Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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: 807–820

    Google Scholar 

  • AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Ed Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 631–642

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremner JM (1960) Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J Agri Sci 55: 11–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmester CH, Adams F & Haaland RL (1981) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur-fertilizers on sulphur content of tall fescue and phalaris. Agron J 73: 614–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan MX & Messick DL (1997) The current status of S in Chinese agriculture. Sulphur Agri 20: 71–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox RL, Olson RA & Rhoades HF (1964) Evaluating the sulfur status of soils by plant and soil tests. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 28: 243–246

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 33–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh KM & Kee KK (1978) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur fertilization on digestibility and chemical composition of perennial ryegrass. Plant Soil 50: 161–177

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 129–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallmark WB & Brown LP (1994) Interactive effects of sulphur and potassium fertilization on Bermudagrass hay yields. Sulphur Agric 18: 41–44

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 775–780

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 21–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Mebius LJ (1960) A rapid method for the determination of organic carbon in soil. Anal Chim Acta 22: 120–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Metson AJ (1973) Sulphur in forage crops. Tech Bull 20. Sulphur Inst, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 1100–1105

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1985) Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, 6th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 813–821

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 843–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi K, Lu CD, Owens FN & Lupton CJ (1992) Sulphate supplementation of Angora goats: metabolic and mohair responses. J Anim Sci 70: 2828–2837

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashid M, Ishaq M & Saeed M (1995) Sulphur status of soils and plants in Punjab province of Pakistan. Sulphur Agric 19: 48–53

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnug E & Haneklaus S (1993) Impact of sulphur fertilization on fertilizer nitrogen efficiency. Sulphur Agric 17: 8–12

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 347–355

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS (1998) Standard version. SPSS Inc.

  • Tabatabai MA & Bremner JM (1970) A simple turbidimetric method for determining total sulphur in plant materials. Agron J 62: 805–806

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisdale SL (1977) Sulphur in forage quality and ruminant nutrition. Tech Bull 22. The Sulphur Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 America

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Poland

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • 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: 1107–1119

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiping Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, S., Wang, Y., Schnug, E. et al. 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. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 62, 195–202 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015592423948

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015592423948

Navigation