Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:19:57.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fertilizer sulphur as a factor affecting voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time of pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens) by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

M. C. Rees  and
D. J. Minson
M. C. Rees
Affiliation:
Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, CSIRO Cunningham Laboratory, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
D. J. Minson
Affiliation:
Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, CSIRO Cunningham Laboratory, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens) was grown with or without sulphur fertilizer, cut at seven stages of growth, dried and given to sheep with or without a supplement of 0.6 g S as sodium sulphate/d. Voluntary intake and digestibility of dry matter (dm) and retention time in the reticulo-rumen, of various components of the grasses were determined.

2. Grass grown on the S-fertilized plots had a mean S content of 1.57 g/kg dm compared with 1.03 g/kg dm for the control but there was no difference in the level of other elements. S fertilizer increased the level of acid-detergent fibre and lignin.

3. In the absence of a S supplement, fertilizer S increased voluntary intake by 10.5%, dm digestibility by 0.008 and reduced the period food dm was retained in the reticulo-rumen by 18.5%. Fertilizer S had no effect on rumen pH or volatile fatty acid concentration in rumen fluid, but decreased the molar proportions of propionic and butyric acids and increased those of acetic, isobutyric, isovaleric and caproic acids.

4. Supplementary S had little effect on the voluntary intake and dm digestibility of the S-fertilized grass but increased the voluntary intake and dm digestibility of the control grass by 22% and 0.036 respectively (P < 0.01). Thus the voluntary intake and dm digestibility of S-fertilized grass was lower than that of the control grass when the determinations were made with sheep supplemented with S.

5. It was concluded that S fertilizer increased nutritive value by overcoming a simple S deficiency in the diet when diets contained less than 1.7 to 1.8 g S/kg dm but this benefit was offset by a decrease in the content of digestible neutral-detergent solubles and an increase in the lignin content of the food.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 5 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Andrew, C. S. (1975). In Sulphur in Australasian Agriculture, p. 196 [McLachlan, K. D. editor]. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Andrew, C. S. & Bryan, W. W. (1955). Aust. J. agric. Res. 6, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annison, E. F. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, O. G., Lehmkuhl, A., Johnson, R. R., Hershberger, T. V. & Moxon, A. L. (1954). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 76, 5000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, P. R. & Fountain, R. D. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 95, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, A. C. (1965). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Western Australia, Nedlands.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. P. & Doetsch, R. N. (1954). Science, NY 120, 944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, A. M., Langlands, J. P. & Reis, P. J. (1975). In Sulphur in Australian Agriculture, p. 117 [McLachlan, K. D. editor]. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. & Siebert, B. D. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlands, J. P., Sutherland, H. A. M. & Playne, M. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L'Estrange, J. L., Upton, P. K. & McAleese, D. M. (1972). Ir. J. agric. Res. 11, 127.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Milford, R. (1968). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, R. J. (1970). In Symposium: Sulphur in Nutrition, p. 165. Westport: The AVI Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Rees, M. C. & Minson, D. J. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. C., Minson, D. J. & Smith, F. W. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 82, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendig, V. V. & Weir, W. C. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stobbs, T. H. & Brett, D. J. (1972). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 9, 297.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. H. (1958). Divl Rep. Div. Soils CSIRO no. 15/57.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. F. & Minson, D. J. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 825.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. (1959). Aust. J. agric. Res. 10, 865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar