ABSTRACT
Objective
The cultivation and production of industrial hemp [Cannabis sativa containing <0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)] has increased. Information regarding the nutrient composition and cannabinoid concentration of different plant parts are deficient.
Materials and Methods
Single lots of industrial hemp plants and by-products of cannabinoid production were obtained from a licensed research station located in south-central Kansas. Samples obtained were (1) whole industrial hemp plants (no roots), (2) stalks remaining after seed harvesting, (3) unprocessed female flowers intended for cannabinoid extraction, (4) whole seed heads for seed production, (5) leaves obtained from the drying process, (6) chaff obtained after seed harvesting and cleaning, and (7) processed female flowers after cannabinoid extraction. Plant materials were submitted for nutrient concentration and digestibility analysis, and for cannabinoid concentration determination, to a commercial nutrition laboratory.
Results and Discussion
Dry matter of the plant material ranged from 65 to 96.6%. Crude protein ranged from 5.3 to 24.5%. Calcium concentration was from 1.0 to 5.7% DM. The plants tested had high fiber concentrations, with NDF ranging from 28 to 80% and ADF ranging from 18 to 65% DM. Total digestible nutrients was 19.8 to 61.5. Six of the 10 cannabinoids tested were detected in all samples. Cannabidiolic acid, cannabidiol, and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A were detected in all samples at the highest concentrations.
Implications and Applications
These findings will assist livestock producers in using industrial hemp in animal feeds through consideration of both the nutritional and cannabinoid concentrations in the ration.
Key words
INTRODUCTION
Hemp has been grown and cultivated for centuries throughout the world. Beginning in the 1930s, hemp production was regulated by the US Drug Enforcement Agency due to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its ability to cause intoxication in people. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2014 allows states to engage in pilot research programs for the cultivation and use of industrial hemp (IH; Cannabis sativa containing <0.3% THC). Additionally, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 facilitated the removal of IH as a US Drug Enforcement Agency Schedule I drug and has increased interest in IH cultivation as a novel agricultural commodity (
USDA, 2019
).Industrial hemp is grown for a variety of purposes, including oil, seed, fiber, and medicine (
Small, 2002
). Varieties planted may be single purpose, where seed or fiber are harvested, or dual purpose, when the seed and fiber are harvested. Regardless of use, by-products such as leaves, fodder, and residual plant fibers remain. These by-products could serve as potential feedstuffs for inclusion into animal rations. Because these by-products are cellulose-containing plant materials, the target species for these feeds would be ruminants, specifically cattle.Although there is literature regarding IH seed and oil, there is relatively little peer-reviewed literature regarding the nutrient concentrations, digestibility, and corresponding cannabinoid concentrations of IH plants and plant parts. The objective of this study was to characterize the nutrient concentration, digestibility, and cannabinoid concentration of IH plants and plant by-products with consideration of their use as cattle feeds.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Industrial hemp was grown and handled under license of the Kansas Department of Agriculture Industrial Hemp Research Program (license numbers: KDA-0621466839 and KDA-0302873296).
Industrial hemp plants and by-products of cannabinoid production were obtained for this study by sampling from a research station located in south-central Kansas (longitude 37.52°N, latitude 97.31°W, altitude 384 m) or collection from a hemp oil processor. Single lot samples obtained were (1) whole IH plants (no roots), (2) stalks remaining after seed harvest, (3) unprocessed female flowers intended for cannabinoid extraction, (4) whole seed heads for seed production, (5) leaves obtained from the drying process, (6) chaff obtained after seed harvest and cleaning, and (7) processed female flowers after cannabinoid extraction. Plant samples were either intended as an end-use product (whole plant, flower, and seed head) or were by-products of hemp production (leaves, chaff, and extracted flower) and would have been considered waste materials. The IH was grown in field plots that have sandy loam soil. The cannabinoids in the extracted flower sample were extracted using proprietary methods using compressed CO2. The hemp flower sample and extracted flower sample originated from different varieties.
Samples were grown on site or obtained by study personnel. Plant materials were submitted for nutrient concentration and digestibility to a commercial nutrition laboratory (Rock River Laboratory Inc., Watertown, WI) and for cannabinoid concentration determination to an analytical laboratory specializing in pharmacology at Kansas State University. The whole plant and stalk portions were placed through a chipper grinder to reach an approximate size of 1 cm to facilitate further sampling and testing. The chipper was cleaned between samples using a brush and compressed air.
Nutrient Concentration and Fiber Digestibility Determination
All samples were dried at 105°C in a forced-air oven for 3 h for DM determination. For nutrient analysis all samples were dried at 60°C overnight. Once dried, samples were assessed for homogeneity. If necessary the samples were further milled (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) to improve homogeneity before analysis. Crude protein, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sulfur, either extract (crude fat), and ash were determined using methods set forth by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (
AOAC, 1990
). The ADF and NDF were determined using a commercially available filter bag technique (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). In vitro rumen NDF (uNDF) digestibility was estimated using methods described by Goeser et al., 2009.
, however without the filter bag. The uNDF for each hemp sample was determined at 30 and 240 h. The NDF digestibility, % of NDF, at 30 and 240 h was calculated as (NDF − uNDF)/NDF × 100.Total digestible nutrients were calculated using
NASEM, 2001
summative energy equations, modified in several ways to better account for starch and fiber digestibility within lactating dairy cattle. The modifications included separating starch from nonfiber carbohydrate; calculating total-tract starch digestibility based upon the Ferraretto et al., 2013.
equation; and predicting total-tract starch digestibility from rumen starch digestibility estimates. Rumen starch digestibility was assumed to be 67% of starch for this material. Other modifications included incorporating total-tract NDF digestibility based on the approach described by Lopes et al., 2015.
. For total-tract NDF digestibility, the potentially digestible pool size was defined by NDF digestibility at 240 h (% NDF), as reported by the study laboratory (Table 1), and potentially digestible fiber digestion rate was assumed 6% of potentially digestible pool per hour for this material.- Lopes F.
- Cook D.E.
- Combs D.K.
Validation of an in vitro model for predicting rumen and total-tract fiber digestibility in dairy cows fed corn silages with different in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibilities at 2 levels of dry matter intake..
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8661
J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98: 574-585Table 1Nutrient concentration and fiber digestibility of hemp plants, hemp leaves, hemp flower, seed heads, chaff from seed harvest and cleaning, and extracted hemp flower
| Outcome | Whole plant | Leaves | Stalk | Hemp flower | Seed heads | Chaff | Extracted flower |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM, % | 70.3 | 88.9 | 64.8 | 90.9 | 89.8 | 92.9 | 96.6 |
| CP, % DM | 6.9 | 13.0 | 5.3 | 21.2 | 23.0 | 20.0 | 24.5 |
| Available CP, % of DM | 5.4 | 10.5 | 3.5 | 17.1 | 20.3 | 17.6 | 21.4 |
| Calcium, % of DM | 1.4 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 5.7 | 3.6 |
| Phosphorus, % of DM | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Magnesium, % of DM | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Potassium, % of DM | 1.1 | 3.3 | 0.9 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 2.4 |
| Sulfur, % of DM | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Fat, % of DM | 2.7 | 8.9 | 1.2 | 12.5 | 13.2 | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| Ash, % of DM | 8.8 | 21.2 | 6.3 | 14.1 | 16.6 | 24.9 | 25.7 |
| Sugar, % of DM | 2.7 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 2.8 | 6.3 | 4.7 |
| Starch, % of DM | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.6 |
| ADF, % of DM | 60.8 | 20.8 | 64.6 | 26.1 | 29.6 | 18.0 | 18.1 |
| NDF, % of DM | 81.6 | 44.7 | 84.4 | 52.5 | 53.2 | 27.9 | 30.9 |
| Acid detergent insoluble CP, % of DM | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 3.1 |
| Acid detergent insoluble CP, % of CP | 21.9 | 19.1 | 34.6 | 19.6 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 12.8 |
| Neutral detergent insoluble CP, % of DM | 2.6 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 4.5 |
| NDF digestibility at 30 h, % of NDF | 28.8 | 9.3 | 12.7 | 19.3 | 43.1 | 46.6 | 19.7 |
| NDF digestibility at 240 h, % of NDF | 32.0 | 12.4 | 28.1 | 30.4 | 58.9 | 48.9 | 39.6 |
| In vitro rumen NDF at 30 h, % of DM | 55.5 | 39.2 | 60.7 | 36.6 | 21.9 | 14.3 | 18.7 |
| In vitro rumen NDF at 240 h, % of DM | 58.1 | 40.6 | 73.7 | 42.4 | 30.3 | 14.9 | 24.8 |
| Nonfiber carbohydrate, % | 2.5 | 15.3 | 5.3 | 6.3 | — | 26.3 | 20.2 |
| TDN, % | 24.0 | 41.0 | 19.8 | 53.6 | 61.5 | 54.3 | 46.0 |
1 Nonfiber carbohydrate was not reported because it had a negative value, likely due to ash contamination in the fiber fraction.
Cannabinoid Concentration Determination
Cannabinoid concentrations were determined using methods adapted from
Zhang, 2016
. All solvents used such as methanol, acetonitrile, and formic acid were analytical grade and were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Hampton, NH). Cannabinoid standards (Cerilliant Corp., Round Rock, TX) were purchased in solution at 1,000 μg/mL in methanol: cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A, cannabigerolic acid, cannabigerol, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabichromene, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarin, cannabichromenic acid, and cannabinol. Cannabinoid internal standards (Cerilliant Corp.) were also purchased in solution at 100 μg/mL: cannabidiol-D3, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol-D3, cannabinol-D3, (±)-11-nor-9-carboxy-D9-tetrahydrocannabinol-D9, (±)-11-hydroxy-D9-tetrahydrocannabinol-d3, and cannabichromene-d9.Zhang, X., J. P. Danaceau, and E. E. Chambers. 2016. Quantitative Analysis of THC and its Metabolites in Plasma Using Oasis PRiME HLB for Toxicology and Forensic Laboratories. Water Inc. Application Note APNT134916779. Accessed Apr. 10, 2020. https://www.waters.com/waters/library.htm?locale=en_US&lid=134916779.
Two stock solutions of commercial cannabinoid standards were prepared in methanol at 1,000 ng/mL. Mix A contained CBD, cannabidiolic acid, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A, cannabigerolic acid, cannabigerol, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol. Mix B contained cannabichromene, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarin, cannabichromenic acid, and cannabinol. Working solutions of cannabinoid standards were prepared in acetonitrile at 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 ng/mL. Stock solutions of standards were stored at −20°C.
Industrial hemp samples were ground (Retsch GmbH) and passed through a screen to obtain a homogeneous fine powder. Samples were prepared in triplicate by placing 1 g of sample into a 50-mL polypropylene tube, and 10 mL of 18W water was added. Samples were mixed with a vortex mixer and allowed to hydrate for 15 min. A total of 10 mL of formic acid 2% in acetonitrile was added to each sample. A pouch of Quechers salts containing 4 g of MgSO4 and 1 g of NaCl (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) and a ceramic stone was added to each sample. Each sample was placed into a shaker for 15 min and then centrifuged at 3,000 × g for 5 min at 25°C. The supernatant was transferred to a clean tube. To clean the feed extract, 1 mL of supernatant was transferred to a clean-up tube (SpinFiltr, UCT Inc., Bristol, PA). The tube was mixed for 30 s and centrifuged at 3,000 × g for 5 min at 25°C. The extract was further diluted 100 and 10,000 times with a mixture of acetonitrile:water (40:60). Two sets of dilution were prepared in aqueous formic acid 1%-methanol (95:5): 10-fold and 100-fold dilution. The diluted feed extracts were cleaned using solid-phase extraction with Oasis MAX (Waters Co., Milford, MD). Before clean-up, 0.1 mL of the diluted feed extracts was mixed with 0.1 mL of internal standard mixture at 300 ng/mL in aqueous formic acid 1%-methanol (95:5). The solid-phase-extraction sorbent was conditioned with 0.2 mL of methanol followed by 0.2 mL of water. The negative control, quality controls, and samples were loaded on the solid-phase-extraction sorbent and pushed through with a nitrogen-96 processor. The solid-phase-extraction sorbent was washed with 0.2 mL of aqueous ammonium hydroxide 5% and 0.2 mL of water–methanol (50:50). The cannabinoids were eluted with 0.15 mL of methanol containing 1% formic acid. A total of 0.15 mL of water was added to each well before the analysis, and the plate was covered and mixed for 10 s before placing into the analyzer. Negative controls were prepared using alfalfa pellets. Controls were extracted, cleaned, and diluted using the same methods as the hemp samples.
For cannabinoid analysis, 20 μl of calibration standards, negative controls, and extracted hemp samples were loaded to a 96-well plate. To each well 160 μl of acetonitrile–water (40:60) and 20 μl of the internal standard mixture were added. The plate was covered and mixed for 10 s before placing into the analyzer.
Analysis was performed using an Acquity H UPLC and a TQ-S triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (Waters Corp.). The chromatographic separation was performed with a UPLC column (Eclipse Plus C18, Agilent Technologies) that was 100 × 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm, heated at 55°C. The flow rate was set at 0.5 mL/min, and the mobile phase consisted of a gradient of acetonitrile (B) and water containing 0.1% formic acid (A) as follow: 0 min: 60% B, 6.50 min: 86% B, 7.50 to 9 min: 100% B, 9.01 to 12 min: 60% B. The total run time was 12 min. The injection volume was 5 μL. The data acquisition was performed by electrospray ionization in positive and negative mode using multiple reaction monitoring. The capillary voltage was 3.0 kV, the source temperature 150°C, the desolvation temperature 500°C, the desolvation nitrogen flow 1,000 L/h, and the cone nitrogen flow 150 L/h. The lower limit of quantification was 100 ng/g for cannabinol, Δ9-THC, Δ8-THC, cannabichromene, cannabidiolic acid, and cannabigerol; 250 ng/g for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A, CBD, and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarin; and 500 ng/g for cannabigerolic acid and cannabichromenic acid.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the nutrient analysis and in vitro fiber digestibility are presented in Table 1. The results of the cannabinoid concentrations for the plant materials are presented in Table 2. To the authors’ knowledge this is the first paper summarizing the nutrient concentration, digestibility, and concurrent cannabinoid concentrations of IH plants. The majority of published literature currently focuses on hemp seeds and their concentrations as these are used in human and swine diets. The plant materials presented in this report are cellulose based and most suitable for herbivore diets.
Table 2The lowest level of quantification (LLOQ) and cannabinoid concentration of hemp plants, hemp leaves, hemp flower, seed heads, chaff from seed harvest and cleaning, and extracted hemp flower
| Cannabinoid | LLOQ | Plant sample | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole plant | Leaves | Stalks | Hemp flower | Seed heads | Cleanings | Extracted flower | ||
| Cannabinol, μg/g | 0.1 | 9 | 31 | 4 | 27 | 11 | 7 | 21 |
| Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, μg/g | 0.1 | 186 | 573 | 31 | 664 | 275 | 158 | 301 |
| Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A, μg/g | 0.25 | 626 | 4,609 | 119 | 3,379 | 1,228 | 458 | 16 |
| Δ8-Tetrahydrocannabinol, μg/g | 0.1 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Cannabichromene, μg/g | 0.1 | 192 | 417 | 49 | 513 | 68 | 140 | ND |
| Cannabidiol, μg/g | 0.25 | 721 | 3,347 | 132 | 3,509 | 262 | 463 | 8,062 |
| Tetrahydrocannabivarin, μg/g | 0.25 | 30 | 2 | ND | 1 | 303 | 2 | ND |
| Cannabidiolic acid, μg/g | 0.1 | 4,870 | 36,920 | 1,705 | 32,900 | 3,184 | 5,309 | 1,960 |
| Cannabigerolic acid, μg/g | 0.5 | 519 | 1,788 | 362 | 1938 | 285 | 654 | 154 |
| Cannabichromenic, μg/g | 0.5 | 851 | 4,041 | 500 | 2,916 | 411 | 663 | ND |
| Cannabigerol, μg/g | 0.1 | 67 | 293 | 28 | 230 | 23 | 79 | ND |
1 ND = none detected.
Similar to other plants, the nutrient concentration and fiber digestibility are variable depending on the plant part tested. The whole plant and stalk portions tested had lower CP, minerals, and energy compared with the flowers, leaves, and seed heads. The whole plant and stalk samples also had a high fiber concentration with low fiber digestibility. This is expected as the stalk fiber is used in the production of rope, paper, and fabrics. It is noted that the stalk portion contained the lowest cannabinoid concentrations.
The CP concentrations determined in the IH plant samples were greatest in the extracted flower sample at 24.5% and least in the stalks at 5.3%. The available CP present in the plant samples ranged from 21.4% in the extracted flower to 3.5% in the stalks. The protein bound to the ADF portion ranged from 11.8 to 35%.
Lan et al., 2019.
investigated the composition of IH seeds grown in North Dakota. They found dehulled hemp seeds to have CP ranging from 32.7 to 35.9% DM and oil concentrations from 24.3 to 28.1% DM. Furthermore, they found no association of crop year to the protein and oil concentration of hemp seeds.The NDF digestibility and in vitro rumen undigestible NDF at 240 h (uNDF) indicate the IH plant and plant parts are relatively indigestible. The seed heads, chaff, and leaves had the lowest uNDF 240-h estimates as well as the lowest ADF concentration. The stalk and whole plant had the highest uNDF 240-h estimates and the highest ADF measure. This was expected given the fiber content in the stalk.
Overall, the lower digestibility values observed had a negative effect on TDN. The energy concentrations as TDN were found to be relatively low compared with other forages. The highest TDN amounts, when adjusted for digestibility, were found in the seed heads, hemp flowers, and chaff. These values are comparable to the TDN of corn stalks, oat straw, or barley straw (
NASEM, 2016
). Thus, hemp plants, even those with greater fat concentration, are poor sources of energy but may serve in rations as a source of fiber. The stalk portion and whole plant had the lowest TDN. With the high ADF and greater uNDF 240-h estimates, the stalk and whole plants would only act as fillers.The mineral concentration of IH plants and the plant by-products in this report are of interest. It is noteworthy that the calcium concentration on a DM basis was relatively high compared with other forages and feeds commonly fed to cattle (
NASEM, 2016
). However, these results should be interpreted with caution given that these data represent results from a single growing season. It could be expected that mineral composition of hemp seeds would be affected by crop year with differences in phosphorus, potassium, iron, copper, and manganese noted (Lan et al., 2019.
). Interestingly, calcium was not affected by crop year in the same study. Bernstein et al., 2019.
found calcium was highest in the leaves and flower parts of hemp plants grown for medicinal cannabis. They report the calcium content of leaves and flower material to be from 20 to above 80 mg/g of DM.Cannabinoids were detected in all plant samples, and their concentrations varied based on location. The only cannabinoid not detected in any sample was Δ8-THC. The psychoactive cannabinoid Δ9-THC and its precursor Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A were found in all plant samples, with the highest concentration in the leaves and flower. However, these concentrations were less than 0.3%, which is the legal threshold for plant materials to be considered IH and not marijuana. The flowers and leaves also had the highest concentration of CBD and the CBD precursor cannabidiolic acid. The leaves obtained for this study were obtained from a drying room where the hemp plants were being held for drying and seed processing.
There have been few studies in canine and swine investigating the pharmacokinetics and clinical effects of cannabinoids. In dogs, CBD reaches peak plasma concentrations at 1.5 h following oral administration and has a terminal half-life of 4.2 h (
Gamble et al., 2018.
). In clinical studies CBD was shown to increase comfort and activity in dogs with osteoarthritis (Gamble et al., 2018.
). However, oral CBD administrated at 2.5 mg/kg to dogs did not reduce seizure frequency compared with placebo controls (McGrath et al., 2019.
). Unlike dogs, the pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids have been studied as a means to determine their toxicological properties in humans. In swine, cannabinoids have a short half-life of 13 and 7.6 min following i.v. injection (- McGrath S.
- Bartner L.R.
- Rao S.
- Packer R.A.
- Gustafson D.L.
Randomized blinded controlled clinical trial to assess the effect of oral cannabidiol administration in addition to conventional antiepileptic treatment on seizure frequency in dogs with intractable idiopathic epilepsy..
https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.254.11.1301
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2019; 254: 1301-1308Schaefer et al., 2016.
). Cannabinoids have also been shown to widely distribute throughout the body, with high concentration in the bile and adipose tissue (- Schaefer N.
- Wojtyniak J.G.
- Kettner M.
- Schlote J.
- Laschke M.W.
- Ewald A.H.
- Lehr T.
- Menger M.D.
- Maurer H.H.
- Schmidt P.H.
Pharmacokinetics of (synthetic) cannabinoids in pigs and their relevance for clinical and forensic toxicology..
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.04.021
Toxicol. Lett. 2016; 253: 7-16Schaefer et al., 2017.
). There currently is no data regarding the feeding of cannabinoids or IH to cattle or other livestock species. Transmission of cannabinoids in edible tissue and milk may be possible if animals are exposed to IH, but there is no published literature on the oral absorption of cannabinoids in ruminants.- Schaefer N.
- Kettner M.
- Laschke M.W.
- Schlote J.
- Ewald A.H.
- Menger M.D.
- Maurer H.H.
- Schmidt P.H.
Distribution of synthetic cannabinoids JWH-210, RCS-4 and Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol after intravenous administration to pigs..
https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X15666161111114214
Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2017; 15: 713-723The US Food and Drug Administration considers IH as a potential adulterant due to the presence of bioactive cannabinoids. Therefore, hemp products have not been approved as additives to any type of livestock feeds. Given the current regulatory status of IH, understanding the cannabinoid concentration of IH plants is needed for cattle accidentally exposed to IH. Additionally, knowledge of the nutrient and cannabinoid concentration of plant and individual plant parts could serve as starting points for studies to investigate the potential use of IH plants as animal feeds. Current knowledge gaps include estimations of the digestibility, oral bioavailability of cannabinoids when fed to ruminants, and pharmacological actions in ruminants including analgesia.
Potential limitations to this study are that the samples collected here were single lots from a single growing season and a single growing site in south-central Kansas. Even with this limitation, these data can be useful to others interested in this research area. The growing season had above average rainfall with average temperatures. Other factors including stage of plant at harvest, soil fertility, and season may influence the nutritional and cannabinoid concentration of plants and specific plant parts (
Pavlovic et al., 2019.
). The variety and target end use of the IH or what process yielded the by-product would be important to know. Because cannabinoid concentration can vary within the same field and fluctuate based on the plant maturity, it would be prudent to further study these properties to address IH uses.The results of the present study provide a first report evaluating the nutrient concentrations and concurrent cannabinoid concentrations in plant materials obtained from IH. Changing regulations regarding the cultivation and distribution of IH materials have increased interest in the use of IH as a novel agricultural commodity. Therefore, knowledge of the composition of IH plant materials is important to assist livestock producers and the research community in investigating the potential use of IH as a livestock feed.
APPLICATIONS
These results provide one of the first published descriptions of the nutrient and cannabinoid concentration of industrial hemp. These findings will assist livestock producers in using industrial hemp in animal feeds through consideration of both the nutritional and cannabinoid concentrations in the ration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this work was provided by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2020-67030-31479 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Coetzee and Kleinhenz are supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants no. #2017-67015-27124, 2020-67015-31540, and 2020-67015-31546 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
LITERATURE CITED
AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA.
- Impact of N, P, K, and humic acid supplementation on the chemical profile of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L)..https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00736Front. Plant Sci. 2019; 10: 736
- Effect of cereal grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows through a meta-analysis..https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5932J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96: 533-550
- Pharmacokinetics, safety, and clinical efficacy of cannabidiol treatment in osteoarthritic dogs..https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00165Front. Vet. Sci. 2018; 5: 165
- Modification of a rumen fluid priming technique for measuring in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility..https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1745J. Dairy Sci. 2009; 92: 3842-3848
- Genotype × environmental effects on yielding ability and seed chemical composition of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) varieties grown in North Dakota, USA..https://doi.org/10.1002/aocs.12291J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2019; 96: 1417-1425
- Validation of an in vitro model for predicting rumen and total-tract fiber digestibility in dairy cows fed corn silages with different in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibilities at 2 levels of dry matter intake..https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8661J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98: 574-585
- Randomized blinded controlled clinical trial to assess the effect of oral cannabidiol administration in addition to conventional antiepileptic treatment on seizure frequency in dogs with intractable idiopathic epilepsy..https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.254.11.1301J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2019; 254: 1301-1308
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 10.17226/9825.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 8th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 10.17226/19014.
- Phytochemical and ecological analysis of two varieties of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) grown in a mountain environment of Italian Alps..https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01265Front. Plant Sci. 2019; 10: 1265
- Distribution of synthetic cannabinoids JWH-210, RCS-4 and Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol after intravenous administration to pigs..https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X15666161111114214Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2017; 15: 713-723
- Pharmacokinetics of (synthetic) cannabinoids in pigs and their relevance for clinical and forensic toxicology..https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.04.021Toxicol. Lett. 2016; 253: 7-16
Small, E., and D. Marcus. 2002. Hemp: A new crop with new uses for North America. Pages 284–326 in Trends in New Crops and New Uses. J. Janick and A. Whipkey, ed. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.
- Establishment of a domestic hemp production program, final rule. 7CFR Part 990..Fed. Resist. 2019; 84: 58522-58564
Zhang, X., J. P. Danaceau, and E. E. Chambers. 2016. Quantitative Analysis of THC and its Metabolites in Plasma Using Oasis PRiME HLB for Toxicology and Forensic Laboratories. Water Inc. Application Note APNT134916779. Accessed Apr. 10, 2020. https://www.waters.com/waters/library.htm?locale=en_US&lid=134916779.
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
June 15,
2020
Received:
April 13,
2020
Footnotes
One author has served as a consultant for Intervet-Schering Plough Animal Health (now Merck Animal Health), Bayer Animal Health, Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica, Zoetis Animal Health, and Norbrook Laboratories Ltd. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists. Published by Elsevier Inc.
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy
