Performance and tissue fatty acid profile of broiler chickens and laying hens fed hemp oil and HempOmegaTM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the effects of hemp oil (HO) and HempOmega (HΩ), an equivalent product to HO, on performance and tissue fatty acid profile of layers and broiler chickens in two separate experiments. In the first experiment, forty 19-wk old Lohmann white laying hens were randomized to 1 of 5 dietary treatments, either a control diet or a control diet supplemented with 4 or 8% hemp oil provided by HO or HΩ, for a period of 6 wk (n = 8/diet). In experiment 2, 150-day-old mixed-sex (75 male; 75 female) Ross 308 chicks were randomly allocated into 5 dietary treatments, a control diet or a control diet supplemented with either 3 or 6% hemp oil provided by HO or HΩ, each with six replicates of 5 chicks for a 21-d feeding period. Performance of layers and broilers was not affected by dietary treatments. Animals provided with either HO or HΩ diets had greater total n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in egg yolks, thighs, and breasts compared to the control diet (P < 0.01), and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) content of egg yolks and thighs decreased (P < 0.05). The levels of total n-6 PUFAs, linoleic acid (LA), or arachidonic acid (ARA) of the egg yolk and meat were generally not affected by dietary supplementation with HO or HΩ, but gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) was notably increased (P < 0.01). The current data show that inclusion of hemp oil up to 8% in layer diets and 6% in broiler diets provided by HO or HΩ does not negatively affect overall performance of birds and results in the enrichment of n-3 PUFAs and GLA in eggs and meat.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".