Effect of feeding hemp seed and hemp seed oil on laying hen performance and egg yolk fatty acid content: Evidence of their safety and efficacy for laying hen diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty-eight 19-wk-old Bovan White laying hens were fed 1 of 5 diets containing either hemp seed (HS) or hemp seed oil (HO). The level of HO was 4, 8, or 12%, whereas the level was 10 or 20% for the HS. A set of 8 birds fed wheat-, barley-, and corn oil-based diets served as the control. Performance was monitored over 12 wk. Average hen-day egg production was not affected upon feeding of either HS or HO diets. Egg weight was higher than that of the controls for hens consuming the 20% HS diet (P < 0.05). Feed intake was lower than that of the controls for birds consuming the 4% HO diet but similar across other treatments. Final BW were not affected by diet, with the exception of being lower than that of the controls (P < 0.05) in hens consuming the 12% HO diet. The total egg yolk n-3 fatty acid content increased linearly (P < 0.05) with increasing dietary α-linolenic acid provision with the HS- or HO-based diets. A quadratic response (P < 0.05) was observed for docosahexaenoic acid levels in egg yolk in response to increasing dietary α-linolenic acid supply. The expression of hepatic fatty acid desaturase 1 and 2, key genes for the desaturation of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, was significantly decreased (50-60% of controls; P < 0.05) as a result of feeding HS or HO diets. Based on the results from the current study, the inclusion of the hemp products HS or HO in the diets of laying hens up to a maximum level of 20 and 12%, respectively, does not adversely effect the performance of laying hens and leads to the enrichment of the n-3 fatty acid content of eggs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".