Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Social Cohesion of a Translocated Pride of White Lions Integrated with Wild Tawny Lions in South Africa, Using Social Network Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Azadirachta indica and Moringa oleifera Leaf Extracts on the Carcass Quality and Fatty Acid Composition of Lambs Fed High Forage Total Mixed Rations
Previous Article in Journal
Hematological Changes in Sika Doe and Suckling Fawn Fed with Spent Mushroom Substrate of Pleurotus ostreatus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Introducing Mediterranean Lupins in Lamb Diets: Effects on Carcass Composition, Meat Quality, and Intramuscular Fatty Acid Profile
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Carcass Traits of Growing Meat Goats Fed Different Levels of Hempseed Meal

1
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL 36088, USA
2
Kentucky for Hemp, Crofton, KY 42217, USA
3
Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(15), 1986; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151986
Submission received: 19 July 2022 / Revised: 30 July 2022 / Accepted: 2 August 2022 / Published: 5 August 2022

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Industrial hemp is currently being investigated as a potential new crop in the U.S. after the passage and approval of the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills. Hemp plants grow efficiently, and its seeds are used in the production of hemp oil, leaving hempseed meal (HSM) as a byproduct, which is reported to be rich in crude protein (CP) around 30–38% on a dry matter basis and fiber, making it a possible feedstuff and a protein source for ruminants. However, limited work has been carried out to evaluate the effects of utilizing HSM as feedstuffs for goats on their carcass characteristics. This study aims to investigate the effects of feeding various levels of HSM on the carcass traits of the crossbred Boer goats. Results suggest that including up to 30% of HSM in the diet of growing meat goats has no adverse effects on their carcass traits and meat quality. These results might be encouraging for the hemp industry as HSM could potentially be marketed and used as an alternative protein source for livestock.

Abstract

Hempseed meal (HSM) is the byproduct of hemp seeds and is rich in crude protein and fiber, making it an ideal candidate as a feedstuff for ruminants. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the effects of feeding different levels of HSM on the carcass traits of crossbred Boer goats. Forty castrated goat kids (approximately six months, 25.63 ± 0.33 kg) were assigned to one of four treatments (n = 10) in a completely randomized design. Goats were fed pelleted diets (50% forage and 50% concentrate) with additional supplementation of HSM: control with 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% of the total diets. Goats were harvested and processed after a 60-day feeding trial. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the mean values of dressing percentages, carcass weights, body wall thickness, and ribeye area among treatments. Marbling scores and percentages of moisture, fats, proteins, and collagen in the muscles showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) among the treatments. Results suggest that including up to 30% of HSM in the diet of growing meat goats does not affect their carcass traits.

1. Introduction

Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is an annual herbaceous plant grown mainly for fibers, seeds, and various industrial products [1]. This variety of Cannabis sativa is legalized to cultivate as it produces 0.3% or less tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) [2]. However, other varieties of Cannabis, such as marijuana, contains 5–25% and shows more intoxicating and hallucinogenic properties [2]. Industrial hemp is currently being investigated as a potential new crop for livestock in the U.S. with the passage of the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills in the USA [3,4] and legalized hemp production and cannabidiol (CBD) products derived from hemp [4]. Hemp plants thrive well, and its seeds are utilized in the production of hemp oil. The remaining byproduct is used in the production of hempseed meal (HSM), which is found to be rich in crude protein (CP), approximately 30 to 38% on a dry matter (DM) basis and fiber, making it an ideal candidate as a feedstuff for ruminant animals [1,5,6,7,8]. Hempseed oil is also abundant in essential fatty acids. It contains 50 to 70% linoleic acids and 15 to 25% alpha-linolenic acids [9]. It contains around 80% polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and essential amino acids, especially arginine [5]. These polyunsaturated essential fatty acids, and easily digestible complete protein properties of hempseeds provide nutritional benefits to humans and animals [10]. It has an ideal omega 6 to omega 3 essential fatty acids ratio for optimal human health [5,11]. These polyunsaturated essential fatty acids can be utilized as another energy source for the animal while potentially improving the immune function [1]. On a DM basis, hempseed meal contains 32.08% CP, 50.79% neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 39.04% acid detergent fiber (ADF), 8.24% ash, and 5.24% ether extract [1]. Studies showed that HSM is an excellent source of rumen undegraded protein [1,5]. Gibb et al. [12] found no detrimental effect on the carcass traits of steers fed 14% full-fat hemp seed (HS). Hessle et al. [6] fed steers diets supplemented with cold-pressed hempseed cake and found no effect on the carcass traits compared to the soybean meal fed steers. There are few studies on the hempseed and its byproduct as a potential protein source for ruminants, especially goats [1,7,12].
Small ruminants such as goats can be vital in production arenas where nutritional resources are limited. Goats (Capra hircus) are small ruminants domesticated for meat, milk, fiber, and skins [13]. The meat goat industry is rapidly growing, and its demand and popularity is increasing in the US with the increase in the ethnic populations and immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East [13]. Goat meat is considered healthier than other red meats [14] because it has leaner protein, less fat, and is high in iron and vitamin B12. It also has balanced amino acids, saturated/unsaturated fatty acids, low n6:n3 ratio, and high conjugated linoleic acid [15]. Carcass characteristics are important aspects of meat quality that help to determine the marketing value of the meats and live animals. So, it is highly significant to the producer and consumer. Meat goat carcass characteristics can be influenced by breed, age, sex, diet, and environment [16]. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of various agricultural byproducts on the different carcass characteristics of small ruminants [17,18,19]. Previous research evaluating the effect of HSM on fresh and cooked characteristics of meat are extremely limited. However, Smith et al. [20] reported no significant difference (p > 0.05) on the fresh and cooked characteristics in the goat meat fed with varying levels of HSM. Limited research has been undertaken on the carcass characteristics of goat meat [21]. So, the objective of the current study was to investigate the effects of feeding various levels of HSM on the carcass traits and the meat quality of crossbred Boer goats during the 60 days trial period.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Animals and Diets

The study was conducted at the Caprine Research and Education Unit of George Washington Carver Agricultural Experiment Station of Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL, USA. All animal handling, care, and sample collection procedures were conducted and approved by Tuskegee University Animal Care and Use Committee protocol number R07-2019-5. Goats were brought from Texas and quarantined for 14 days during which they were provided control complete total mixed ration diet. The goats were individually housed in 1.1 × 1.2 m pens with plastic-coated expanded metal floors. The goats were vaccinated with Clostridium perfringens type C and D-Tetani Bacterin-Toxoid (Bayer Corp., Shawnee Mission, KS, USA) and dewormed with Cydectin (moxidectin; Fort Dodge Animal Health, Fort Dodge, IA, USA) before arrival. Forty castrated Boer cross goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) with approximately six months of age and an initial average weight of 25.63 ± 0.33 kg were randomly allocated to one of four treatments (n = 10) in a completely randomized design for 60 days. Treatments consisted of different levels of HSM: control with 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% HSM supplementation of the total diets.
Hempseed meal was obtained from Kentucky Hemp Works, Crofton, KY, USA. Pelleted diets were prepared at Auburn University Poultry Feed Mill to ensure the goats consume as much HSM as possible by reducing the chance of selective feeding by goats. The complete diet consisted of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) hay, soybean meal, meat maker 16:8 (goat premix), cracked corn, molasses, and HSM at varying rates. Goat diets consist of 50% concentrate mix (as-fed basis) and 50% mixed hay which were offered separately. The goats were fed pelleted diets formulated to meet their nutritional needs. Animals were fed twice a day with ad libitum access to water throughout the experiment. Additionally, each animal was provided with 0.23 kg of mixed hay to aid in optimal rumen function. Feed remnants were weighed twice daily and replaced to ensure animals had constant access to fresh feed.

2.2. Chemical Analysis

The samples of hay and concentrate mixes were separated and collected before the experiment and dried for 48 hours at 55 °C in a convection oven (model 420, NAPCO, Pittsburgh, PA, USA). The samples were ground using a grinding machine (Hammer Mill Model 1250; Lorenz MFG Co., Benson, MN, USA) and sent to the Holmes laboratories, Millersburg, Ohio for analysis. Dry matter, crude protein, acid detergent fiber, crude fat, ash, calcium, and phosphorus were completed according to the methods described by the American Organization of Analytical Chemists [22]. The D.M. concentration of hay was measured at 60 °C for 24 hours, and ash was determined at a temperature of 550 °C for 5 hours. Nitrogen concentration (N) of the diet samples was determined using Kjeldahl N method, and CP was measured by: C r u d e   P r o t e i n   ( C P ) = N i t r o g e n   ( N ) × 6.25
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were calculated using the method of van Soest et al. [23] as utilized by the Ankom Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology Corp., Macedonia, NY, USA). Lignin concentration was determined according to methods described by the United States Department of Agriculture [24].

2.3. Slaughter and Carcass Evaluation

On day 60 of the study, goats were weighed (final weight) utilizing a goat and sheep scale manufactured by Lakeland Farm and Ranch (Clawson, MI, USA) in 0.1 kg increments. Feed and water were withheld overnight before slaughter. The goats were transported and harvested according to the USDA standards at the Lambert-Powell Meats Laboratory, Auburn University, AL, USA. Goats were slaughtered using approved methods of US Department of Agriculture-Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) according to the Humane Slaughter Act [25]. After the slaughter process, the carcass was rinsed with hot water and a 2% solution of lactic acid and weighed using a Static Monorail Scale (Vandenberg Scales, Sioux Center, IA, USA) to determine the hot carcass weight (HCW). Kidney, pelvic, and heart (KPH) were collected to determine KPH fat percentage of the carcass weight using an analytical balance (PB3002-S, Met- tler Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA). Carcasses were then chilled at 4 °C for 24 hours, after chilling, carcasses were re-weighed using the Static Monorail Scale to determine the cold carcass weight (CCW). Dressing percentage (DP) was calculated by the following equation:
D r e s s i n g   P e r c e n t a g e   ( D P ) = ( H o t   C a r c a s s   W e i g h t L i v e   W e i g h t ) × 100
Then, Ribeye area (REA) was determined by measuring the surface area of the longissimus dorsi muscle between the 12th and 13th ribs of the goat carcass using a grid [26]. Marbling scores were measured according to the USDA [27] utilizing beef marbling scores as reference, between the 12th and 13th rib interface. Fat thickness opposite to the loin eye was determined by measuring the subcutaneous fat over the ribeye area (REA) utilizing a caliper after measuring the REA. In addition, body wall thickness was measured approximately 4.5 inches from the midline of the ribbed goat carcass utilizing a stainless-steel ruler. Fresh meat samples were minced twice through a meat-grinding machine; minced meat samples were vacuum packaged and frozen for chemical analysis. The chemical composition of meat samples was determined by utilizing the proximate analysis to determine the moisture, fat, protein, and collagen content according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [28]. Samples for chemical analysis (protein, moisture, fat, and collagen) were conducted using a near-infrared (NIR) approved spectrophotometer (Food Scan™, FOSS Analytical A/S, Hilleroed, Denmark).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedures of SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Treatment served as the lone fixed effect for carcass measurements and physiochemical components. Least squares means were generated and statistical significance (p < 0.05), F-values were observed, and least squares means were separated using pair-wise t-tests (PDIFF option).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Diet Composition

The chemical composition of Bermuda grass hay (BGH) and hempseed meal (HSM) are shown in Table 1, while the ingredients and chemical composition of concentrate mixes are shown in Table 2. HSM is relatively high in CP concentration in the present study, and other studies reported similar values [1,6,7,8,29]. In this study, diets were balanced to be iso-nitrogenous replicating conditions that might be experienced in a production scenario. As the rate of HSM supplementation increased, there was a decrease in total digestible nutrients (TDN) and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC), while there was an increase in crude fat. Fiber content, both ADF and NDF increased as the rate of supplementation increased. Lignin concentration, the indigestible portion of plant material, also increased with the increasing level of HSM. Phosphorus concentration also increased with an increasing level of supplementation while calcium decreased. As the level of HSM increased, net energy for gain (NEg) and TDN decreased, which could potentially induce a difference in growth and carcass characteristics; however, no significant differences were observed among treatments.

3.2. Carcass Characteristics

The effect of different levels of HSM supplementation on carcass traits of goats are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. HSM supplementation showed no significant effect on the carcass weights (p > 0.05) evaluated in the present study (Table 3). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the mean values of dressing percentages (DP) among treatments (Table 3). The values were 46.59, 45.42, 45.77, and 46.16% for diets containing 0, 10, 20, and 30% HSM, respectively, which were higher than that reported by Gurung et al. [18] when Dried Distillers Grain was used with soluble (DDGS) for goats. However, the DP was lower than that obtained when goats were supplemented with peanut skins [30], and grain diets and pasture [31]. The values of hot carcass weight (HCW) were 16.55, 16.37, 15.69, and 15.33 kg for diets containing 0, 10, 20, and 30% HSM, respectively, which are in decreasing order with increase of HSM supplementation but not significantly different (p > 0.05) among the treatments (Table 3). Similarly, the values of cold carcass weight (CCW) of the animals were decreasing with the increase in the levels of HSM supplementation but were not significantly different (p > 0.05) among the treatments (Table 3). The values of HCW and CCW of meat goats were higher than that reported by Ebrahimi et al. [32], whereas they were lower than that reported by Min et al. [30].
The marbling scores (376, 399, 355, 364, respectively) were also not significantly different (p > 0.05) among the treatments and fall on the marbling degree of “Slight (S.L.)”. Flank color and marbling scores were all within the normal range for growing meat goats, as these values are consistent with other values reported by other researchers [17,18,19,30,32]. Ribeye area (REA) was not significantly different (p > 0.05) among treatments with values of 3.68, 3.4, 3.47, 3.39 cm2 for 0, 10, 20, and 30% HSM, respectively. There were no differences in the body wall (BW) thickness (p > 0.05) among treatments (Table 3), with 0.31, 0.30, 0.29, and 0.29 cm for 0, 10, 20, and 30 % HSM, respectively. The results were lower than those of Gurung et al. 2009 [18], reported the BW thickness of 1.09 cm for goats fed with 10.3 % DDGS and 3.9 cm BWF thickness reported by 50 % peanut skins (PS) supplementation on the goats [30]. Similarly, back fat thickness measured opposite loin eye was not significantly different (p > 0.05) among treatments. The values were 0.033, 0.027, 0.032, and 0.025 cm for diets containing 0, 10, 20, and 30% HSM, respectively. The results were lower than the result of 0.8 cm of fat depth for 30% PS supplementation presented by Min et al. [30]. The KPH fat percentage was not affected (p > 0.05) by varying levels of HSM supplementation in the meat goats. These results suggest that varying levels of HSM supplementation have no negative impact on the carcass characteristics of goat meat.
The results reported by Gurung et al. [18] also agreed with the results of the present study that varying levels of agricultural protein by products do not significantly impact carcass characteristics. Furthermore, Abdelrahim et al. [17] fed varying levels of DDGS (12.7 and 25.4% of diet) to growing lambs and determined that the different levels of DDGS had no negative impact on carcass characteristics evaluated in that study. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the moisture, fat, protein, and collagen content of the goat meats among treatments, as shown in Table 4. The percentage of moisture, fat, protein, and collagen were all within the normal range for growing meat goats, consistent with the values reported by other studies [17,18,19,30,32]. Similarly, moisture and protein contents were consistent with the values reported by Sen et al. and Shija et al. [31,33]. However, the fat percentage of goat meat was higher than that reported by previous researchers [31,33]. These results showed that including up to 30% HSM supplementation has no detrimental effects on the physio-chemical attributes of goat meat.

4. Conclusions

Limited studies have been implemented regarding the effect of supplementing HSM on the carcass traits and meat quality of growing meat goats. So, these results suggest that up to 30% HSM can be fed to growing meat goats without affecting the carcass traits. HSM could potentially be an effective protein source for growing meat goats since even the 30% level has no adverse effects. These results might be promising for the future of the industrial hemp industry as HSM could potentially be marketed as an alternative protein source for livestock. Further works are needed to evaluate the effects of HSM inclusion rates on the carcass traits and meat quality of goats.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.K.G., J.T.S.; methodology, J.T.S.; software, J.T.S.; validation, N.K.G., F.W.A.; formal analysis, J.T.S.; investigation, F.W.A., R.G., K.B.A.; resources, K.M., J.T.S., N.K.G.; data curation, F.W.A., J.T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G.; writing—review and editing, R.G., F.W.A., K.B.A., J.T.S.; visualization, N.K.G., J.T.S.; supervision, J.T.S., N.K.G.; project administration, N.K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by USDA/NIFA Capacity Building Grant (Award #: 2021-38821-34716).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Goats used for the current study were cared for under Tuskegee University IACUC (TUACUC) protocol request number: R07-2019-5. All methods of animal handling and care were approved prior to commencing research activities.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is extended to the George Washington Carver Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee University and Lambert-Powell Meat Laboratory, Auburn University with procurement of raw material and processing technologies. Furthermore, the authors are grateful for the support provided by Kentucky hemp works for providing hempseed meals.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mustafa, A.F.; McKinnon, J.J.; Christensen, D.A. The Nutritive Value of Hemp Meal for Ruminants. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 79, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Small, E.; Marcus, D. Tetrahydrocannabinol Levels in Hemp (Cannabis Sativa) Germplasm Resources. Econ. Bot. 2003, 57, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cherney, J.; Small, E. Industrial Hemp in North America: Production, Politics and Potential. Agronomy 2016, 6, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Johnson, R. Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity. Congr. Res. Serv. 2018, 7, 5700. [Google Scholar]
  5. Callaway, J.C. Hempseed as a Nutritional Resource: An Overview. Euphytica 2004, 140, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hessle, A.; Eriksson, M.; Nadeau, E.; Turner, T.; Johansson, B. Cold-Pressed Hempseed Cake as a Protein Feed for Growing Cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A—Anim. Sci. 2008, 58, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karlsson, L.; Finell, M.; Martinsson, K. Effects of Increasing Amounts of Hempseed Cake in the Diet of Dairy Cows on the Production and Composition of Milk. Animal 2010, 4, 1854–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Karlsson, L.; Ruiz-Moreno, M.; Stern, M.D.; Martinsson, K. Effects of Temperature during Moist Heat Treatment on Ruminal Degradability and Intestinal Digestibility of Protein and Amino Acids in Hempseed Cake. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 1559–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Leizer, C.; Ribnicky, D.; Poulev, A.; Dushenkov, S.; Raskin, I. The Composition of Hemp Seed Oil and Its Potential as an Important Source of Nutrition. J. Nutraceuticals Funct. Med. Foods 2000, 2, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Deferne, J.L.; Pate, D.W. Hemp Seed Oil: A Source of Valuable Essential Fatty Acids. J. Int. Hemp Assoc. 1996, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  11. Oomah, B.D.; Busson, M.; Godfrey, D.V.; Drover, J.C.G. Characteristics of Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) Seed Oil. Food Chem. 2002, 76, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gibb, D.J.; Shah, M.A.; Mir, P.S.; Mcallister, T.A.; Mir, M.A.; Mcallister, P.S. Effect of Full-Fat Hemp Seed on Performance and Tissue Fatty Acids of Feedlot Cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 85, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Osti, S.; Gillespie, J.; Nyaupane, N.P.; McMillan, K. Meat Goat Production in the United States: Adoption of Technologies, Management Practices, and Production Systems. J. ASFMRA 2016, 2015, 116–129. [Google Scholar]
  14. Anaeto, M.; Adeyeye, J.; Chioma, G.; Olarinmoye, A.; Tayo, G. Goat Products: Meeting the Challenges of Human Health and Nutrition. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2010, 1, 1231–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chin, S.F.; Liu, W.; Storkson, J.M.; Ha, Y.L.; Pariza, M.W. Dietary Sources of Conjugated Dienoic Isomers of Linoleic Acid, a Newly Recognized Class of Anticarcinogens. J. Food Compos. Anal. 1992, 5, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Irshad, A.; Gurunathan, K.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; MR, V.; Shukla, V. Factors Influencing Carcass Composition of Livestock: A Review. J. Anim. Prod. Adv. 2013, 3, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Abdelrahim, G.M.; Khatiwada, J.; Gurung, N.K. Effects of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles on Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Lamb. J. Anim. Res. Technol. 2017, 1, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gurung, N.K.; Solaiman, S.G.; Rankins, D.L.; McElhenney, W.H. Effects of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles on Feed Intake, Growth Performance, Gain Efficiency and Carcass Quality of Growing Kiko x Spanish Male Goats. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2009, 8, 2087–2093. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hatamleh, S.M.; Obeidat, B.S. Growth Performance and Carcass Traits Responses to Dried Distillers’ Grain with Solubles Feeding of Growing Awassi Ram Lambs. Animals 2019, 9, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Smith, H.R.; Abrahamsen, F.W.; Rehm, J.G.; Wilborn, B.; Blythe, E.; Sawyer, J.T.; Gurung, N. PSV-31 Influence of Hempseed Meal Supplementation on Fresh and Cooked Characteristics of Boer Cross Goats. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Asif Arain, M.; Khaskheli, M.; Rajput, I.R.; Faraz, S.; Rao, S.; Umer, M.; Devrajani, K. Effect of Slaughtering Age on Chemical Composition of Goat Meat. Pak. J. Nutr. 2010, 9, 404–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; American Organization of Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. USDA. Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications). USDA Agric. Handb. 1970, 379, 9–11. [Google Scholar]
  25. USDA. Humane Handling of Livestock and Poultry; Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
  26. Yáñez, E.A.; Ferreira, A.C.D.; Medeiros, A.N.; Pereira Filho, J.M.; Teixeira, I.A.M.A.; Resende, K.T. Methodologies for Ribeye Area Determination in Goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2006, 66, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. USDA. Institutional Meat Purchased Specifications for Fresh Goat; Series 11; Meat Grading Certification Branch; USDA, MRP, AMF, Livestock and Seed Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  28. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  29. Iannaccone, M.; Ianni, A.; Contaldi, F.; Esposito, S.; Martino, C.; Bennato, F.; de Angelis, E.; Grotta, L.; Pomilio, F.; Giansante, D.; et al. Whole Blood Transcriptome Analysis in Ewes Fed with Hemp Seed Supplemented Diet. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Min, B.R.; Frank, A.; Gurung, N.; Lee, J.H.; Joo, J.W.; Pacheco, W. Peanut Skin in Diet Alters Average Daily Gain, Ruminal and Blood Metabolites, and Carcass Traits Associated with Haemonchus Contortus Infection in Meat Goats. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 5, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sen, A.R.; Santra, A.; Karim, S.A. Carcass Yield, Composition and Meat Quality Attributes of Sheep and Goat under Semiarid Conditions. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ebrahimi, M.; Rajion, M.A.; Jafari, S.; Faseleh Jahromi, M.; Oskoueian, E.; Qurni Sazili, A.; Goh, Y.M.; Ghaffari, M.H. Effects of Dietary N-6: N-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Ratios on Meat Quality, Carcass Characteristics, Tissue Fatty Acid Profiles, and Expression of Lipogenic Genes in Growing Goats. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0188369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shija, D.S.; Mtenga, L.A.; Kimambo, A.E.; Laswai, G.H.; Mushi, D.E.; Mgheni, D.M.; Mwilawa, A.J.; Shirima, E.J.M.; Safari, J.G. Chemical Composition and Meat Quality Attributes of Indigenous Sheep and Goats from Traditional Production System in Tanzania. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 26, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Chemical composition of Bermuda grass hay (BGH) and hempseed meal (HSM) used in the experiment.
Table 1. Chemical composition of Bermuda grass hay (BGH) and hempseed meal (HSM) used in the experiment.
a ItemsDiet
BGHHSM
Dry Matter (%)95.8589.61
Crude Protein (%)9.5836.42
Acid detergent fiber (%)42.8236.47
Neutral detergent fiber (%)70.9949.47
Lignin (%)6.6812.76
Crude Fat (%)1.2311.53
Total digestible nutrients (%)55.1363.22
Net energy for gain (Mcal/lb)0.2660.377
Ash (%)4.795.82
Calcium (%)0.260.23
Phosphorus (%)0.171.03
a Values are presented on a dry matter basis, except dry matter. Source: Holmes Laboratory Inc., Millersburg, OH 44654, USA.
Table 2. Ingredients and nutrient composition of the experimental diets fed to Boer crossbred meat goats.
Table 2. Ingredients and nutrient composition of the experimental diets fed to Boer crossbred meat goats.
Items aDiets
0% HSM10% HSM20% HSM30% HSM
Ingredients, as-fed basis
Bermuda Grass Hay (%)50505050
Cracked Corn (%)282418.514
Soybean Meal (%)18.51382.5
Molasses (%)2.52.52.52.5
b Goat Premix (%)1111
Nutrient composition, DM basis
Dry Matter (%)89.0688.6689.189.86
Crude Protein (%)19.1819.9119.2520.39
Lignin (%)3.344.776.217.02
Acid Detergent Fiber (%)21.0624.6728.9630.97
Neutral Detergent Fiber (%)33.2935.1839.6342.8
Non-Fiber Carbohydrate (%)40.6437.835.3831.9
Acid Hydrolysis Fat (%)3.193.324.224.5
Total Digestible Nutrients (%)71.269.264.762.79
Net Energy for gain (Mcal/lb)0.4810.4560.3970.372
Ash (%)7.027.017.096.79
Calcium (%)0.950.920.880.82
Phosphorus (%)0.390.410.480.52
a Values are presented on a dry matter basis, except DM. b Goat premix (%): Ca 9.0, P 8.0, salt 41.0, K 0.1, Mg 1.0; (ppm) Cu 1750, Se 25.0, Zn 7500 and (IU kg−1) Vitamin A 3,08,644, Vitamin D 24,251, and Vitamin E 1653.
Table 3. Effects of varying levels of HSM supplementation on the carcass yields and quality measurements of meat goats.
Table 3. Effects of varying levels of HSM supplementation on the carcass yields and quality measurements of meat goats.
ItemsTreatment, %SEMp-Value
0102030
Dressing Percent, % 46.5945.4345.7746.170.5100.107
Hot carcass weight, kg16.5516.3715.6915.330.420.153
Cold carcass weight, kg16.4216.0915.5115.150.4180.152
Ribeye Area, cm23.683.403.473.390.1190.297
Fat Thickness Opposite Loin Eye, cm0.0330.0270.0320.0250.0040.556
Body Wall Thickness, cm0.310.300.290.290.0360.975
Kidney, Pelvic, Heart Fat, %2.202.702.602.450.2950.656
Marbling score *37639935536416.50.278
* Means based on USDA (2001) marbling scores where 100 = practically devoid (Standard), 200 = traces (Standard+/0), 300 = slight (Select+/−), 400 = small (Choice), 500 = modest (Choice0), 600 = moderate (Choice+), 700 = slightly abundant (Prime) and 800 = moderately abundant (Prime0). SEM = standard error of mean.
Table 4. Physio-chemical attributes of goat meats supplemented with varying levels of HSM.
Table 4. Physio-chemical attributes of goat meats supplemented with varying levels of HSM.
Meat Quality TraitsTreatment, %SEM p-Value
0102030
Moisture, %71.2872.8271.2473.580.7570.087
Fat, %13.6911.4913.6810.181.0690.065
Protein, %22.9522.9623.0923.720.3830.446
Collagen, %2.532.312.522.290.0750.056
SEM = standard error of mean.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gurung, R.; Ale, K.B.; Abrahamsen, F.W.; Moyer, K.; Sawyer, J.T.; Gurung, N.K. Carcass Traits of Growing Meat Goats Fed Different Levels of Hempseed Meal. Animals 2022, 12, 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151986

AMA Style

Gurung R, Ale KB, Abrahamsen FW, Moyer K, Sawyer JT, Gurung NK. Carcass Traits of Growing Meat Goats Fed Different Levels of Hempseed Meal. Animals. 2022; 12(15):1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151986

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gurung, Reshma, Khim B. Ale, Frank W. Abrahamsen, Katie Moyer, Jason T. Sawyer, and Nar K. Gurung. 2022. "Carcass Traits of Growing Meat Goats Fed Different Levels of Hempseed Meal" Animals 12, no. 15: 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151986

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop