heart (g) Male 7.96 ± 0.68 b 9.59 ± 0.76 a 9.14 ± 0.72 a 8.12 ± 0.74 b
Female 5.42 ± 0.44 b 7.45 ± 0.54 a 6.15 ± 0.51 a 5.70 ± 0.48 b
Liver (g) Male 17.65 ± 1.63 b 21.11 ± 1.79 a 20.24 ± 1.65 a 17.85 ± 1.64 b
Female 16.74 ± 2.10 b 18.63 ± 2.22 a 18.31 ± 2.17 a 17.23 ± 2.13 b
Abdominal fat (g) Male 3.01 ± 0.63 a 2.69 ± 0.59 b 2.77 ± 0.61 b 2.48 ± 0.61 b
Female 6.29 ± 0.83 a 5.09 ± 0.82 b 5.30 ± 0.88 b 5.08 ± 0.78 b
Breast (%) Male 32.47 ± 1.84 33.24 ± 0.53 33.16 ± 1.33 32.89 ± 2.58
Female 33.76 ± 1.31 34.27 ± 2.05 34.15 ± 1.34 34.12 ± 4.78
Thigh (%) Male 28.45 ± 0.90 29.27 ± 0.42 29.98 ± 0.09 29.56 ± 0.90
Female 27.29 ± 0.83 28.86 ± 2.75 28.76 ± 1.65 27.99 ± 5.58
Wing (%) Male 12.52 ± 0.55 12.54 ± 0.62 12.49 ± 0.53 12.48 ± 0.54
Female 11.54 ± 0.54 11.62 ± 0.59 11.59 ± 0.55 11.58 ± 0.56
Back (%) Male 16.71 ± 0.73 16.74 ± 0.80 16.69 ± 0.72 16.66 ± 0.69
Female 15.80 ± 0.69 15.82 ± 0.71 15.77 ± 0.66 15.76 ± 0.62
Neck (%) Male 2.29 ± 0.09 2.33 ± 0.11 2.31 ± 0.10 2.28 ± 0.09
Female 1.93 ± 0.04 1.98 ± 0.06 1.95 ± 0.05 1.93 ± 0.05
Gizzard (%) Male 2.76 ± 0.15 2.87 ± 0.18 2.81 ± 0.16 2.80 ± 0.16
Female 2.88 ± 0.19 2.96 ± 0.21 2.93 ± 0.19 2.92 ± 0.19
Heart (%) Male 1.11 ± 0.01 1.14 ± 0.02 1.12 ± 0.02 1.11 ± 0.01
Female 0.90 ± 0.01 0.92 ± 0.01 0.95 ± 0.01 0.93 ± 0.01
Liver (%) Male 2.46 ± 0.16 2.51 ± 0.19 2.48 ± 0.18 2.44 ± 0.18
Female 2.78 ± 0.21 2.85 ± 0.23 2.83 ± 0.22 2.81 ± 0.22
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 5 of 10

Table 3. Cont.

Parameter Sex Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

a
Abdominal fat (%) Male 0.42 ± 0.03 0.32 ± 0.02 b 0.34 ± 0.02 b 0.34 ± 0.02 b
Female 0.88 ± 0.05 a 0.78 ± 0.04 b 0.82 ± 0.04 a 0.83 ± 0.04 a
Carcass yield (%) Male 72.51 ± 1.04 72.63 ± 1.11 72.59 ± 1.09 72.56 ± 1.07
Female 72.29 ± 0.99 72.36 ± 1.05 72.35 ± 1.08 72.31 ± 1.04
Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation). a,b : Means not sharing the same superscripts in a row were
significantly different (Duncan’s multiple range test; p < 0.05).

Table 4. The effect of HSs on the content of nutrients in breast samples.

Nutrient Sex Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Dry matter (g) Male 270.01 ± 4.45 271.36 ± 3.75 270.88 ± 3.65 270.29 ± 3.26
Female 272.61 ± 2.86 273.31 ± 1.37 273.03 ± 3.40 273.23 ± 3.96
Crude protein (g) Male 877.71 ± 18.07 b 892.85 ± 19.11 a 892.71 ± 20.25 a 893.29 ± 19.84 a
Female 881.71 ± 19.86 b 898.11 ± 18.58 a 897.84 ± 19.69 a 899.93 ± 19.22 a
Fat (g) Male 26.26 ± 3.01 a 24.65 ± 2.77 b 24.80 ± 2.06 b 26.68 ± 1.26 a
Female 26.88 ± 3.46 a 24.83 ± 3.50 b 24.78 ± 3.83 b 26.16 ± 2.77 a
Energy (MJ) Male 17.05 ± 0.22 16.72 ± 1.01 17.33 ± 0.19 17.09 ± 0.12
Female 17.20 ± 0.35 17.09 ± 0.26 17.12 ± 0.32 17.09 ± 0.10
Ash (g) Male 44.20 ± 0.81 44.53 ± 0.87 44.40 ± 0.45 45.28 ± 2.19
Female 43.65 ± 0.89 43.99 ± 0.47 45.60 ± 1.53 46.31 ± 0.67
Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation). a,b : Means not sharing the same superscripts in a row were
significantly different (Duncan’s multiple range test; p < 0.05).

In contrast, HS supplementation in the diets had no significant effect on the proportion

of the carcass body, although the control pheasant broilers mostly had the lowest values
of proportion.
The weights of the internal organs (liver, gizzard and heart) were significantly (p < 0.05)
influenced by the 0.50 HS and 0.75 HS diets. However, the proportions of the internal
organs from the carcass weight were similar (p > 0.05).
The diet had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on the abdominal fat weight of the broiler
pheasants. Male pheasants fed the 1.0 HS diet typically had the lowest weight of abdominal
fat in comparison with the other groups. In the female pheasants, we recorded a lower
content of abdominal fat with the dose of 0.50 and 1.00 HSs in the diet.
The effect of the supplementation of pheasant broiler diets with HSs on the content
of the nutrients in the breast and thigh muscle samples is shown in Tables 4 and 5. The
application of 0.50 and 0.75 of HSs to the diet of pheasant broilers for the 0.50 HS and
0.75 HS experimental groups led to a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the crude protein
content in the breast and thigh muscle samples when compared with the control and 1.0 HS
groups. The fat content of the breast and thigh muscle samples decreased only in the
0.50 and 0.75 HS groups (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences among the diets
supplemented with HSs in the dry matter and the energy and ash of the breast and thigh
muscle samples were not observed (p > 0.05).
In the palmitic, oleic and stearic acids, only a tendency (p > 0.05) toward a lower
content after nutritional supplementation was found. Similarly, a tendency (p > 0.05)
toward higher palmitic, oleic and stearic acids in the thigh muscle was obtained from the
pheasant broilers of both sexes in the control diet group.
The diet had an insignificant effect (p > 0.05) on the total FAs of the breast and thigh
muscles (Tables 6 and 7). A tendency (p > 0.05) toward a higher PUFA content was found
in the 0.50 HS group in the breast muscles of females. In MUFA as well as SFA, a tendency
(p > 0.05) toward a lower content in the groups fed with HSs was found in the breast
muscles. In the thigh muscle samples, after the nutritional supplementation with HSs, a
tendency (p > 0.05) toward a lower content of PUFA, MUFA and SFA in the experimental
groups was found.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 6 of 10

Table 5. The effect of HSs on the content of nutrients in thigh samples.

Nutrient Sex Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Dry matter (g) Male 259.41 ± 7.93 260.05 ± 8.73 259.73 ± 6.53 259.76 ± 8.27
Female 262.05 ± 7.30 262.64 ± 7.28 261.70 ± 5.03 262.83 ± 4.78
Crude protein (g) Male 754.66 ± 33.71 b 768.06 ± 35.86 a 772.60 ± 53.66 a 758.63 ± 31.45 b
Female 740.80 ± 15.99 b 759.18 ± 17.07 a 755.94 ± 53.33 a 742.08 ± 19.91 b
Fat (g) Male 141.25 ± 42.54 a 139.83 ± 37.27 b 139.28 ± 51.59 b 141.05 ± 23.05 a
Female 144.51 ± 18.76 a 141.01 ± 12.16 b 141.51 ± 50.06 b 144.05 ± 23.05 a
Energy (MJ) Male 18.73 ± 1.01 19.02 ± 0.82 19.53 ± 1.00 18.99 ± 0.51
Female 19.73 ± 0.49 18.98 ± 0.26 20.47 ± 095 20.24 ± 0.52
Ash (g) Male 45.51 ± 3.24 45.05 ± 2.60 44.84 ± 5.11 44.01 ± 1.14
Female 42.80 ± 1.11 42.91 ± 1.58 42.11 ± 3.25 41.63 ± 1.90
Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation). a,b : Means not sharing the same superscripts in a row were
significantly different (Duncan’s multiple range test; p < 0.05).

Table 6. The effect of HSs on the content of fat acids in breast samples.

Fat Acid Sex Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Palmitic (g) Male 36.82 ± 0.20 36.04 ± 0.57 35.83 ± 0.24 36.73 ± 0.50
Female 35.57 ± 0.45 34.69 ± 0.79 34.52 ± 0.27 34.92 ± 0.35
Stearic (g) Male 16.17 ± 0.13 15.09 ± 0.21 15.32 ± 0.08 15.53 ± 0.30
Female 14.37 ± 0.22 a 14.17 ± 0.36 a 13.83 ± 0.11 b 13.94 ± 0.21 b
Oleic (g) Male 27.95 ± 0.09 27.74 ± 0.38 27.88 ± 0.09 27.34 ± 0.28
Female 29.87 ± 0.48 29.17 ± 0.77 29.81 ± 0.12 29.13 ± 0.19
PUFA (g) Male 38.82 ± 0.33 39.78 ± 0.68 38.48 ± 0.37 39.11 ± 0.83
Female 38.37 ± 0.58 b 39.28 ± 0.85 a 38.78 ± 0.40 b 38.89 ± 0.53 b
MUFA (g) Male 29.95 ± 0.09 28.64 ± 0.38 28.98 ± 0.09 29.34 ± 0.28
Female 29.89 ± 0.46 28.47 ± 0.77 28.87 ± 0.12 29.13 ± 0.19
SFA (g) Male 56.27 ± 0.02 54.58 ± 0.37 55.99 ± 0.14 55.74 ± 0.17
Female 57.86 ± 0.40 57.08 ± 0.37 57.51 ± 0.14 57.69 ± 0.12
Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation). a,b : Means not sharing the same superscripts in a row were
significantly different (Duncan’s multiple range test; p < 0.05).

Table 7. The effect of HS on the content of fat acids in thigh samples.

Fat Acid Sex Control 0.50% HS 0.75% HS 1.00% HS

Palmitic (g) Male 33.32 ± 0.30 32.99 ± 0.75 32.31 ± 1.71 32.89 ± 0.19
Female 32.63 ± 0.33 31.75 ± 0.25 31.94 ± 0.26 32.13 ± 0.24
Stearic (g) Male 11.33 ± 0.11 11.19 ± 0.27 11.28 ± 0.39 11.08 ± 0.07
Female 9.82 ± 0.10 9.19 ± 0.08 9.04 ± 0.08 9.65 ± 0.06
Oleic (g) Male 30.27 ± 0.16 29.87 ± 0.27 29.95 ± 3.67 29.33 ± 0.13
Female 30.58 ± 0.14 30.45 ± 0.12 29.98 ± 0.20 29.17 ± 0.04
PUFA (g) Male 35.44 ± 0.37 34.87 ± 1.02 34.79 ± 1.73 34.86 ± 0.18
Female 34.91 ± 0.37 34.37 ± 0.30 34.14 ± 0.27 34.19 ± 0.35
MUFA (g) Male 30.58 ± 0.14 30.12 ± 0.21 30.34 ± 3.64 29.95 ± 0.11
Female 30.79 ± 0.12 30.70 ± 0.09 30.23 ± 0.16 29.57 ± 0.04
SFA (g) Male 54.85 ± 0.34 53.09 ± 0.51 54.04 ± 2.45 53.74 ± 0.23
Female 56.16 ± 0.26 55.18 ± 0.25 55.35 ± 0.27 55.51 ± 0.08
Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation).

4. Discussion
Consistent with our results, Kocabagli et al. [38], Abdel-Mageed [39], Mirnawati
and Marida [40] and Elnaggar and El-Kelawy [41] noted that birds given diets with hu-
mic substances had a significantly higher value of dressing, breast and thigh percent-
ages and a significant lower percentage of abdominal fat compared with a control diet.
Nagaraju et al. [30] observed no significant differences in the dressing percentage, breast
meat yield and abdominal fat, liver, heart and spleen weights between different doses of
humic acids at the end of a 42-day experiment.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 7 of 10

Ozturk et al. [31] found that the carcass traits of broiler chickens were not affected by
the dietary treatments (7.5, 15.0 and 22.5 HS g/kg). According to Pistová et al. [42], broiler
chickens fed a diet containing 1% humic acid had a significantly higher stomach weight
compared with the control group, but the carcass, heart and liver weight as well as the
carcass yield were not significantly affected by the humic acid addition. Arpášová et al. [43]
did not recorded statistically significant changes in the carcass weight or breast and thigh
percentages among the control group and the experimental groups with the addition of
humic substances to diets. Arpášová et al. [44] found a statistically significant higher value
of the heart weight in the experimental group with HSs compared with the control group.
Li et al. [45] reported that the addition of humic acid to broiler diets may be able to
improve digestion dynamics and nutrient absorption, ultimately regulating the growth
ability and changing the metabolism to enhance animal carcass traits.
According to the results of the present study, the feed mixture for broiler pheasants
supplemented with HSs could have a significant effect on the chemical composition of the
meat. A dose of 0.50% natural HSs tended to be more effective. The addition of dietary
natural HSs to the diet of pheasants resulted in statistical differences in the crude fat and
crude proteins of the breast meat samples (p < 0.05). Ozturk et al. [33] observed that the
addition of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5% HS concentrations had different effects on the fat and total
protein content. The quality of the meat produced with the addition of HSs to feed mixtures
for broilers could be evaluated as being valuable for human nutrition due to the higher
content of proteins and fats [46]. Feeding with a diet containing 0.1% humic acid increased
the protein in the meat compared with the control group. However, chicks fed a basal diet
supplemented with 0.1% humic acid had significantly lower fat than other supplements
and the control group [41]. The results of our study do not support these conclusions.
Haščík et al. [47] stated that the addition of HA did not affect the chemical composition
of the breast muscle. The protein content was reduced in comparison with the control
group. In the case of thigh muscles, they had a significantly higher content of fat and
cholesterol in broiler chickens with addition of HA compared with the control group.
In our study, the predominant fatty acids were palmitic, oleic and stearic acids. This
agreed with the findings from other studies [48,49]. Broilers fed the control diet had higher
amounts of the most saturated fatty acids (SFA), especially myristic, myristolic and palmitic
acids, which are important for their hypercholesterolemic properties related to coronary
heart disease [49,50]. The inclusion of humic acid in the diet significantly increased the
proportions of PUFA in the broiler meat. Haščík et al. [51] found that HA reduced the SFA
content in the thigh muscles compared with the control group and increased the MUFA
content in the HA-supplemented group. The content of PUFA in the thigh muscle increased
after the addition of 2% HA to the diet compared with the control.

5. Conclusions
We concluded that feeding with a diet containing HSs could have a beneficial influence
on several carcass characteristics, decrease the crude fat content in the meat and change the
profile of fatty acids in the breast and thigh muscles of broiler pheasants. The addition of
0.50 and 0.75 HSs appeared to be a more effective option to improve selected meat quality
parameters of broiler pheasants.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: B.G., C.H. and M.R.; data curation: O.H., M.J. and M.Š.;
formal analysis: A.K.; funding acquisition: M.R.; investigation: B.G., C.H. and A.K.; methodology:
B.G. and M.Š.; project administration: L.Z. and M.G.; resources: L.Z. and M.G.; software: O.H.
and M.R.; supervision: M.Š., L.Z. and M.J.; validation: C.H. and B.G.; visualization: C.H. and B.G.;
writing—original draft: M.J., O.H. and C.H.; writing—review and editing: M.Š. and M.J. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science,
Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Science, project no. 1/0474/19.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 8 of 10

Institutional Review Board Statement: This experiment was not subject to national regulation of
the use of animals for experimental purposes. Ethical review and approval were not necessary for
this study, due to the fact that no breeding practices other than those normally adopted by the farm
of pheasants were introduced.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Tucak, Z.; Škrivanko, M.; Posavčević, Š.; Periškić, M.; Bošković, I.; Jumić, V. The influence of keeping pheasants in captivity vs.
nature on the biological value of meat and its use in human nutrition. Coll. Antropol. 2008, 32, 959–962. [PubMed]
2. Hofbauer, P.; Smulders, F.J.M.; Vodnansky, M.; Paulsen, P.; El-Ghareebet, W.R. A note on meat quality traits of pheasants (Phasianus
colchicus). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2010, 56, 809–813. [CrossRef]
3. Kuźniacka, J.; Adamski, M.; Bernacki, Z. Effect of age and sex of pheasants (Phasianus colchicus L.) on selected physical properties
and chemical composition of meat. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2007, 7, 45–53.
4. Rojas, M.; González, I.; De la Cruz, S.; Hernández, P.E.; García, T.; Martín, R. Application of species-specific polymerase chain
reaction assays to verify the labeling of quail (Coturnix coturnix), pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and ostrich (Struthio camelus) in
pet foods. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 169, 128–133. [CrossRef]
5. Yıldız, G.; Köksal, B.H.; Sızmaz, Ö. Influence of dietary boric acid and liquid humate inclusion on bone characteristics, growth
performance and carcass traits in broiler chickens. Arch. Für Geflügelkunde 2013, 77, 260–265.
6. Arif, M.; Rehman, A.; Saeed, M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Arain, M.A.; Haseebarshad, M.; Zakria, H.M.; Abbasi, I.H. Impacts of dietary
humic acid supplementation on growth performance, some blood metabolites and carcass traits of broiler chicks. Indian J. Anim.
Sci. 2016, 86, 1073–1078.
7. Arif, M.; Alagawany, M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Saeed, M.; Arain, M.A.; Elnesr, S.S. Humic acid as a feed additive in poultry diets: A
review. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2019, 20, 167–172.
8. Bahadori, Z.; Esmaielzadeh, L.; Karimi-Torshizi, M.A.; Seidavi, A.; Olivares, J.; Rojas, S.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Khusro, A.; López,
S. The effect of earthworm (Eisenia foetida) meal with vermi-humus on growth performance, hematology, immunity, intestinal
microbiota, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of broiler chickens. Livest. Sci. 2017, 202, 74–81. [CrossRef]
9. Mikkelsen, R.L. Humic materials for agriculture. Better Crops 2005, 89, 6–10.
10. Pena-Mendez, E.M.; Havel, J.; Patocka, J. Humic substances—Compounds of still unknown structure: Applications in agriculture,
industry, environment, and biomedicine. J. Appl. Biomed. 2005, 31, 13–24. [CrossRef]
11. Efimova, I.V.; Khil’ko, S.L.; Smirnova, O.V. Antioxidant activity of humic acids in radical-chain oxidation processes. Russ. J. Appl.
Chem. 2012, 85, 1351–1354. [CrossRef]
12. Mvila, B.G.; Pilar-Izquierdo, M.C.; Busto, M.D.; Perez-Mateos, M.; Ortega, N. Synthesis and characterization of a stable humic-
urease complex: Application to barley seed encapsulation for improving N uptake. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 2981–2989.
[CrossRef]
13. Kováčik, A.; Gašparovič, M.; Tvrdá, E.; Tokárová, K.; Kováčiková, E.; Rolinec, M.; Rumanová, L.; Capcarová, M.; Gálik, B. Effects
of humic acid diet on the serum biochemistry and oxidative status markers in pheasants. Vet. Med. 2020, 65, 258–268. [CrossRef]
14. Akaichia, A.; Jebalib, A.; Benlarbiac, M.; Mahjoubd, T.; Kaboudie, K.; Chaouacha-Chekira, R.B.; Haouasf, Z.; Boudhrioua, N.
Effects of humic acid and organic acids supplements on performance, meat quality, leukocyte count, and histopathological
changes in spleen and liver of broiler chickens. Res. Vet. Sci. 2022, 150, 179–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Disetlhe, A.R.P.; Marume, U.; Mlambo, V.; Hugo, A. Effects of dietary humic acid and enzymes on meat quality and fatty acid
profiles of broiler chickens fed canola-based diets. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 711–720. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Ceylan, N.; Ciftci, I.; Ilhan, Z. The effects of some alternative feed additives for antibiotic growth promoters on the performance
and gut microflora of broiler chicks. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2003, 27, 727–733.
17. Mutus, R.; Kocabagli, N.; Alp, M.; Acar, N.; Eren, M.; Gezen, S.S. The effect of dietary probiotic supplementation on tibial bone
characteristics and strength in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2006, 85, 1621–1625. [CrossRef]
18. Ur Rehman, Z.; Haq, A.U.; Akram, N.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Saeed, M.; Ur Rehman, S.; Meng, C.; Alagawany, M.; Sayab, M.;
Dhama, K.; et al. Growth performance, intestinal histomorphology, blood hematology and serum metabolites of broilers chickens
fed diet supplemented with graded levels of acetic acid. Int. J. Pharmacol. 2016, 12, 874–883. [CrossRef]
19. Arafat, R.Y.; Khan, S.H.; Baig, S. Evaluation of humic acid as an aflatoxin binder in broiler chickens. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2017,
17, 241–255. [CrossRef]
20. Gašparovič, M.; Hrnčár, C.; Gálik, B. The effect of feed additives in pheasants fattening: A review. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2017,
18, 749–761. [CrossRef]
21. Kamel, M.M.; Elhady, M.; El Iraqi, K.G.; Wahba, F. Biological immune stimulants effects on immune response, behavioural and
productive performance of broilers. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2015, 35, 691–702.
22. Sahin, A.; Iskender, H.; Terim, K.K.; Altinkaynak, K.; Hayirli, A.; Gonultas, A.; Kaynar, O. The effect of humic acid substances on
the thyroid function and structure in lead poisoning. Rev. Bras. De Cienc. Avic. 2016, 18, 649–654. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 9 of 10

23. Hrnčár, C.; Nikolova, N.; Bujko, J. The effect of single and combined use of probiotic and humate on fattening performance,
carcass characteristics and internal organs of broiler chickens. Maced. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 8, 81–87. [CrossRef]
24. Semjon, B.; Marcinčáková, D.; Koréneková, B.; Bartkovský, M.; Nagy, J.; Turek, P.; Marcinčák, S. Multiple factorial analysis of
physicochemical and organoleptic properties of breast and thigh meat of broilers fed a diet supplemented with humic substances.
Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1750–1760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Jad’uttová, I.; Marcinčáková, D.; Bartkovský, M.; Semjon, B.; Harčarová, M.; Nagyová, A.; Váczi, P.; Marcinčák, S. Effect of dietary
humic substances on fattening performance, carcass yield, biochemical blood parameters and bone mineral profile of broiler
chickens. Acta Vet. Brno 2019, 88, 307–313. [CrossRef]
26. Marcinčáková, D.; Mačanga, J.; Nagy, J.; Marcinčák, S.; Popelka, P.; Vašková, J.; Jad’uttová, I.; Mellen, M. Effect of supplementation
of the diet with humic acids on growth performance and carcass yield of broilers. Folia Vet. 2015, 59, 165–168.
27. Nad’, P.; Marcin, A.; Bujňák, L.; Skalická, M.; Gancarčíková, S. Evaluation of the growth performance and some blood parameters
in broilers with the addition of humic substances in the diet. Acta Fytotech. Zootech. 2021, 24, 150–154. [CrossRef]
28. Ozturk, E.; Coskun, I.; Ocak, N.; Erener, G.; Dervisoglu, M.; Turhan, S. Effects of humic substances supplementation provided
through drinking water on performance, meat color and cecal microbial population of broilers. In Proceedings of the IV Ulusal
Hayvan Besleme Kongresi, Uludağ, Turkey, 24–28 June 2007; pp. 243–245.
29. Ozturk, E.; Ocak, N.; Coskun, I.; Turhan, S.; Erener, E. Effects of humic substances supplementation provided through drinking
water on performance, carcass traits and meat quality of broilers. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2010, 94, 78–85. [CrossRef]
30. Nagaraju, R.; Reddy, B.S.V.; Gloridoss, R.; Suresh, B.N.; Ramesh, C. Effect of dietary supplementation oh humic acids on
performance of broilers. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 84, 447–452.
31. Ozturk, E.; Coskun, I.; Ocak, N.; Erener, G.; Dervisoglu, M.; Turhan, S. Performance, meat quality, meat mineral contents and
caecal microbial population responses to humic substances administered in drinking water in broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2014,
55, 668–674. [CrossRef]
32. Korsakov, K.; Simakova, L.; Vasilyev, A.; Lifanova, S.; Gulyaeva, L. The effect of humic acids on the natural resistance of the body
of broiler chickens and the quality of their meat. Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 1356–1366. [CrossRef]
33. Ozturk, E.; Ocak, N.; Turan, A.; Erener, G.; Altop, A.; Cankaya, S. Performance, carcass, gastrointestinal tract and meat quality
traits, and selected blood parameters of broilers fed diets supplemented with humic substances. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 59–65.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
35. Janssen, W.M.M.A. European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs; Spelderholt Center for Poultry Research and Information
Services: Beekbergen, The Netherlands, 1989.
36. JASP 0.8.6 Software. 2018. Available online: https://jasp-stats.org/ (accessed on 9 January 2019).
37. Duncan, D.B. Multiple ranges and multiple F-test. Biometric 1955, 11, 10–42. [CrossRef]
38. Kocabagli, N.; Alp, M.; Acar, N.; Kahraman, R. The effects of dietary humate supplementation on broiler growth and carcass
yield. Poult. Sci. 2002, 81, 227–230. [CrossRef]
39. Abdel-Mageed, M.A. Effect of dietary humic substances supplementation on performance and immunity of Japanese quail. Egypt.
Poult. Sci. 2012, 32, 645–660.
40. Mirnawati, Y.R.; Marida, Y. Effects of humic acid addition via drinking water on the performance of broilers fed diets containing
fermented and non-fermented palm kernel cake. Arch. Zootech. 2013, 16, 41–53.
41. Elnaggar, A.S.; El-Kelawy, M.I. Effect of humic acid supplementation on productive performance, blood constituents, immune
response and carcass characteristics of Sasso chicken. Egypt. J. Anim. Prod. 2018, 55, 75–84. [CrossRef]
42. Pistová, V.; Arpášová, H.; Hrnčár, C. The effect of the humic acid and garlic (Allium sativum L.) on performance parameters and
carcass characteristic of broiler chicken. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2016, 17, 1168–1178. [CrossRef]
43. Arpášová, H.; Pistová, V.; Hrnčár, C.; Fik, M.; Haščík, P.; Kačániová, M.; Gálik, B.; Bučko, O. The impact of the humic acid and
phytobiotics on performance and carcass parameters of broiler chickens. Acta Fytotech. Et Zootech. 2018, 21, 173–178. [CrossRef]
44. Arpášová, H.; Pistová, V.; Hrnčár, C.; Fik, M. The effect of the humic substances and thyme on carcass parameters of broiler
chickens. Sci. Pap. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 51, 1–5.
45. Li, X.K.; Wang, J.Z.; Wang, C.Q.; Zhang, C.H.; Li, X.; Tang, C.H.; Wei, X.L. Effect of dietary phosphorus levels on meat quality and
lipid metabolism in broiler chickens. Food Chem. 2016, 205, 289–296. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Hudák, M.; Semjon, B.; Marcinčáková, D.; Bujňák, L.; Nad’, P.; Koréneková, B.; Nagy, J.; Bartkovský, M.; Marcinčák, S. Effect of
broilers chicken diet supplementation with natural and acidified humic substances on quality of produced breast meat. Animals
2021, 11, 1087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Haščík, P.; Arpášová, H.; Pavelková, A.; Bobko, M.; Čuboň, J.; Bučko, O. Chemical composition of chicken meat after application
of humic acid and probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2018, 12, 694–700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Growth performance and carcass and meat quality of broiler chickens fed diets containing micronized-
dehulled peas (Pisum sativum cv. Spirale) as a substitute of soybean meal. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1537–1543. [CrossRef]
49. Ahmed, S.T.; Islam, M.M.; Bostami, A.B.M.R.; Mun, H.S.; Kim, Y.J.; Yang, C.J. Meat composition, fatty acid profile and oxidative
stability of meat from broilers supplemented with pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) byproducts. Food Chem. 2015, 188, 481–488.
[CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023, 13, 295 10 of 10

50. FAO; WHO. Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition. In Proceedings of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Geneva,
Switzerland, 10–14 November 2008.
51. Haščík, P.; Pavelková, A.; Arpášová, H.; Čuboň, J.; Bobko, M.; Tkáčová, J.; Kačániová, M.; Bučko, O. The profile of fatty acids in
chicken’s meat after humic acid and phytobiotics application. J. Microbiol. Biotechology Food Sci. 2019, 9, 439–444. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.