MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386102915 · doi:10.3168/jds.2023-23507

Comparing dehulled hemp meal and canola meal as a protein supplement for lactating dairy cows

2023· article· en· W4386102915 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Addo, R. Gervais, 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 institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDairy Farmers of ManitobaDivision of Financial ManagementUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsCanolaMealFood scienceDry matterLinoleic acidLatin squareOleic acidFatty acidChemistryBiologyAnimal scienceBiochemistryRumenFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of replacing canola meal with dehulled hemp meal in the diet of lactating dairy cows on the dry matter intake (DMI), milk production, milk fatty acid profile, blood metabolites, total-tract nutrient digestibility, and transfer of cannabinoids were determined in 12 lactating, nonpregnant Holstein cows. These cows were used in a 3 × 3 Latin square design with three 3-wk experimental periods consisting of 2 wk of adaptation and 1 wk of sampling. Cows received basal partial mixed rations supplemented with either 15% dry matter (DM) canola meal (CM15), 15% DM dehulled hemp meal (HM15), or 7.5% DM dehulled hemp meal and 7.5% DM canola meal (CM7.5HM7.5). Diets were formulated to be isoenergetic and isonitrogenous, but the HM15 and CM7.5HM7.5 diets contained, on average 1.2 percentage units more crude protein (CP) that the CM15 diet. The CP of the dehulled hemp meal contained less soluble protein than that of canola meal. Hence, the intake of soluble protein did not differ among diets. Canola meal contained less crude fat than hemp seed meal (3.46% vs. 8.25% DM). The lipid fraction of canola meal fat contained more oleic acid (C18:1 cis-9; 47.3 vs. 14.9 g/100 g of fatty acids, FA) and vaccenic acid (18:1 cis-11; 13.7 vs. 1.2 g/100 g of FA) and less linoleic acid (C18:2n-6; 21.9 vs. 55.7 g/100 g of FA) and α linolenic acid (C18:3n-3; 3.2 vs. 8.9 g/100 g of FA) than the lipid fraction of hemp seed meal. The hemp seed meal contained 4.9 µg/g cannabidiol, 5.1 µg/g cannabidiolic acid, and 0.1 µg/g tertahydroxycannabinolic acid A. Treatments did not differ in DMI, yields of milk, milk protein and milk fat, total-tract neutral detergent fiber digestibility, and blood plasma concentrations of β-hydroxybutyrate and nonesterified FA. Apparent total-tract DM digestibility was lowest in the HM15 treatment, whereas the CP digestibility and the concentrations of urea in blood, urine, and milk were lowest in the CM15 treatment. Cannabinoids were not detected in urine, milk, and blood plasma. Replacing canola meal with hemp seed meal increased milk fat contents of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), which were 3.42, 3.90, and 4.25 g/100 g of FA for the CM15, CM7.5HM7.5, and HM15 treatments, respectively. Especially, the milk fat contents of 18:2n-6 (1.99 vs. 1.56 g/100 g FA) and 18:3n-3 (0.31 vs. 0.43 g/100 g FA) were increased by hemp meal feeding. Especially, the milk fat contents of 18:2n-6 (1.99 vs. 1.56 g/100 g FA) and 18:3n-3 (0.31 vs. 0.43 g/100 g FA) were increased by hemp meal feeding. Our data show that hemp seed meal is a suitable and safe replacement for canola meal as a feed for lactating dairy cows and that this replacement increases CP digestibility and urea in urine, milk, and blood plasma, as well the PUFA content of milk fat.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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