217 - Acceptability of Hempseed Meal in Horses

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

10:30 AM – 10:45 AM CT

Location: Oklahoma City Convention Center, 201

Presenting Author(s)

Ryon W. Springer, BS

Graduate Student
Tarleton State University
Dublin, Texas

Author(s)

TC

Teighlor D. Cross

Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
PT

Paxton L. Turner

Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
KC

Kallyn S. Ciesynski

Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
LE

Lillian F. Esterl-Byrne

Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
AM

Ashley C. Mason

Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
CT

Caitlan C. Thorne

Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
KG

Kimberly A. Guay, PhD

Associate Professor
Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
KW

Kimberly B. Wellmann

Assistant Professor
Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX
TJ

Trinette N. Jones, PhD

Associate Professor
Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX

Abstract: Congress passed US Farm Bills legalizing hemp (Cannabis sativa L.), after which hemp-farming increased, resulting in an abundance of hemp by-products, like hempseed meal (HSM). As such, HSM must be evaluated as a potential animal feedstuff. A study was designed to evaluate the acceptability of HSM over time in horses, using 6 stock-type geldings (11.5 ± 3.4yr, 539.6 ± 31.9kg, BCS 6). Horses were offered 1 kg of HSM pellets over two 5-min periods, 1 h apart each day, and offered 1 kg of Coastal Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) hay between offerings. Horses remained on a commercial ration during a 1-d feeding-pattern acclimation prior to the 6-d trial. Data (mean ± SEM) were analyzed using a Repeated Measures ANOVA within R Statistical Program. One horse was removed from the study due to complete diet refusal. Intake of HSM on d1 (0.287 ± 0.081kg; P = 0.062), d2 (0.378 ± 0.084kg; P = 0.07), and d3 (0.446 ± 0.087; P = 0.077) tended to be lower than d5 (0.695 ± 0.071 kg). Similarly, d1 (P = 0.043), d2 (P = 0.036), and d3 (P = 0.048) were less than d6 (0.652 ± 0.064 kg). Day 4 (0.530 ± 0.09 kg) tended to be less than d5 (P = 0.09), but there was no difference between d5 and d6 (P = 0.73). Hay consumption was greater on d1 (0.702 ± 0.026kg; P = 0.003) and d2 (0.723 ± 0.041kg; p = 0.001) than d6 (0.410 ± 0.051kg). Hay consumption and HSM intake were not correlated (R² = 0.001), but the proportions of HSM consumed between feedings were highly correlated (R² = 0.947), increasing at 0.4 of Feeding 1. These findings indicate that HSM consumption increases after 4 days of exposure but is not impacted by hay consumption.