Sulphur. What do you think of this ?

[Kingfisher]

Abstract: To analyze the sulfur content of water and forage samples from a geographically diverse sample of beef cow-calf operations in the United States and to estimate frequency and distribution of premises where forage and water resources could result in consumption of hazardous amounts of sulfur by cattle. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE POPULATION: 709 forage samples from 678 beef cow-calf operations and individual water samples from 498 operations in 23 states. PROCEDURE: Sulfur content of forage samples and sulfate concentration of water samples were measured. Total sulfur intake was estimated for pairs of forage and water samples. RESULTS: Total sulfur intake was estimated for 454 pairs of forage and water samples. In general, highest forage sulfur contents did not coincide with highest water sulfate concentrations. Overall, 52 of the 454 (11.5%) sample pairs were estimated to yield total sulfur intake (as a percentage of dry matter) > or = 0.4%, assuming water intake during conditions of high ambient temperature. Most of these premises were in north-central (n = 19) or western (19) states. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that on numerous beef cow-calf operations throughout the United States, consumption of forage and water could result in excessively high sulfur intake. All water sources and dietary components should be evaluated when assessing total sulfur intake. Knowledge of total sulfur intake may be useful in reducing the risk of sulfur associated health and performance problems in beef cattle.

Keywords: feed, food contamination, sulfur analysis, water chemistry, disease, prevention and control, sulfur, adverse effects, USA.

I came across it doing some research. I have not seen the subject touched upon here and just wonder what ya'll think.

 

[tsmaxx47]

in my opinion, the sample population is low. if the sulphur content of forage and water samples was an estimate, i don't see the point in conducting the research. also it would be more meaningful if the "comparisions" were replaced by correlation coefficients. just my opinion....

 

[Kingfisher]

Gould, D.H.; Dargatz, D.A.; Garry, F.B.; Hamar, D.W.; Ross, P.F.; et al. (2002). Potentially hazardous sulfur conditions on beef cattle ranches in the United States. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221 (5): 673-7, ISSN: 0003-1488.

 

[tsmaxx47]

kf, thanx for the additional info; i would still like to know why the populations were so low and why no use of soil samples were used in the work; a potentially great consequence than the forage itself since no breakdown in the type of forage is mentioned. i cannot comment further without access to the paper as there seems to be much information missing.....sorry.

 

[Howdyjabo]

Iowa State just had a real good webcast on Sulfur based on Distillers use. It was very interesting and they are supposed to post it to their website at some point for those that missed it.

 

[novaman]

I realize my part of the world is different from most others but I have high sulfur levels in my water. Forages typically test out around average for S content. I never worry about the amount of S a critter is consuming unless they are being fed distillers. I've been told by the mineral expert in MY AREA that adding sulfur to the mineral mix is not necessary. He recommended that no one use the yellow salt blocks (contain sulfur). It was his opinion that sulfur intake was more than adequate with normal feed and water intake and that supplementing could lead to problems.

 

[TexasBred]

I realize my part of the world is different from most others but I have high sulfur levels in my water. Forages typically test out around average for S content. I never worry about the amount of S a critter is consuming unless they are being fed distillers. I've been told by the mineral expert in MY AREA that adding sulfur to the mineral mix is not necessary. He recommended that no one use the yellow salt blocks (contain sulfur). It was his opinion that sulfur intake was more than adequate with normal feed and water intake and that supplementing could lead to problems.

Sulfur salt blocks are probably highest source of sulfur around if you're not feeding distillers. Only time sulfur might need to be supplemented is when using urea in feed.

 

[Santas and Duhram Reds]

I realize my part of the world is different from most others but I have high sulfur levels in my water. Forages typically test out around average for S content. I never worry about the amount of S a critter is consuming unless they are being fed distillers. I've been told by the mineral expert in MY AREA that adding sulfur to the mineral mix is not necessary. He recommended that no one use the yellow salt blocks (contain sulfur). It was his opinion that sulfur intake was more than adequate with normal feed and water intake and that supplementing could lead to problems.

Sulfur salt blocks are probably highest source of sulfur around if you're not feeding distillers. Only time sulfur might need to be supplemented is when using urea in feed.

TB, can I ask why sulfur might be needed with urea.

I have gone round and round with dad about the use of sulfur blocks. He believes sulfur is an age old remedy for a lot of things and believes it helps with fly control, I disagree and do not buy the stuff. But if there is a legitimate reason for buying sulfur, I would like to know.

I hate buying lick tubs and refused to do it this year but when I did buy them I bought natural protein. I went ahead and bought some urea mineral blocks from Ragland Mills to try them instead of tubs. I have been very pleased with them in that the cattle do not go through them nearly as fast and salt seems to be the biggest limiter in their intake. I actually may have bought more than I will need this winter and am extremely pleased with the consumption rate as well as the effects it has had on my pocketbook. I predict I will get by this winter on less than 1/2 the cost as with the tubs. They do have urea in them though and this is one reason I would like to know about the sulfur.

 

[novaman]

I am not sure and TB will likely chime in but I believe sulfur is needed when urea is fed because urea is simply a nitrogen source and the rumen bugs build proteins from that nitrogen. Natural protein is in the form of amino acids which contain nitrogen. However, there are also amino acids in natural protein that contain sulfur and thus cows get some sulfur out of the proteins they consume. Again this might be wrong. I'll leave it to TB confirm or correct me.

 

[TexasBred]

A little added sulfur is need to increase the utilization of the NPN as well as the dry feed. Most feeds do not contain any added sulfur so if urea or "NPN" is included at 3.00% NPN sulfur would need to be somewhere around .25% to .30%. (1:10 to 1:12 ratio) Doesn't sound like much but it is needed. The urea (NPN) is our nitrogen source and with the added sulfur we increase the development of desirable rumen microflora...end result...better digestion as well as more rapid digestion especially of dry grasses (hay) as well as more intake of dry grasses by the cattle. This is pretty much how liquid feed and molasses tubs with NPN are designed to work.

As for the sulfur salt blocks. Whether or not they are worth the little additional cost ?? Who knows?? My dad always thought they kept ticks off. But there is not enough of anythign in them to be harmful.