Advertisement

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 195–202 | Cite as

Effects of nitrogen and sulphur fertilization on oats yield, quality and digestibility and nitrogen and sulphur metabolism of sheep in the Inner Mongolia Steppes of China

  • Shiping WangEmail author
  • Yanfen Wang
  • Ewald Schnug
  • Silvia Haneklaus
  • Jürgen Fleckenstein
Article

Abstract

The influence of nitrogen (N) and sulphur (S) fertilizer on yield and quality of spring oats and the N and S metabolism of sheep was determined. Eighteen crossbred wether lambs (about 30 kg) were fed oats fertilized with N (0, 138 kg N/ha as of urea) and S (0, 30 and 60 kg S/ha as gypsum) assigned randomly to six treatments in an experiment of 2×3 factorial design. On S-deficient soils, S and N fertilization increased dry matter (DM) by 10.5 and 71.9%, and crude protein (CP) yield of oats by 11–13 and 94.5%, but there was no interaction between N and S fertilizer. S fertilization increased S content of oats from 0.14 to 0.29% and significantly reduced the N:S ratio from 14.4 to 7.22. There was a significant interaction between N and S on N content. N and S fertilization significantly increased apparent DM digestibility of oats by about 4%, but did not affect intake (g/kg BW0.75), DM intake being almost 60 g/kg BW0.75 for all treatments. N increased average daily gain of lambs by 62.4–78.6% if S was supplied, being twice the gain without S supply but no interaction between N and S was observed. N retention was affected by interaction between N and S fertilization. N retention and N utilization were positively correlated with S intake. N:S ratio in oats was positively correlated with N metabolism. S fertilization increased N utilization efficiency and vice versa. The critical levels of total S in oats were 0.20 and 0.23%, and the critical levels of N:S ratio were 17.0 and 15.7 for maximum DM and CP yield, respectively. The critical levels of S content and N:S ratio for maximum average daily gain of lambs were 0.26% and 10.5, respectively. Therefore, in the diagnosis of S status in soil–forage–animal systems, the use of total S and N:S ratio in the forage tops for the maximum CP yield is preferable to that for the maximum DM yield because the values are more closely related to the requirements for maximum daily gain of lambs; similarly, the use of a combination of total S and N:S ratio is preferable to the use of N:S ratio alone.

nitrogen sulphur fertilizer spring oats production intake and digestibility of oats N and S metabolism of sheep 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrew CS (1977) The effect of sulphur on the growth, sulphur and nitrogen concentrations, and critial sulphur concentrations of some tropical and temperate pasture legumes. Aust J Agric Res 28: 807–820Google Scholar
  2. AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Ed Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird PR (1974) Sulphur metabolism and excretion studies in ruminants. XIII. Intake and utilization of wheat straw by sheep and cattle. Aust J Agric Res 25: 631–642Google Scholar
  4. Bray AC & Mucha CSD (1984) The use of sulfur and nitrogen retention as indicators of protein balance. In: Baker SK, Gawthorne JM, Mackintosh JB and Purser DB (eds) Ruminant Physiology: Concept and Consequences, pp 227–239. Animal Science, The Univ of Western Aust: Perth, WAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray AC & Till AR (1975) Metabolism of sulphur in the gastrointestinal tract. In: McDonald IW & Warner ACI (eds) Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants. pp 243. Univ New England, Armidale, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremner JM (1960) Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J Agri Sci 55: 11–33Google Scholar
  7. Burmester CH, Adams F & Haaland RL (1981) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur-fertilizers on sulphur content of tall fescue and phalaris. Agron J 73: 614–620Google Scholar
  8. Fan MX & Messick DL (1997) The current status of S in Chinese agriculture. Sulphur Agri 20: 71–79Google Scholar
  9. Fox RL, Olson RA & Rhoades HF (1964) Evaluating the sulfur status of soils by plant and soil tests. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 28: 243–246Google Scholar
  10. Ganeshamurthy AN (1998) An evaluation of sulfur efficiency parameters in soybean and wheat cropping systems in relation to fertiliser sulfur on a Typic Haplustert. Aust J Agric Res 49: 33–40Google Scholar
  11. Goh KM & Kee KK (1978) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur fertilization on digestibility and chemical composition of perennial ryegrass. Plant Soil 50: 161–177Google Scholar
  12. Guardiola CM, Fahey GC, Jr., Spears JW & Garrigus S (1983) The effects of sulphur supplementation on cellulose digestion in vitro and on nutrient digestion, nitrogen metabolism and rumen characteristics of lambs fed on good quality fescue and tropical star grass hays. Anim Feed Sci Technol 8: 129–138Google Scholar
  13. Hallmark WB & Brown LP (1994) Interactive effects of sulphur and potassium fertilization on Bermudagrass hay yields. Sulphur Agric 18: 41–44Google Scholar
  14. Haneklaus S & Schnug E (1994) Diagnosis of crop sulphur status and application of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy for the sulphur determination in plant and soil materials. Sulphur Agric 18: 31–40Google Scholar
  15. Jones MB, Rendig VV, Torell DT & Inouye TS (1982) Forage quality for sheep and chemical composition associated with sulfur fertilization on a sulfur deficient site. Agron J 74: 775–780Google Scholar
  16. Jung GA, Schaffer JA, Stout WL & Panciera MT (1990) Warm season grass diversity in yield, plant morphology, and nitrogen concentration and removal in northeastern USA. Agron J 82: 21–34Google Scholar
  17. Mebius LJ (1960) A rapid method for the determination of organic carbon in soil. Anal Chim Acta 22: 120–124Google Scholar
  18. Metson AJ (1973) Sulphur in forage crops. Tech Bull 20. Sulphur Inst, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Muntifering RB, Smith SI & Boling JA (1984) Effect of elemental sulfur supplementation on digestibility and metabolism of early vegetative and fall-accumulated regrowth fescue hay by wethers. J Anim Sci 59: 1100–1105Google Scholar
  20. NRC (1985) Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, 6th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Panditharatne S, Allen VG, Fontenot JP & McClure WH (1986) Yield, chemical composition and digestibility by sheep of orchardgrass fertilized with different rates of nitrogen and sulfur or associated red clover. J Anim Sci 62: 813–821Google Scholar
  22. Puoli JR, Jung GA, & Reid RL (1991) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur on digestion and nutritive quality of warm-season grass hays for cattle and sheep. J Anim Sci 69: 843–852Google Scholar
  23. Qi K, Lu CD, Owens FN & Lupton CJ (1992) Sulphate supplementation of Angora goats: metabolic and mohair responses. J Anim Sci 70: 2828–2837Google Scholar
  24. Qi K, Lu CD & Owens FN (1993) Sulphate supplementation of Angora goats: sulfur metabolism and interactions with zinc, copper and molybdenum. Small Ruminant Res 11: 209–225Google Scholar
  25. Rashid M, Ishaq M & Saeed M (1995) Sulphur status of soils and plants in Punjab province of Pakistan. Sulphur Agric 19: 48–53Google Scholar
  26. Revell DK, Baker SK & Purser B (1999) Nitrogen and sulfur mobilised from body tissue can be used for wool growth. Aust J Agric Res 50: 101–108Google Scholar
  27. Schnug E & Haneklaus S (1993) Impact of sulphur fertilization on fertilizer nitrogen efficiency. Sulphur Agric 17: 8–12Google Scholar
  28. Spears JW, Burns JC & Hatch PA (1985) Sulfur fertilization of cool season grasses and effect on utilization of minerals, nitrogen and fiber by steers. J. Dairy Sci 68: 347–355Google Scholar
  29. SPSS (1998) Standard version. SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Tabatabai MA & Bremner JM (1970) A simple turbidimetric method for determining total sulphur in plant materials. Agron J 62: 805–806Google Scholar
  31. Tisdale SL (1977) Sulphur in forage quality and ruminant nutrition. Tech Bull 22. The Sulphur Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Ulrich A & Hills FJ (1973) Plant analysis as an aid in fertilizing sugar crops. Part I. Sugar beets. In: Walsh LM & Beaton JD (eds) Soil testing and plant analysis. pp 271–288. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang SP, Wang YF, Chen ZZ & Schnug E (1998a) Effects of S fertilisation on forage yield and quality, and sheep performance and wool quality in Inner Mongolia steppe. In: Schnug E & Fotyma M (eds). Codes of Good Fertilizer Practice and Balanced Fertilization. Proceedings of 11th International Symposium of International Scientific Centre of Fertilizers (CIEC) pp 264–274. Pulawy, PolandGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang SP, Yao YQ & Wang YF (1998b) The sulphur cycling of grazing ecosystem in Inner Mongolia steppe. Acta Agretica Sinica 6: 252–257 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  35. Wang SP, Yao YQ & Wang YF (1999) Sulphur distribution in the compartments of grazing ecosystem and its biological cycling. Acta Phytoecol Sinica 23(supplement): 93–96 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  36. Wang SP, Wang YF, Chen ZZ, Schnug E & Haneklaus S (2001) Sulphur content of soils and plants and its requirement for ruminants in Inner Mongolia Steppe of China. Grass Forage Sci 3 (in press)Google Scholar
  37. Weston RH, Lindsay JR, Purser DB, Gordon GLR & Davis P (1988) Feed intake and digestion responses in sheep to the addition of inorganic sulfur to a herbage diet of low sulfur content. Aust J Agric Res 39: 1107–1119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiping Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yanfen Wang
    • 1
  • Ewald Schnug
    • 2
  • Silvia Haneklaus
    • 2
  • Jürgen Fleckenstein
    • 2
  1. 1.The Laboratory of Vegetation Quantatitive Ecology, Institute of BotanyCASBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science of FALBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations