Wool growth responses to DL-methionine administration and factors affecting the value of supplementation

Abstract

Wool growth responses to methionine administration were assessed using Peppin Merino wethers on various planes of nutrition. In experiment 1, sheep were fed 700 g/day of lucerne pellets to maintain liveweight. DL-methionine (5.8 g) administered subcutaneously resulted in 0.29 mg/cm2.day (36%) more wool (P<0.01) and a 2.5 ¦m (15.2%) increase in fibre diameter (P<0.05). In experiment 2, two levels (700 and 1400 g/day) of lucerne pellets were offered, with and without methionine administered subcutaneously (5.8 g). Main treatment analysis indicated a significant (P<0.01) effect of nutrition on wool growth and fibre diameter, with no effect of methionine, except for a reduction (P<0.05) in liveweight gain. Methionine administration was associated with a non-significant increase (39%) in wool growth for the 700 g diet and no change for the 1400 g diet. In experiment 3, two levels (1.75 and 2.5 g/day) of methionine were infused (4 h daily) when sheep were fed a submaintenance ration of Rhodes grass chaff, supplemented with nitrogen and sulfur. Significant (P<0.05) wool growth responses at both levels of methionine infusion were similar, with absolute (0.21 and 0.23 mg/cm2.day) and percentage (52 and 58%) increases for 1.75 and 2.5 g/day methionine treatments, respectively. Methionine administration only increased wool production at nutritional levels of liveweight maintenance or below when wool growth values for control treatments were 0.63,0.59 and 0.40 mg/cm2.day for experiments 1, 2 and 3. Fibre diameters of sheep in untreated groups were 16.4 and 18.8 pm for experiments 1 and 2. These wool growth and fibre diameter values are 25-40% below what might be expected for this strain of Merino. The values of positive correlations between wool growth and fibre diameter were increased with increased nutrition and the administration of methionine in experiment 2. This result and the nil response at high basal wool growth, together with the low potential net return on the cost of methionine, suggest that the use of methionine could be unprofitable.