Forage mineral concentration, animal performance, and mineral status of heifers

grazing cereal pastures fertilized with sulfur.

P F Hardt, W R Ocumpaugh and L W Greene
J ANIM SCI 1991, 69:2310-2320.

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on
the World Wide Web at:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/69/6/2310

www.asas.org

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

FORAGE MINERAL CONCENTRATION, ANIMAL PERFORMANCE,

AND MINERAL STATUS OF HEIFERS GRAZING CEREAL
PASTURES FERTILIZED WITH SULFUR'
P. F. Hardt2, W. R. Ocumpaugh3 and L. W. Greene2
Texas A$M University and Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station, College Station 77843
ABSTRACT

Thirty yearling Santa Gertrudis-sired heifers (average initial weight 238 kg) were
continuously grazed (five heiferdpasture) on six 2-ha oat-wheat small grain pastures for
112 d to determine the effect of feailization of pastures with urea 0vs ammonium sulfate
(AS) on mineral status and performance of heifers. Pastures were fertiiized with either U, at
200 kglha, or AS, at 438 kg/ha, to provide 92 kg of N/ha in November 1987 and March
1988. Ammonium sulfate provided 107 kg of S/ha. Forage samples were collected during
each month. Heifers were initially weighed following an overnight fast and at the end of
four consecutive 28-d intervals (Periods 1 to 4). Serum and ruminal fluid were collected on
d 56 and 112. Pastures fertilized with AS had a greater (P e .lo) in vitro dry matter
disappearance during Periods 2 and 3. Ammonium sulfate-fertilized pastures had greater (P
e .05) S concentrations from January 29 through termination of the trial. There were no
differences in ADG (P e 28) or gain/ha (GPH; P < .43) over 112 d; however, heifer ADG
was greater (P < .OS) in Period 3 and tended to be greater (P < .16) in Period 2 for those
animals grazing U-fertilized pastures. Pastures receiving AS produced less (P < .04)GPH
during Period 2. Ammonium sulfate fertilization in this trial had no effect on forage K, Ca,
P, Mg, Cu, or Mo mineral concentrations or on serum mineral and ruminal VFA
concentrations, but it did result in an increase in IVDMD and a trend for decreased ADG
apparently associated with a decrease in forage intake.
Key Words: Minerals, Sulfur, Small Grains Forages, Heifers, Weight Gain
I. Anim. Sci. 1991. 69231C2320
Introduction

Lancaster et al., 1971; Gilbert and Robson,

Winter annuals are commonly used in 1984a) and plant leaf to stem ratios (Rees et
stocker programs. Fertilization can both in- al., 1974). Response to sulfur in a diet is
creaSe the quantity and alter the nutrient apparently a function of the N to S ratio (Moir,
content of forage. Soils in many areas of the 1970) and the relative availability of S (Glenn
world are deficient in S (Coleman, 1966), and and Ely, 1981; Muntifering et al., 1984). Small
S fertilization of S-deficient soils has the grain forages generally have a high content of
potential of increasing forage yield as well as N, and S addition as fertilizer may reduce the
improving ruminant usage of grazed forage. N to S ratio, thereby improving ruminant
Sulfur fertilization of forage crops has been usage of forage. However, high levels of
shown to increase forage yield (Jones, 1964; dietary S can decrease the availability of other
ingested essential minerals (Goodrich and
Tillman, 1966; Suttle, 1974) and in excess is
toxic to ruminants (Kandylis, 1984). Prelimi'Journal Paper TA. 25749. Reference to a company or nary research (unpublished data) from our
trade name does not imply approval or endorsement by the laboratory has indicated that heifers (n = 9)
Texas Agric. Exp. Sta.
grazing cereal pastures fertilized with urea
*Dept. of ~ n i m .sci.
gained 20% more on a daily basis than heifers
+exas Agric. Exp. Sta., Beeville 78102.
(n = 9) grazing pastures fertilized with
Received September 10, 1990.
Accepted December 10, 1990.
ammonium sulfate during a 141d grazing

2310

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2311

HEIFERS GRAZING SULFUR-FERTILIZED PASTURES

12
11
10
n
E
0

-J

monthly

9
8

-16

q 5
LL

2
- 4
4 3
[21
2
1
J
u
1

A
u
g

S
e
p

O
c
t

N
o
v

D
e
c

J
a
n

1987

F
e
b

M
a
r

A
p
r

M
a
y

J
u
n

1988
Month

Figure 1. Rainfall during 1987 and 1988 and 76-yr mean for the Beeville (Tx) Experiment Station.

period (.72 vs .60 kg/& P = .0242). The ammonium sulfate (AS) at 448 kgha (three
present study was conducted to determine the pastures) in November 1987 and March 1988
efficacy of S fertilization of cereal pastures to provide approximately 92 kg of N/ha at
grazed by weanling crossbred heifers on heifer each application. Approximately 107 kg of SI
ha was supplied by AS on these dates. Before
performance and mineral status.
grazing, all pastures were irrigated equally as
necessary to ensure forage growth due to
Materlals and Methods
inadequate precipitation during this time periThe study was conducted at the Texas od. Soil samples were collected randomly from
Agric. Exp. Sta, Beeville. Six 100-m x each pasture on September 1 following conclu200-m (2-ha) pastures were planted with a sion of the study and analyzed for available N
mixture of wheat and oats in 1987 with a on the TRkALs 800 Automated System and
fertilizer treatment applied randomly. Soils available K, Ca, P, Mg, S, Na, Fe, Mn, Zn,and
within the pastures were predominantly Cu by inductively coupled plasma spedrophoWeesatche fine sandy loam and Panita sandy tomet$ (Welch et al., 1980). Forage samples
clay loam. Annual precipitation averaged over were clipped at ground level in a
a 76-yr period and during 1987 and 1988 is 9.29cm2 area from 10 random sites in each
presented in Figure 1. Phosphorus fertilizer pasture at approximately 144 intervals, beginwas applied uniformly to all pastures as ning January 5 until March 8 and at the end of
the trial on April 21. Forage samples were
diammonium phosphate (112 k o a ) in Sepweighed, dried at 55'C for 48 h, reweighed,
tember 1987 before planting the small-grain
and stored for future grinding. After grinding,
mixture. Pastures were fertilized with either forage samples from each pasture and collecurea (U) at 200 kg/ha (three pastures) or tion date were composited and analyzed for in
vitro dry matter disappearance,N, and mineral
concentrations. Residual forage mass (RFM)
represents
standing residual forage DM present
4Model 3510, Applied Research Laboratories, Fission
Instruments, Valencia, CA.
(kg/ha) and is presented as the average RFM
~

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2312

HARDT ET AI..

TABLE 1. MLNERAL SUPPLEMENT PROVJDED

FOR HEIFERS GRAZING OAT-WHEAT P A S m S
FERTILIZED WITH EITHER UREA OR

AMtvlONIUM SULFATE
Mined cmuosition*

Ca

11.0
12.0
8.0
3.0

3.0

P
NaCl

3 .O

.009
Se

.001

Vitamin A not less than 45,360 USP unitsm,vitamin

D not less than 9,072 USP units@ and vitamin E not less
than 454 USP units/kg.
bgredients were as follows:mowcalcium phosphate,
dicalcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, plant protein
products, salt, sulfur,cane molasses,potassiam chloride,
iron oxide, magnesium sulfate, magnesium oxide, zinc
oxide, iron d a t e , manganese sulfate, zinc d a t e , copper
sulfate. sodium selenite, cobalt, vitamin A palmitate, Dactivated animal sterol, vitamin E supplement, and
ethylenediamine dihydriodide.

of two forage collections approximately 14 d

apart within each period and treatment. Forage
IVDMD was determined by the method of
Tilley and Terry (1963) and N content was
determined by method 334-74NA of Technicon Industrial Systems (1976). Forage samples
were wet digested as described by Sandel
(1950) and analyzed for K, Ca, and Mg
concentrations by atomic absorption spectrophotometry5. Forage P concentration was
determined by the colorimetric procedure of
Fiske and Subarrow (1925), and concentrations
of forage Cu,S, and Mo were determined by
inductively coupled plasma spwtrophotome e .
Thirty Santa Gertrudis sired yearling
crossbred heifers (average initial weight, 238
kg) grouped by weight and randomly assigned
to pastures continuously grazed (five heifers/
2-ha pasture) six oat-wheat small grain
pastures from January 7, 1988 to April 28,
1988. Heifers were weighed after following an
overnight fast on d 1 and at 2 8 d intervals until
termination of the trial at d 112. Consecutive
28-d intervals represent Periods 1 (January 7 to

Model AA6, Varian Techtron pty Ltd., Springvale,

Victoria, Aut.
%ode1 3400. varian Instrument ~roup.palo Atto,
CA.

February 4), 2 (February 4 to March 3), 3

(March 3 to March 31), and 4 (March 31 to
April 28). Blood serum was collected via
jugular puncture and ruminal fluid through a
stomach tube attached to a vacuum pump on d
56 and 112. Supplemental minerals (Table 1)
were provided free choice at 7 d intervals, and
the residual supplement was weighed and
average mineral consumption calculated as
mineral disappearance per animal per 7 d.
Grazer animals were used on a put-and-take
basis to maintain approximately 2,000 kg/ha
forage DM in all pastures, which would
provide an approximate 130 kg/ha increase
over the optimal pasture availability as it i s
related to animal gain (Willoughby, 1958). The
decision to add or remove grazer animals was
made at the beginning of each 28-d period
after estimation of the RFM. Gain per hectare
(GPH) for each 2 8 d period was computed as
([TW/AWJ x ADG)R, where TW = total
weight of all animals within a pasture within a
period, AW = average tester heifer weight
within a pasture within a period, ADG =
average daily gain of tester heifers for that
period, and 2 = number of hectares within each
pasture.
Serum K, Ca, Mg, and Cu were determined
by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Volatile fatty acid content of ruminal fluid was
determined by gas chromatography6 from
ruminal fluid strained through eight layers of
cheesecloth, diluted with 4 ml of 25% metaphosphoric acid/20 ml ruminal fluid, centrifuged at 1,636 x g for 12 min, and then passed
through a .45-pm syringe filter. Concentrations
of K,Ca, and Mg in strained ruminal fluid and
Cu in ruminal fluid prepared for VFA analysis
(soluble Cu) were determined by atomic
absorption spectrophotometry. The colorimetric procedure of F i s h and Subarrow (1925)
was used to determine ruminal fluid P and
serum inorganic P concentrations.
Data were analyzed using the ANOVA
procedure of SAS (1985) for a completely
random design. Analysis of variance models
used treatment, pasture nested within treatment, period, and interaction terms with
treatment effects tested against pasture nested
within treatment. Models testing the effects of
collection date within treatment used pasture,
collection date, and the pasture x collection
date interaction term with collection date
tested against the overall error term. Pasture
was considered to be the experimental unit,

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2313

HEIFERS GRAZING SULFUR-FERTIWZED PASTURES

and means were separated by Duncan's new

multiple range test.
Results and Discussion

Fertilization with ammonium sulfate increased forage S concentrations by 27% (Table

2) on January 15. Forage S concentration
remained greater in AS- than in U-fertilized
pastures throughout the remainder of the study.
The greatest difference in forage S between
AS- and U-fertilized pastures occurred on
February 26 (.71 vs .37%, respectively).
Forage S concentrations regressed over time
followed a quadratic curve with AS-fertilized
forages exhibiting a large increase in S
concentration and an approximate peak occur-

ring on d 53 or February 26 (Figure 2). Peak

forage S concentrations occurred before the
March fertilizer application and indicate the
relationship between plant uptake of available
S and active plant growth as forage S
concentrations declined through the remainder
of the trial, despite the additional S applied in
March.
Forage Ca concentrations were greater ( P <
.07) in U-treated pastures on January 29;
otherwise, there were no differences due to
fertilizer treatment in forage K, Ca, P, Mg, Cu,
or Mo concentrations on any collection date
(Table 2). Collection date had no influence on
forage concentrations of K, Ca, Mg, or S from
January 5 to March 8 in pastures fertilized
with U, whereas plant concentrations of K and

TABLE 2. FORAGE K, Ca, P, Mg, S, CU, Mo, AND N CONCENTRATIONS @M BASIS) OF OAT-WHEAT
PASTURES FERTILIZED WITH EITHER UREA (TJ) OR AMMONIUM SULFATE (AS)
BY COLLECITON DATE

Jan 5

Item
K, %
AS
U

Jan 15

4.59
4.W
f .48

SE

3.62a
3.83'
f .33

Jan 29

Feb 10

Feb26

4.498
4.ma
f .26

3.w
3.43'
f .24

3.73a
3.91'
f 27

.3@

.37c

f .013***

.36'
.41'
f .028

.31bc
.31b
f .030

.32bc
.30bc
f .031

f .Ms

.15
.16

.15
.15

.15
.15

Ca. %
AS

.46&

U
SE

.45'

f .033

p, %
AS
U

SE
Mg,
AS
U

SE

s, 9%
AS
U

SE
P P
AS
U

SE
MOP P

AS
U

SE

.41bc
.4Ia
f .033
.42a
.3ga

.e

.37ab
.37&
f .026

f .015

.17
.16
f .009

.I5
.16
f .006

f .005

.36'
.32
f .027

.42&
.33
f .019**

.58Cd
.31
f .059**

.m
.w*

.33
f .OS**

Mar8
3.71a
3.68'
f .38
.4Oh
.49

.#

f .021

f .029
.28cd
.26'

.32bc
.28c

.m

Apr21
1.40b
1.73b
f .23
.508

54b
f .015
.2l*
.19d
f .008

f .002

.16
.15
f .005

f .007

.71d
.37
f .018*

.53h
.32
f .048**

.31a
.24
f .015**

.16
.16

SE
f .31
f 24

f .023
f .025
-

f .022
f .022

f .005
f .005

f ,045
f .027

14.46
11.60
f 1.16

14.14
14.26
f 1.44

10.91
10.46
f 1.18

11.42
11.79
f 2.62

14.94
16.58
f 2.47

9.74
13.13
f 1.93

10.46
8.68
f 1.01

18.02
15.78
f 1.91

10.68
13.40
f 1.68

11.04
11.42
f 1.46

9.29
11.76
f 3.01

9.42
14.38
f 3.56

14.14
8.88
f 3.82

8.03
10.63
f 1.51

f 2.44
f 3.00

3.12*
3.16*
iN 3 3

3.78'
358'
f .ll

1.81'
1.77
f .05

f .28
f .09

f 1.70
f 1.99

N, %
S

U
SE

3.45&
2.62b
f .11**

3.25ab
3.23ab
f 51

3.21*
2.%*
f .12

2.67b
2.5gb
f .31

qbscMeans within a row wirhout a common supmaipt differ (P < .05).

'Treatment means differ (P c W).
**Treatment means differ (P c .05).
***Treatment means diffa (P c .07).

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2314

HARDT ET AL.
B I)\I
80

75
70

AS = 31331 - 001 1497Y - 000103J9Y7

= 30406 0018036X - OOO02101'3X1

14

2%

R 1 = 695
R2 = 378

42

53

70

a4

98

112

.Julianda\Figure 2. Sulfur concentrations and regression of forage sulfur on Julian day of oat-wheat pastures fertilized with
either ammonium sulfate (AS) or urea 0.

P decreased (P < .OS) and Ca concentrations

increased (P < .05) from March 8 to April 21
in these pastures. Forage concentrations of K
and Mg were not affected by collection date in
AS-fertilized pastures from January 5 to March
8, whereas forage S, Ca, and P concentrations
did exhibit variation due to collection date. As
observed in U-fertilized pastures, plant concentrations of K decreased (P < .05) and Ca
increased (P e .05)from March 8 to April 21
in AS-fertilized pastures.
Regression of forage K, Ca, and P concentrations on Julian days ( X ) resulted in the
following best fit prediction equations: K =
4.014 + .OllX - .0003%, R2 = .69; Ca = .454
- .003X + .ooo03X2, R2 = .53;and P = .389 . W X , R2 = .67. These equations indicate that
forage K and Ca concentrations exhibited a
quadratic curve over time, whereas P concentrations exhibited a linear relationship reflecting decreasing concentrations of K and P and
increasing concentrations of Ca. Forage concentrations of Mg were not affected by time,
whereas Cu and Mo were highly variable.
Increasing forage maturity and(or) rate of
growth is associated with compositional restructuring of plant tissue with accompanying
changes in the concentrations of some plant
minerals. Forage leaf K, P, and S concentrations decrease as active growth declines and as
translocation of plant nutrients to mot systems
occurs with maturity (Martin and Walker,
1966; Greene et al., 1987). However, Ca

concentrations do not follow this pattern and

may increase with maturity, whereas Mg
concentrations are lower in dead tissues and
exhibit less variation due to season (Greene et
al., 1987).
Plant S concentrations are commonly used
as an index of critical levels of S for optimal
plant growth. Critical concentrations of S in
plant shoots have been reported as .25 to .30%
DM in pasture grasses and white clover
(McNaught and Chrisstoffels, 1961), .23 to
.27% DM in wheat (Freney et al., 1978), and
. l l to .13% DM in Wimmera ryegrass,
bromegrass, and barleygrass (Gilbert and Robson, 1984b). Therefore, it is probable that plant
S concentrations in U-fertilized pastures a p
proximated, or were above, critical levels for
maximum plant growth beyond which yield
does not increase and luxury uptake of S
occurs. Furthermore, soil analysis indicated
that all pastures were high in available S
content ranging from 43 to 103 ppm of
available S. Forage growth was not measured
in this study; however, these data suggest that
AS-fertilization did not exert an appreciable
influence on forage growth rate.
Ammonium sulfate fertilization resulted in
greater forage N concentrationson January 29;
otherwise, AS fertilization had no effect on
plant accumulation of N (Table 2). Nitrogen
concentrations of AS- and U-fermized forage
reached maximum levels (P < .OS) on January
15 (3.78 and 3.58% DM, respectively) and

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2315

HEIFERS GRAZING SULFUR-FERTILIZED PASTURES

?:
75
70

65
6C

55
5c
45

43
1

Period

Figure 3. In vitro dry matter disappearanceby period of pastures fertilized with either ammoniUm sulfate (AS)or urea
(v) (n = 12).

minimum levels (P c .05) on April 21 (1.81

and 1.77% DM, respectively). The regression
of forage N concentration on Julian days (X)
indicated a quadratic m e with plant N
concentrations decreasing over time, N = 3.338
+ .OOlX - .001X2, R2 = .58, and, as with
forage minerals, reflected ;he effects of plant
maturity and environmental influences. Forage
N S ratios were not tested statistically; however, N:S ratios were numerically greater in Ufertilized pastures at each collection date.
Analysis of soil samples indicated that all
pastures ranged from very low to low in
available (ppm) P (4 to 17) and Na (41 to 55)
and from high to very high in available N (33
to 40),K (250 to 441). Ca (4,403 to 8,8OO),
Mg (161 to 261), S (46 to 103). Fe (4.01 to
7.91), Mn (2.54 to 8.24), and Cu (.20 to .36).
Concentrations of available (ppm) Zn were
low (.07 to .19) with the exception of one
pasture (1.27) fertilized with AS. Soil pH was
not different between treatments and ranged
from 7.0 to 7.5. No differences due to fertilizer
treatment were observed for soil minerals.
No differences in forage IVDMD within
period were noted for forages receiving either
treatment, and, therefore, IVDMD results of
two collections approximately 14 d apart were
pooled within period and treatment. Forage
IVDMD was observed to be 3.4 and 2.3%
greater for the AS-fertilized pastures in Periods
2 (P < .W)and 3 (P e .lo), respectively
(Figure 3). It is not possible with these data to

identify a cause and effect relationship between higher IVDMD and AS fertilization.
However, it is possible that the higher S
content of forage in AS-fertilized pastures
resulted in an increased IVDMD due to
competition by nitrate for reducing equivalents
(Glenn and Ely, 1981) through a more
available form of plant S for microbial usage
or by an increased plant leaf to stem ratio
associated with decreased defoliation by heifers grazing AS pastures.
There were no differences in RFM due to
fertilizer application on January 5 before
initiation of the experiment, indicating equal
forage availability across pastures as heifers
were placed on trial. Although statistically
nonsignificant due to the large variation among
pastures, AS fertilization resulted in a 19%
numerical increase in RFM in Periods 2 and 3
(Figure 4). Nitrogen losses due to volatilization in U-fertilized pastures may have resulted
in a reduction in forage growth, compared with
AS pastures, although Anderson and Orsak
(1988) and Anderson and Sloan (1988) have
indicated that these losses are small when U is
applied to bermudagrass pastures in other areas
of Texas. It is not possible to determine forage
growth rates with data obtained in this study;
however, the numerically higher RFM observed in AS-treated pastures in Periods 2 (P >
.25) and 3 (P > .18) may be related to factors
other than increased forage growth rate. High
dietary levels of S have been implicated in the

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

HARDT ET AL.

2316

3000
2750
2500
2250

AS

m u

T -

2000
1750

1500

1250
1000
1

Period

Figure 4. Residual forage mass by period of pastures fertilizad with either ammonium sulfate (AS)or urea (v) (n =

reduction of feed or DM intake in cattle

(Bouchard and Conrad, 1973; Bird, 1974;
Rumsey, 1978). Further, the greater IVDMD in
AS-fertilized pastures in Periods 2 and 3
suggests that the accumulation of RFM in ASfertilized pastures was not the result of
decreased defoliation associated with forage
maturity.
There were no differences in ADG (P> .28)
or GPH (P > .43) over the 112d trial.
However. ADG of heifers grazing U-fertilized
pastures was greater than that of heifers
grazing AS-fertilized pastures (Table 3) in
Period 3 (P < .OS) and tended to be greater in
Period 2 (P < .16). Sulfur concentrations of
forages in AS-fertilized pastures during Periods 2 and 3 ranged from .53 to .71% DM and
were higher than the NRC (1984) maximum
tolerable level of .40% DM, whereas S
concentrations of U-treated forages ranged
from .32 to .37% DM during Periods 2 and 3.
These data suggest that the higher concentrations of plant S in AS-treated pastures may
have been a factor in the observed lower ADG
in heifers grazing AS pastures in Period 3.
However, the decrease in ADG for heifers
grazing AS forages in Period 3 is confounded
with the number of grazer animals used per
treatment in Period 3. Sulfur fertilization
resulted in a 19.7% nonsignificant increase in
RFM in Period 3, requiring the input of more
grazer animal units in AS pastures than in U
pastures (average of 5.67 and 2.67 units,

respectively). An increase in stocking rate is

usually associated with an increase in GPH
until forage availability has been reduced to
that point at which diet selectivity is compromised and forage quantity begins to limit
intake. In the present study, U-fertilized
in Period 2
pastures had greater GPH (P< .a)
(Table 3), whereas AS pastures tended to have
a greater GPH in Period 3 (P < .23). The
quantity of forage available for consumption in
AS pastures during Period 3 exceeds the target
quantity of 2,000 kg of standing D M a
described as the point below which individual
animal gain would be expected to decrease,
and should, therefore, have not been a limiting
factor in heifer ADG.
Conclusions relative to intake should be
based on this observation; however, these data
suggest that diet selectivity was the primary
factor limiting heifer ADG in AS-fertilized
pastures in Periods 2 and 3, rather than forage
availability. The observed higher GPH for U
pastures in Period 2 (97 vs 87 kg) when grazer
units were equal across treatments, and when
lVDMD was higher and RFM numerically
higher in AS-fertilized pastures, supports this
conclusion. Further, it should be noted that
heifers were observed to graze AS-fertilized
pastures more intensely in strips near the edges
of fields where a skip in fertilizer application
occurred due to machinery maneuvering.
No differences in GPH or ADG were
observed between heifers grazing AS or U

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2317

HEIFERS GRAZING SUWR-FERTILIZED PASTURES

TABLE 3. AVERAGE DAILY GAIN (ADG) AND ANLMAL GAIN PER HECTARE (GPH) BY PERIOD
OF HEIFERS GRAZING OAT-WHEAT PASTURES (N = 6) FERTILIZeD
WITH EITMeR AMMONIUM SULFATE (AS) OR UREA 0"

Period 3

Period 1

Period 2

AS
U

.46

SE

.12

.98
1.07
.04

1.36d
1.5@
.04

87b (2p
9 7 (2)
2.3

181 (5.67)
149 (2.67)
16

Item

kg

GPH, kg
AS
U
SE

50

31
36
4.3

Period 4

Total 112 d

.74
.70

.89

.94

.os

.05

77 (3)
73 (3)
4.4

376
354
18

"Period 1 =January 7 to February 4; Period 2 =February 4 to March 3; Period 3 =March 3 to 31; and Period 4 =
March 31 to April 28.
b g c ~ e a n s within a column with merent superscripts differ (P < .OS).
+ ~ e a n s within a column with different superscripts differ (P < .IO).
fNumber in parentheses represents average number of grazer animals used per pasture.

pastures in Period 4 when S concentrations of

AS fertilized pastures were considerably lower
(.31% DM) than those observed in Periods 2 or
3 and when RFM was approximately 14%
numerically lower in AS-fertilized pastures
than in U-fertilized pastures. No differences in
RFM, GPH, or ADG were observed in Period
1 when, in contrast to Period 4, S forage

concentration of AS-fertilized pastures was

S O % DM, although GPH and ADG were
numerically higher and RFM was numerically
lower in pastures treated with U. The low
ADG observed across treatments in heifers
over Period 1 is difficult to interpret, but it
may be associated with heifer adaptation to the
forage diet or with adverse environmental

TABLE 4. SERUM AND RUMINAL PLUID K, Ca, P, Mg, AND Cu CONCENTRATIONS OF HEIFERS
GRAZING OAT-WHEAT PASTURES FERTILIZED WITH EITHER UREA 0
OR AMMONIUM S W A T H (AS) ON MARCH 8 AND APRIL 28, 1988

Item

March

Blood serum
A d

28.41
26.97
f 1.22

26.64
25.44
f .s4

f .91
f .%

51.02"
53.85"
f 2.47

37.78b
38.04b
f 2.33

f 3.07
f 2.78

9.12
9.76'
f .IS*

8.92
9.13d
f .20

f .28
f .23
-

1.%'
1.98"
f .06

2.83b
2.61b
f .25

f .I4
f .ll

9.14
8.54
f .45

8.89
8.74
f .33

f .30
f .21
-

.398
.42"
f .02

.34b

f .01
f .01

1.68'
1.76'
f .07

2.03b
2.02b
f .04

f .08
f .06

.36'
.36"

March

SE

Ruminal fluid
ADlil

SE

K, mddl

AS
U

SE
Ca,Wdl
As
U
SE
P, mg/dl
AS
U
SE
M g , Wd

As
U
SE

f .m

.37b
f .02
1.04b
1.mb
f .14

f .07
f .06

a.wdl
As
U
SE

59.04
59.31
f 2.25

54.22
59.23
f 3.09

f 2.23
f 2.85

56.72
64.22
f 11.42

37.69
32.53
f 7.40

QMeans wim a row wib different superscripts m

e
r (P < .01).
*
d within
~
~a nlw with diffcrcnt supcrscripts difftr (P <
*Treatment means differ (P < .05).

.on.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

It 9.35
f 13.87

2318

HARDT ET AL.

100

90
80

70
SO

50
40

30

20
10

0
1

Period

Figure 5. Average mineral supplement inIake @/d) by period of heifers grazing oat-wheat pastures fertilized with
either ammonium sulfate (AS) or urea (v) (n = 6).

influences occurring during the month of

January.
Fertilizer treatment had no effect on serum
K, Mg, Cu, or inorganic P concentrations
(Table 4). However, serum Mg concentrations
were higher across treatments on March 8 than
on April 28 (average of 2.01 vs 1.72 mddl,
respectively), and serum Ca concentrations
were slightly lower on April 28 than on March
8 (9.13 vs 9.76, respectively) for heifers
grazing U-fertilized forage. Serum K, Ca, Mg,
and inorganic P concentrationswere within the
normal range for grazing beef cattle as
observed by this laboratory (Chirase et al.,
1988; Hardt et al., 1989). Serum Cu concentrations in heifers grazing AS- and U-fertilized
pastures were 57.97 and 58.61 pgfd on March
8 and 53.91 and 56.88 ~ddlon April 28,
respectively. These values for serum Cu are
well within the serum Cu range of 16 to 92 pLg/
dl for grazing lactating beef cattle as reported
by Phillippo et al. (1982) but lower than the
range of 78 to 100 pddl for previously Cudepleted heifer calves fed a Cu-adequate diet
as reported by Humphries et al. (1983). Serum
Cu concentrations are not viable indicators of
Cu deficiency in cattle until liver Cu stores are
depleted to values of less than 30 ppm Cu dry
weight (Mills, 1987) and serum Cu concentrations approach extreme values. The moderately
low serum Cu levels observed in this study
suggest that these heifers may have been
marginally Cudeficient, although no clinical
symptoms of Cu deficiency were observed.

Concentrations of ruminal minerals followed the seasonal trend observed for forage
minerals with the exception of Mg (Table 4).
Ruminal fluid K and inorganic P concentrations decreased from March 8 to April 28,
whereas ruminal fluid Ca and Mg concentrations increased (P e .05). With the possible
exception of Mg, mineral concentrations of
ruminal fluid were apparently not related to
blood serum mineral concentrations as the
season progressed from March 8 to April 28.
Ruminal soluble Cu concentrations were numerically lower for heifers grazing AS- (P <
.17) and U- (P e .12) fertiked pastures on
April 28 than on March 8 (Table 4). It may be
that the more advanced forage maturity observed in April, as indicated by the lower
IVDMD and N content across pastures during
April, resulted in a higher forage content of
cell wall constituents, which have been postulated to be associated with the formation of
insoluble ligands with dietary Cu (Gawthome
et al., 1985), thus reducing Cu solubility in
ruminal fluid.
There were no differences due to fertilizer
treatment in ruminal fluid molar percentages of
acetate, proprionate, or butyrate on March 8 or
April 28 (data not presented). However, molar
percentages of acetate were lower and propionate and butyrate higher (P < .OS) on March 8
than on April 28 (.59 vs .70,.20 vs .16, and
. l l vs .08 &/lo0 mM, respectively), reflecting the decrease in forage IVDMD and N
content that occurred as forage matured.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

HEIFERS GRAZING SuLF[JR-l33'IEIZED PASTUFSS

Heifers grazing U-fertilized pastures consumed 72% more supplemental mineral during
Period 3 (91 vs 53 g/d, respectively; P < .02)
and tended to consume more during Periods 2
(P c; .22)and 4 (P < .12)than heifers grazing
AS-fertilized pastures (Figure 5). There is no
apparent explanation for any differences in
supplemental mineral intake. However, the
greater supplemental mineral consumption of
U heifers during Period 3 is probably at least
partially a result of the introduction of more
grazer unit in AS-fertilized pastures during
Period 3. These grazer units may have been
unaccustomed to the mineral feeder or may
have had physiological mineral adequacies
different from those of the tester heifers.
Forage Cu concentrations ranged from 8 to
16 pprn and were greater than Cu concentrations for grasses reported by others (Langlands
et al., 1981; Kubota, 1983). Forage Mo
concentrationsranged from 8 to 14 ppm during
grazing and were at maximum values in AS
and U pastures on January 5 before initiation
of the trial (18.02and 15.78 ppm, respectively). These concentrations of forage Mo are
well above the maximum tolerable dietary
level of 6 ppm recommended by the NRC
(1984)but are lower than the minimum toxic
Mo concentration in fresh pasture of 20 ppm
reported by Ward (1978). Several attempts
have been made to develop regression q u a tions predicting dietary Cu availability using
forage concentrations of Cu,S,and Mo (Suttle
and McLauchlan, 1976; Langlands et al.,
1981). whereas Miltimore and Mason (1971)
have suggested that forage Cu:Mo ratios below
2:l are associated with Cu deficiency. It is
interesting to note that forage Cu:Mo ratios
observed in this trial were at no point greater
than 1.6:1, and were not associated with
clinical symptoms of Cu deficiency.
Fertilization with AS increased forage S
concentrations 27% (.42 vs .33% DM) on
January 15 and 92% (.71 vs .37% DM) on
February 26.These levels of plant S concentrations are higher than expected and indicate that
indiscriminate S fertilization of oat-wheat
pastures can lead to excessive levels of plant S
accumulation, which were of no benefit to
heifers grazing AS-fertilized pastures in this
study and may result in reduced animal gains.
It is not possible from these data to determine
whether the numerically higher RFM in AStreated pastures in Periods 2 and 3 can be
attributed to a stimulatory effect of S on plant

2319

growth or to the loss of N due to volatilization

in U pastures, or whether it is a result of
reduced forage intake by heifers gTazing AS
pastures. However, visual observations indicated that heifers grazed pasture areas where
AS was inadvertently not applied. Soil S
concentrations, as well as plant S concentrations in U-fertilized pastures, indicate that
plants in U-fertilized pastures were not Sdeficient. Therefore, it is probable that the
tendency for increased RFM in AS-fertilized
pastures during Periods 2 and 3, the decrease
in ADG in Period 3, and decrease in GPH in
Period 2 were a result of refusal of forage by
heifers grazing AS-fertilized pastures.
Liver Cu concentrations were not measured
in these cattle, and estimation of physiological
Cu status is not possible. However, the
similarity in serum Cu levels for heifers
grazing AS and U pastures, as well as the lack
of any clinical symptoms of a Cu deficiency,
suggests that the tendency for a reduced gain
response in heifers grazing AS-fertilized
pastures was not a result of a subclinical Cu
deficiency but rather was due to refusal of
forage associated with forage S concentrations
DM.
greater than 4%
implications
Ammonium sulfate fertilization resulted in
a nonsignificant increase in weight gain per
hectare (22 k o a ) over the 112d study.
However, economic analysis of productivity
using a N cost ratio of $1.79:1.00 for
ammonium sulfate:urea fertilizer and current
heifer prices ($1.68/kg)result in an increased
cost of $20.38/ha due to fertilization with
ammonium sulfate rather than urea for this
study. Fertilization of oat-wheat pastures with
ammonium sulfate did not improve anirqal
gains, and the increased cost per hectare
associated with treating oat-wheat forages with
ammonium sulfate compared with urea was
not justified in this study. Further, although
average daily gain was not affected over the
112d trial, caution should be advised when S
fertilization of wheat-oat pastures is considered
without prior knowledge of available soil S
content or of critical plant S concentrations.
Literature Clted
Anderson, W.B. and W. J. Orsak. 1988.Bermudagrassyield
and nitrogen uptake as influenced by source of
nitrogen fertilizer. Ia. Forage Research in Texas.pp

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

2320

HARDT ET AL.

51-54. TAES Res. Bull. CPR-4593. Texas A & M

Univ., College Station.
Anderson, W. B. and J. J. Sloan. 1988. Nitrogen fertilizer
source influence on yield of bemudagrass. In: Fmgc
Research in Texas. pp 55-57. TAES Res. Bull. CFR4593. Texas A & M Univ., College Station.
Bird, P.R 1974. Sulphur metabolism and excretion studies
in ruminants. WI.Intake and utilization of wheat
straw by sheep and cattle. Aut. J. Biol. Sci. 26:1429.
Bouchard. R. and H. R Conrad. 1973. Sulfur requirements
of lactating dairy cows. I. Sulfur balance and dietary
supplementation. J. Dairy Sci. 561276.
Chirase, N. K., L. W. Greene, D. K. Lunt, J. F. Baker and R.
E. Knutsoa 1988. Saum and ruminalfluid characteristics of beef cows grazing oat pastures and supplemented with or without Ladocid. J. Anim. Sci. 66:
1746.
Coleman, R 1966. The importance of sulfur as a plant
nutrient in world crop production. Soil Sci. 101:230.
Fiske, C. H. and Y. Subarrow. 1925. I h e colorimetric
determination of phosphorus. J. Biol. Chem. 66:375.
Freney. J. R., K. Spencer and M. B. Jones. 1978. The
diagnosis of sulphur deficiency in wheat. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 29:727.
Gawthorne, I. M., J. D. Allen and C. J. Nader. 1985.
Interactionsbetween copper, molybdenum and sulphur
in the rumen of sheep. In: C. F. Mills,I. Bremner and J.
K.Chesters (Ed.)TraceElementsinManandAnimals.
pp 346-351. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux,
Slough, UK.
Gilbert, M. A. and A. D. Robson. 1984a Sulfur nutrition of
temperate pasture species. I. Effects of nitrogen supply
on the external and internal sulfur requirements of
subterranean clover and ryegrass. Aut. J. Agric. Res.
35:379.
Gilbert, M.A. and A. D. Robson. 1984b. Sulfur nutrition of
temperate pasture species. II. A comparison of
subterranean clover cultivars, medics and grasses.
Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35:389.
Glenn, B. P. and D, G. Ely. 1981. Sulfur, nitrate and starch
supplementationof tall fescue for the ovine. J. Anim.
Sci. 53:1135.
Goodrich, R. D. and A. D. Tillman. 1966. Effects of sulfur
and nitrogen sources and copper levels on the
metabolism of certain mineralsby sheep. J. Anim. Sci.
25:484.
Greene, L. W., W. E.Finchak and R. K.Heitschmidt. 1987.
Seasonaldynamics of minerals in forages at the Texas
Experimental Ranch. J. Range Manage. 40502.
Hardt, P.F.,L. W. Greene and J. F. Baker. 1989.Production
potential and mineral metabolism of three breeds of
cows in a range/forage based cow/calf production
system. Nutr. Rep. Int. 39:833.
Humphries, W. R., M. Phillippo, B. W. Young and I.
Bremner. 1983. The influence of dietary iron and
molybdenum on copper metabolism in calves. Br. J.
Nu@. 4977.
Jones, M. B. 1964. Effect of applied sulfur on yield and
sulfur uptake of various California dryland pasture
species. Agron. J. 56:235.
Kandylis, K. 1984. Toxicology of sulfur in ruminants:
Review. J. Dairy Sci. 672179.
Kubota, J. 1983. Copper status of United States soils and
forage plants. Agron. J. 75:913.
Lancaster. D. L.,M. B. Jones, J. H. Oh and J. E. Ruckman.
1971.Effect of sulfur fertilization of forage species on
yield, chemical composition, and in vitro rumen

microbial activity of sheep. Agron. J. 63:621.

Langlands, J. P., J. E.Bowles, G. E. Donald, A. J. Smith and
D. R. Paull. 1981. Copper status of sheep graziug
pastures fertilized with sulfur and molybdenum. Awt.
J. Agric. Res. 32:479.
Mamn, W. E. and T. W. Walker. 1966. Sulfur requirements
and fertilization of pasture and forage crops. Soil Sci.
101:248.
McNaught, K. J. and PJ1. Chrisstoffels. 1961. Effect of
sulphur deficiency on sulphur and nitrogen levels in
pastures and lucerne. NZ. J. Agric. Res. 4177.
Mills,C. F. 1987. Biochemical and physiological indicators
of mineral status in animals: copper, cobalt and zinc. J.
Anim. Sci. 65:1702.
Miltimore, J. E. and J. L. Mason. 1971. Copper to
molybdenum ratio and molybdenum and copper
concentrations in ruminant feeds. Can. J. Anim. Sci.
51:193.
Moir, R. J. 1970. Implications of the N S ratio and
differential recycling. In: 0. H. Muth (Ed.) Symposium: Sulfur in Nubition. pp 176177. AVI Publ. Co.
Inc., Westport, CT.
Muntifhg, R. B., S. I. Smith and J. A. Bol~ng.1984. Wect
of elemental sulfur supplementation on digestibility
and metabolism of early vegetative and fall-accumulated regrowth fescue hay by wethers. J. Anim.Sci. 59:
1loo.
NRC. 1984. Nutrient Requirementsof Beef Cattle (6th Ed.).
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Phillippo, M., W. R Humphries, C. B. Lawrence and J.
price. 1982. Investigationof the effect of copper status
and therapy on fertility in beef suckler herds. J. Agric.
Sci. (Camb.) 99359.
R e s , M.C., D. J. Minson and F. W. Smith. 1974. The effect
of supplementary and fertilizer sulphur on voluntary
intake, digestibility, retention time in the nunen, and
site of digestion of pangola grass in sheep. J. Agric.
Sci. (Camb.) 82419.
Rumsey, T. S. 1978. Effects of dietary sulfur addition and
synovex-s ear implants on feedlot steers fed an allconcentrate finishing diet. J. Anim. Sci. 44574.63.
Sandel, E. B. 1950. ColorimetricDeterminationof Traces of
Metals. p 411. Interscience Publ. Inc., New York.
SAS. 1985. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst., Inc.,
Cary, NC.
Suttle, N. F. 1974. Effects of organic and inorganic sulphur
on the availability of dietary copper to sheep. Br. J.
Nutr. 32559.
Suttle, N. F. and M. McLauchlan. 1976. Predicting the
effects of dietary molybdenum and sulphur on the
availability of copper to nuninants. Proc. Nu@. SOC.
35:22A.
Techuicon Industrial Systems. 1976. Method 334-744A.
Techuicon Instruments Corp., Tanytown, NY.
Tilley, J.M.A. and R. A. Terry. 1963.A two-stage technique
for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl.
SOC. 18104.
Ward, G.M. 1978. Molybdenum toxicity and hypocuprosis
in ruminants: A review. J. h i m . Sci. 46:1078.
Welch, C. D., C. Gray, D. Pennington and M. Young.1980.
Soil Testing Procedures. Texas Agric. Ext. Service,
Texas A & M Univ., College Station.
Willoughby, W. M. 1958. The relationship of pasture
availability and animal production. In: Roc. 2nd
Biennial Conf. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2:42.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014

Citations

This article has been cited by 1 HighWire-hosted articles:

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/69/6/2310#otherarticles

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 3, 2014