344 Incorporation of Hemp Hulls and Screenings as Alternative Feed Sources for Ruminants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently there are no legal markets for feeding hempseed hulls or screenings to ruminants in Canada. This represents a significant wastage of high-quality feed that could be utilized in ruminant production. Therefore, the objectives of this project were to 1) evaluate the in situ rumen digestibility of hemp hulls and screenings; 2) evaluate the effect of including hemp hulls and screenings on the growth performance of feedlot lambs, and 3) assess if there are cannabinoids within the carcasses of growing lambs, and the milk of lactating ewes. Three ruminally cannulated Angus × Hereford heifers were used to determine the in situ degradability of hemp hulls and screenings. Wheat screenings, hemp hulls, and hemp screenings were weighed into polyester bags and incubated in the rumen for 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 96, 120, and 240 h. The kinetics of in situ DM disappearance were estimated using a non-linear regression procedure of SAS. Wheat screenings had a similar soluble fraction to hemp hulls and screenings; however, hemp screenings had a greater (P < 0.01) soluble fraction than hemp hulls. The rapidly degradable fraction, total potentially degradable fraction, and ruminal degradability were greatest (P < 0.01) for wheat screenings, followed by hemp screenings, and then hemp hulls. Study 2 was conducted using twelve Canadian Arcott x Suffolk ram lambs randomly allocated to one of three treatments: control (Wheat screenings), hemp hulls, and hemp screenings. By-products were included at 20% dietary dry matter, and lambs were fed ab libitum until they reached 50 kg. To test for cannabinoid residues, samples of muscle, adipose tissue, liver, and kidney were taken post-mortem. Study 3 was conducted using fifteen lactating Canadian Arcott x Suffolk ewes with twins, fed the same treatments as in Objective 2. Hulls and screenings were included at 15% DM, and ewes were fed dietary treatments for 30 d, with dry matter intake and body weight recorded weekly. On d 15 and 30, ewes were hand milked to obtain samples for cannabinoid analysis. This research will have an important role in supporting Canadian approval for feeding industrial hemp by-products to ruminant livestock.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".