The nutrient analysis shows that dry matter, crude protein, ether extract and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentrations were comparable, while acid detergent fiber (ADF) was 5 percentage units greater (numerically) for the hemp treatment (Table 2).
Table 2. Performance and carcass characteristics between treatments.
|
Control Treatment |
Hemp Treatment |
SEM |
P-Value |
Performance1 |
|
|
|
|
Initial BW, lb. |
1,086 |
1,095 |
25 |
0.80 |
Final BW, lb. |
1,539 |
1,505 |
16 |
0.05 |
DMI, lb. |
31.2 |
31.1 |
0.6 |
0.94 |
ADG, lb. |
4.04 |
3.73 |
0.15 |
0.05 |
F:G |
7.76 |
8.37 |
0.26 |
0.02 |
NEm, Mcal/lb. |
0.87 |
0.83 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
NEg, Mcal/lb. |
0.58 |
0.54 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
Carcass characteristics2 |
|
|
|
|
HCW, lb. |
929 |
904 |
11 |
0.03 |
Dress % |
60.4 |
60.5 |
0.5 |
0.90 |
LM area, inch2 |
15.0 |
14.6 |
0.4 |
0.37 |
Fat thickness, inch |
0.68 |
0.65 |
0.06 |
0.61 |
Marbling score3 |
512 |
498 |
14 |
0.48 |
Calculated YG4 |
3.41 |
3.35 |
0.24 |
0.81 |
1 - Performance parameters: Initial body weight (BW), final BW, dry-matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion (F:G), Net energy for maintenance (NEm, Mcal/lb), Net energy for gain (NEg, Mcal/lb).
2 - Carcass characteristics: Hot carcass weight (HCW), dressing percent (Dress %), longissimus muscle area (LM area).
3 - Marbling score: 400 = Slight00, 450 = Slight50, 500 = Small, etc.
4 - Yield Grade (YG) = 2.50 + (0.9843 x rib fat thickness, cm) + (0.2 x 2.5% kidney, pelvic and heart fat), + (0.0084 x hot carcass weight) – (0.496 x LM area, cm2; USDA, 2016).
Heifers fed DDGS had greater final BW, average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion, compared with HEMP cattle (P ≤ 0.05; Table 3), while dry-matter intake (DMI) was not different between treatments (P = 0.94).
Table 3. Plasma metabolite levels between treatments.
|
Amino acids |
Glucose |
Urea N |
Control Treatment |
2,480 |
87.8 |
16.2 |
Hemp Treatment |
2,431 |
90.1 |
20.5 |
SEM |
80.1 |
1.84 |
0.67 |
P-Value1 |
|
|
|
Trt |
0.53 |
0.17 |
<0.01 |
Day |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Trt x Day |
0.10 |
0.21 |
<0.01 |
Lin |
0.21 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Quad |
0.76 |
<0.01 |
0.18 |
1 - Linear (Lin) and quadratic (Quad) effects were tested for each variable across days.
The observed lack of effect on DMI is similar to what other authors have reported (Mustafa et al., 1999; Gibb et al., 2005) from cattle fed hempseed meal. Dietary NEm and NEg (megacalorie per kilogram [Mcal/kg] of feed, DM basis) was greater for CON, compared with HEMP treatments (P = 0.02). While dietary energy is lower for HEMP, compared with the CON diet, the NEm and NEg values for the HEMP diet are comparable to many finishing diets commonly fed.
These performance-based measures of feed energy and availability indicate that finishing cattle performance should be reduced, compared with cattle receiving a finishing ration containing DDGS at the current inclusion rate of 20% (DM-basis). Hot carcass weight (HCW) was greater (P = 0.03) in heifers fed DDGS vs. hempseed cake while all other carcass characteristics were not different (P ≥ 0.37). This agrees with previous research where feeding hemp products did not affect carcass characteristics (Hessle et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2005).
Feeding behavior was not different between treatments (P ≥ 0.32; data not shown). While the effect of hempseed cake on cattle feeding behavior has not been reported elsewhere, the lack of effect is not surprising because of the observed lack of difference in DMI. Greater ADF concentration in the HEMP diet, compared with the CON diet, may explain some of the performance differences that were observed in this experiment
Total AA were not different between treatments (P = 0.53; Table 4); however, we observed a day effect (P < 0.01; Table 3). With some exceptions, the general trend of individual AA concentration in plasma decreased between day zero and seven and then increased from day seven to 56 and 98, surpassing day zero baseline levels. The observed decrease between day zero and seven could be a result of stress/immune response in the heifers, shifting the use of AA toward acute phase protein synthesis rather than growth.
Plasma glucose was not different (P = 0.17) between treatments, while urea N increased (P < 0.01) in HEMP heifers, compared with CON heifers. Day was significant for glucose and urea N (P < 0.01), while an interaction between treatment and day was observed for urea N (P < 0.01). The observed greater plasma urea N was likely because the hempseed cake diet had greater CP concentration. This also indicates that the protein with hempseed cake is likely digested and utilized somewhat similarly to the diets containing DDGS.
Further understanding of how hempseed cake influences performance is necessary to better understand the quality of this feedstuff for use in cattle diets. Overall, the results of this study suggest that hempseed cake has lower dietary energy relative to DDGS, while still providing the cattle with adequate nutrition to support acceptable performance
of finishing cattle. While industrial hemp byproducts are not an approved feedstuff, these data suggest that, although hempseed cake may have lower nutritional quality and potentially result in marginally lower performance than DDGS, it could be a viable alternative feed source for ruminants depending on availability and cost.