MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386087383 · doi:10.3168/jds.2023-23222

Quality and safety of hemp meal as a protein supplement for nonlactating dairy cows

2023· article· en· W4386087383 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Addo, Kim Ominski, Chengbo Yang, J.C. Plaizier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDairy Farmers of ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsLatin squareDry matterMealCanolaRumenSoybean mealChemistryNeutral Detergent FiberDairy cattleFood scienceAnimal scienceBlood mealBiologyFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemp seed meal may be a suitable protein supplement for dairy cows, but its quality and safety as a dairy cow feed has not yet been fully investigated. As a result, dry matter intake (DMI), rumen fermentation, blood metabolites, total-tract digestibility, and concentrations of cannabinoids in blood plasma, urine, muscle, and adipose tissues were compared among nonlactating Holstein dairy cows receiving a basal partial mixed ration that was supplemented with either 10.2% dry matter (DM) hemp meal (HM treatment), 13.5% DM canola meal (CM treatment), or 6.25% DM hemp meal and 6.16% DM canola meal (HC treatment). Diets were formulated to be isoenergetic and isonitrogenous. Six nonlactating, nonpregnant Holstein cows were used in a repeated 3 × 3 Latin square design trial with three 3-wk experimental periods. The first 2 weeks of each served as adaptation. Sample and data collection occurred during the third week of each period. Neither the partial mixed ration nor canola meal contain cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), d9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (THCA). However, the hemp meal contained 3.0, 4.4, 0, and 0.1 μg/g DM of CBD, CBDA, THC, and THCA, respectively. Treatment did not affect DMI, pH, concentrations of volatile fatty acids or ammonia in the rumen, total-tract digestibilities of DM and crude protein, or blood plasma concentrations of glucose, urea, β-hydroxybutyrate, and nonesterified fatty acids. Hence, based on these metabolites, treatment did not affect the nutritional status of the cows. However, the total-tract neutral detergent fiber digestibility of the CM treatment (43%) was higher than that of the HM treatment (38%). No cannabinoids were detected in blood plasma, rumen fluid, and urine. Cannabinoids were also not detected in kidney, liver, urine, muscle, or adipose tissues at the end of the experiment when cows had undergone all treatments. Feces from all treatments did not contain detectable concentrations of THC or THCA, but feces of cows on the HC treatment contained 0.42 and 0.40 μg/g DM of CBD and CBDA, respectively. Feces of cows on the HM treatment contained 0.68 and 0.67 μg/g DM of CBD and CBDA, respectively. This indicated that most ingested CBD and CBDA were not absorbed but instead were excreted in the feces. Our data show dietary inclusion rates of up to 10.2% of DM. We find that hemp meal is a high-quality and safe protein supplement for nonlactating dairy cows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→