Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:07:00.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The stimulatory effect of the organic sulfur supplement, mercaptopropane sulfonic acid on cellulolytic rumen microorganisms and microbial protein synthesis in cattle fed low sulfur roughages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

C. S. McSweeney ,
S. E. Denman ,
L. L. Conlan ,
C. S. Prasad ,
S. Anandan ,
M. Chandrasekharaiah  and
K. T. Sampath
C. S. McSweeney*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Livestock Industries, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia
S. E. Denman
Affiliation:
CSIRO Livestock Industries, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia
L. L. Conlan
Affiliation:
CSIRO Livestock Industries, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia
C. S. Prasad
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore 560030, India
S. Anandan
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore 560030, India
M. Chandrasekharaiah
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore 560030, India
K. T. Sampath
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore 560030, India
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two metabolism trials (experiments 1 and 2) were conducted to examine the effect of the organic S compound, sodium 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonic acid (MPS) on feed intake, fiber digestibility, rumen fermentation and abundance of cellulolytic rumen microorganisms in cattle fed low S (<0.11%) roughages. Urea was provided in all treatments to compensate for the N deficiency (<0.6%) in the roughages. In experiment 1, steers (333 ± 9.5 kg liveweight) were fed Angleton grass (Dicanthium aristatum) supplemented with S in equivalent amounts as either MPS (6.0 g/day) or sodium sulfate (9.56 g/day). Supplementation of Angelton grass with either sulfate or MPS resulted in an apparent increase in flow of rumen microbial protein from the rumen. Sulfur supplementation did not significantly change whole tract dry matter digestibility or intake, even though sulfate and MPS supplementation was associated with an increase in the relative abundance of the fibrolytic bacteria Fibrobacter succinogenes and anaerobic rumen fungi. Ruminal sulfide levels were significantly higher in the sulfate treatment, which indicated that the bioavailability of the two S atoms in the MPS molecule may be low in the rumen. Based on this observation, experiment 2 was conducted in which twice the amount of S was provided in the form of MPS (8.0 g/day) compared with sodium sulfate (6.6 g/day) to heifers (275 ± 9 kg liveweight) fed rice straw. Supplementation with MPS compared with sulfate in experiment 2 resulted in an increase in concentration of total volatile fatty acids, and ammonia utilization without a change in feed intake or whole tract fiber digestibility even though S and N were above requirement for growing cattle in both these treatment groups. In conclusion, supplementation of an S deficient low-quality roughage diet with either MPS or sodium sulfate, in conjunction with urea N, improved rumen fermentation, which was reflected in an increase in urinary purine excretion. However, MPS appeared to have a greater effect on stimulating short-chain fatty acid production and ammonia utilization when provided at higher concentrations than sulfate. Thus, the metabolism of MPS in the rumen needs to be investigated further in comparison with inorganic forms of S as it may prove to be more effective in stimulating fermentation of roughage diets.

Keywords

rumensulfurmercaptopropane sulfonic acidroughagecattle
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 802 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Australian Agricultural Council 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock: Ruminants. Australian Agricultural Council, Ruminants Subcommittee, CSIRO Publications, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Barnett, A, John, G, Reid, RL 1956. Studies on production of volatile fatty acids from grass by rumen liquor in an artificial rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science 48, 315–321.Google Scholar
Bull, LS, Vandersall, JH 1973. Sulfur source for in vitro cellulose digestion and in vivo ration utilisation, nitrogen metabolism, and sulfur balance. Journal of Dairy Science 56, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaney, AL, Marbach, EP 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry 8, 130–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Champredon, C, Pion, R, Basson, WD 1976. Comparison of the digestive utilization of methionine, of its hydroxylated analog, and of sodium sulfate in goats using 35S compounds. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, Série D: Sciences Naturelles 282, 743–746.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, XB, Gomes, MJ 1992. Estimation of microbial protein supply to sheep and cattle based on urinary excretion of purine derivatives – an overview of the technical details. International Feed Resources Unit, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, UK. Occasional Publication.Google Scholar
Chen, XB, Hovell, FDDeB, Orskov, ER, Brown, DS 1990. Excretion of purine derivatives by ruminants: effect of exogenous nucleic acid supply on purine derivative excretion by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 63, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, EJ 1962. Microdiffusion analysis and volumetric error, 5th edition. University Press, Glasgow, Scotland, pp. 98–110.Google Scholar
Denman, SE, McSweeney, CS 2006. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbial Ecology 58, 572–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firkins, JL, Hristov, AN, Hall, MB, Varga, GA, St-Pierre, NR 2006. Integration of ruminal metabolism in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, E31–E51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil, LA, Shirley, RL, Moore, JE 1973. Effect of methionone hydroxy analog on growth, amino acid content, and catabolic products of glucolytic rumen bacteria in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 56, 757–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agriculture handbook 379. ARS, USDA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Gordon, GLR 1985. The potential for manipulation of rumen fungi. Reviews in Rural Science 6, 124–128.Google Scholar
Kahlon, TS, Meiske, JC, Goodrich, RD 1975. Sulfur metabolism in ruminants. 1. In vitro availability of various chemical forms of sulfur. Journal of Animal Science 41, 1147–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandylis, K 1981. Models of rumen sulphur metabolism in sheep. PhD, University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
Kennedy, PM, Milligan, LP 1978. Quantitative aspects of the transformations of sulphur in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 39, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, SU, Morris, GF, Hidiroglou, M 1980. Rapid estimation of sulfide in rumen and blood with sulfide-specific ion electrode. Microchemical Journal 25, 388–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeniman, NP, Ben-Ghedalia, D, Elliott, R 1976. Sulfur and cystine incorporation into rumen microbial protein. British Journal of Nutrition 36, 571–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McSweeney, CS, Denman, SE 2007. Effect of sulfur supplements on cellulolytic rumen microorganisms and microbial protein synthesis in cattle fed a roughage diet. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103, 1757–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, JA 1975. Sulphur in Australian agriculture (ed. KD McLachlan), pp. 104–116. Sydney University Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Mopper, K 1984. Trace determination of biological thiols by liquid chromatography and precolumn fluorometric labelling with o-phthaldialdehyde. Analytical Chemistry 56, 2557–2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M, Murray, RM, Boniface, AN 1990. Nutrient metabolism and rumen micro-organisms in sheep fed a poor-quality tropical grass hay supplemented with sulphate. Journal of Agricultural Science 115, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onoda, A, Kobayashi, Y, Hoshino, S 1996. Effects of amino acids on the growth of an anaerobic rumen fungus Neocallimastix sp. N 13. Reproduction Nutrition Development 36, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, MW, Gordon, GLR 1991. Growth responses to reduced sulfur compounds of a ruminal fungus, Neocallimastix sp. LM1. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores (ed. MW Zahari, ZA Tajuddin, N Abdullah and HK Wong), p. 26. Malaysian Society for Animal Production, Serdang.Google Scholar
Pisulewski, PM, Okorie, AU, Buttery, PJ, Haresign, W, Lewis, D 1981. Ammonia concentration and protein synthesis in the rumen. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 759–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, MC, Minson, DJ 1978. Fertilizer sulphur as a factor affecting voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time of pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens) by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 39, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, MC, Minson, DJ, Smith, FW 1974. The effect of supplementary and fertilizer sulphur on voluntary intake, digestibility, retention time in the rumen, and site of digestion of pangola grass in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 82, 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar