Journal Article Critique - Essay Example

Journal Article Critique s Summary The meat and nonmeat by-products from agricultural firms have been used broadly in diets often fed to all species of livestock. In the past, waste materials from agricultural plants were not used as livestock food and were often disposed in landfills. In this regard, the article by Ragland, Thomas, Harmon, Miller, and Adeola (1998) evaluates the nutritional value of two agro-industrial by-products acquired from the swine processing facilities together with microbial fermentation based on their ME contents.

The study used 48 male White Pekin ducks as well as 24 crossbred barrows in three experiments to analyze the nutritional content of the two by-products. The test materials comprised of dried meat soluble product (DMS) and yeast fermentation product (YFP). In all the three experiments, soybean meal (SBM) of 48% CP content served as the control ingredient. Various batches of every by-product were investigated in all the three tests making use of an apparent ME assay for poultry and digestibility assay for the barrows.

In experiment 1, the nitrogen-corrected AME (AMEn) for YFP, DMS, and SBM were 3.292, 2.801, and 2.909 kcal, correspondingly. In experiment 2, the AMEn was 3.565, 3.207, and 2.809 kcal, in that order. In experiment 3, the AMEn was 3.552, 2.208, and 3.844 kcal, for SBM, DMS, and YFP, respectively. However, in this third test the diets were formulated such that the test ingredients gave the only source of amino acids in every experimental diet. According to the experimental results, for the ME assay for poultry, the DMS product is comparable to the SBM and appears fit for consumption by non-ruminant species according to their poor ability to support nitrogen retention in both species.

CritiqueThe article flows logically and succinctly explaining its major talking points. The authors clearly state an explicit thesis and have a specific point of view; to evaluate the nutritional value of two non-traditional by-products for ducks and pigs. The article analyzed the DMS by-product and found out that it was associated with high crude protein as well as gross energy contents. In the same way, the SBM was clearly superior to the DMS. This was evidenced by marked differences in retained energy, digestible and apparent ME, nitrogen retention, biological value, and net protein utilization (Ragland, et al., 1998). The researchers cited the work of Lyons and Vandepopuliere that found the potential use of DMS for animal feeding because they used a similar by product to DMS.

This makes the argument compelling enough. Equally important, Ragland et al. (1998) reported that the AME for the SBM control compared well across the two duck experiments. On the contrary, the pigs showed much greater efficiency at metabolizing SBM’s energy. The authors’ tone is objective since they use facts and reasonable explanations. For example, the AMEn for YFP was higher than that of SBM and DMS in experiment 1 and 2. This was due to the product’s lipid content. DMS product is comparable to the SBM and it is an appropriate food for the non-ruminant animals according to their poor ability to support nitrogen retention in both pigs and ducks.

This was evidenced with-36 %, -20 %, and 20 % in experiment 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Ragland et al., 1998). About the articles weaknesses, the DMS and SBM were characterized by high crude protein. However, the ME assay in ducks yielded variable results. A study by Smith et al. (1988) reported that the ME values determined in poultry can be applicable to pigs for particular feed ingredients. However, in general, the article is concise and well organized. ReferencesRagland, D., Thomas, R., Harmon, G.

, Miller, R., & Adeola, O. (1998). “Nutritional evaluation of two agroindustrial by-products for ducks and pigs,” Journal of Animal Science , 76 (11), 2845-2852.