Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:51:53.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses to oral methionine supplementation in sheep fed on kale (Brassica oleracea) diets containing S-methyl-L-cysteine sulphoxide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

T. N. Barry  and
T. R. Manley
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Invermay Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Mosgiel, New Zealand
T. R. Manley
Affiliation:
Invermay Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Mosgiel, New Zealand
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. Responses to twice-weekly oral supplementation with 4.0 g methionine were measured with lambs (27 kg) grazing kale (Brassica oleracea) for 10 weeks (Expt 1). In a second experiment with sheep fed on kale at hourly intervals, rumen fractional outflow rates of CrEDTA and ruthenium Tris(1, 10 phenanthroline) markers were measured from the rates of decline in their concentrations. Rumen turnover of S-methyl-L-cysteine sulphoxide (SMCO) and of carbohydrate (CHO) constituents were also measured. The kale fed contained 11.4 g SMCO/kg dry matter and the ratio, readily-fermentable: structural CHO was high at 2.9.

2. Severe haemolytic anaemia, associated with low live-weight gain (LWG), occurred in the lambs during the initial 5 weeks of grazing, due to rumen fermentation of SMCO. Oral methionine supplementation raised plasma concentrations of methionine and cysteine, increased wool growth rate, and increased LWG during the initial 5 weeks. Methionine supplementation also increased rumen pool and plasma SMCO concentrations, suggesting reduced rumen SMCO fermentation.

3. In Expt 2, rumen degradation rate of SMCO (1.2/h) was calculated to be twice as fast as that of the most rapidly fermented dietary CHO constituents and eight times faster than the rate of water outflow (0.16/h), thus explaining its virtually complete rumen degradation and toxicity in brassica diets. It was estimated that 1.2 g of each 4.0 g methionine administered would have escaped rumen degradation, due to the high rate of water outflow from the rumen.

4. Disappearance rates of CHO constituents from the rumen were as predicted for normal ruminant diets, showing that rumen metabolism of SMCO did not have a depressive effect. Hemicellulose disappeared at a slower rate than the other CHO, suggesting that hemicellulose digestion may be rate-limiting for cell-wall digestion.

5. It is suggested that the responses to oral methionine supplementation can be explained through methionine reducing rumen SMCO degradation, and through a significant portion of the methionine escaping rumen degradation.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , November 1985 , pp. 753 - 761
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Barry, T. N & Drew K. R. (1978). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Manley, T. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R & Duncan S. J. (1984 a). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R. & Millar, K. R. (1982). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R., Millar, K. R & Smith R. H. (1984 b). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Van't Klooster, A. T. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Case, G. L. & Benevenga, N. T. (1977). Journal of Nutrition 107, 1665–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1976). Journal of Animal Science 43, 828–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. Proceedings IV International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Nicol, A. M. & Barry, T. N. (1980). In Supplementary feeding. NZ Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication no. 7, pp. 69–102 [Drew, K. R. and Fennessy, P. F., editors]. Mosgiel, New Zealand: Invermay Research Centre.Google Scholar
Reis, P. J. (1979). In Physiological and Environmental Limitations to Wool Growth, pp. 223–242. [Black, J. L. and Reis, P. J., editors]. Armidale, australia: New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1974). Report of the Rowett Institute 30, 112–131.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar