The relative feeding value of kale (Brassica oleracea) containing normal and low concentrations of S-methyl-L-cysteine sulphoxide (SMCO)

Abstract

Kale of normal and low S-methyl-L-cysteine sulphoxide (SMCO) content was produced by growing the same cultivar in soils of normal (20-30 mg/kg) and low (5-10 mg/ kg) soil sulphate-S concentration. Compared with normal S plots, kale grown in low S plots showed little or no reduction in D.M. yield or total N content, but contained lower concentrations of inorganic sulphate, SMCO and glucosinolates.Replicated plots of normal and low SMCO kale were grazed by lambs for 12-week periods in two consecutive years, using a fixed crop allowance of 2-5 kg D.M./animal/ day. All animals were given injections of copper and iodine, and oral supplements of selenium, to ensure that effects upon animal performance could largely be attributed to differences in kale SMCO concentration.SMCO concentration in the diet consumed by lambs grazing normal and low SMCO kale was respectively 0-60 and 0-35% D.M. Following the onset of kale feeding, all animals developed subclinical haemolytic anaemia which stabilized by week 6, and was more marked during weeks 1-6 than during weeks 7-12. Animals grazing low SMCO kale showed a less severe anaemia than those grazing normal SMCO kale, which was associated with lower blood concentrations of dimethyl disulphide and Heinz bodies, and higher reduced glutathione (GSH) and packed cell volume (PCV) levels. Liveweight gain and wool growth were greater for lambs grazing low than normal SMCO kale during weeks 1-6, corresponding to the period of most severe haemolytic anaemia, but during weeks 7-12 there were no differences between the two groups.It was concluded that SMCO content depressed kale feeding value, with most of the depression occurring in the first 6 weeks of grazing, and that in these experiments the lambs were able to adapt to kale containing 0-6 % D.M. as SMCO after 6 weeks of feeding. Endocrine factors involved in this adaptation are discussed.

S‐Methyl‐L‐Cysteine Sulf oxide as the Precursor of Methyl Methanethiolsulfinate, the Principal Antibacterial Compound in Cabbage

“…Since cabbage contains SMCSO and its hydrolase (Mazelis, 1963;Pederson and Albury, 1969;Hall and Smith, 1983;Marks et al, 1992), and MMTSO is produced as a result of the enzyme reaction in a Brassica (Marks et al, 1992), the functionality of SMCSO was tested as a bacterial growth inhibitor in cabbage. SMCSO appears to be important in cabbage flavor (Date0 et al, 1957;Chin and Lindsay, 1993a) and to cause haemolytic anemia in livestock grazing kale (Barry et al, 1984).…”

Effects of dietary inclusion of discarded cabbage (<i>Brassica oleracea</i> var. <i>capitata</i>) on the growth performance of South African Dorper lambs

“…Patridge et al (1985) also reported a reduced DMI when cabbage replaced barley in the diet of rabbits. This reduced DMI owing to the cabbage could be attributed to i) increased dietary fibre (aNDF, ADF and ADL) in cabbage containing diets, which might have reduced the palatability and feed intake of the diets; and ii) the presence of S-methyl-L-cysteine sulphoxide and glucosinolates, which are known to depress feed intake in ruminants fed diets containing brassica (Barry et al, 1984;Barry, 2013). According to Duncan & Milne (1992), adult sheep (45 -55 kg live weight) developed a resistance to brassica glucosinolates by degrading allyl cyanide in the rumen.…”

“…In addition, 10.2 MJ metabolizable energy (ME)/kg DM, an 80.4% in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) (Mekasha et al, 2002) and 84% total digestible nutrients (TDN) (NRC, 2007) were reported for cabbage, making it a good source of nutrients for ruminants. However, cabbage is reported to contain S-methyl-L-cysteine sulphoxide and glucosinolates that depress intake by ruminants (Barry et al, 1984;Barry, 2013).…”

Brassicaceae Burnett

“…For example, in B. oleracea, they increase from 6000 ppm in October to 9000 -12,000 ppm in winter, and the concentrations are highest in fl owers (Whittle et al 1976;Giovanni et al 1989). Low levels of soil sulfur result in as much as a 50% reduction of SMCO in the plant (Barry et al 1984). Concentrations of SMCO can be manipulated by nitrogen and sulfur fertilization practices, because it appears to function as a sulfur storage form (McDonald et al 1981).…”