Sulphur metabolism. III. The effect of flowers of sulphur on the growth of young rats fed an otherwise well-balanced ration

(1)

Onderstepoott J oumal of Tl eterinaty Science and An1:mal lnrlvstry, Tl olmne 7, .V1tm.beT 1, htly, 1936.

Sulphur Metabolism.

III. The Effect of F lowers of Sulphur on the Growth of Young Rats fed an otherwise Well-balanced R ation.

B~- .J. H. KELLER:JIA~::\, Section of Biochemistry and ~utrition,

Onderstepoort.

AccolmJ.XG to the \York of seYe1·al inYestigatm·~ the oral administration of flo,Yers of sulphur offers interesting possibilities of success in c:hecking intestinal putrefaction in c'hicks in confinement (Phillips, Carr and Kennard, 1921) and worm infestation in sheep (Steyn, 1932). :Montgomery (1932) and Bmman (1932) also found that the ingestion ot an adequate amount of flowers o£ sulphur senecl as a good prophylactic in malaria.

Unfortunately the administration of ~ulphur c:nmwt be left in inexperienced hands and tl1.e promi~euous feecling of sulphur shoulcl be warned against, in Yiew of the fact that the closing of high leYeb of sulphur \Yas found to be definitely toxic. Ste:yn (UH1l, for instance, observed that the dosing of 46 gm. of flo\l·ers of sulphur

" per week per sheep over a period of thirty-five clays giYen in rlaily

<loses o£ 10 gm. cause symptoms of poisoning and high mortality."

La\l·son, Redfielrl and Boyd (1 934), \\·ho experimenterl \Yith rabbits and guinea pigs, found that by giYing doses of from 0·6 to 2·0 gm.

of either colloidal or flowers of sulphur per kgm. of bod~· weight directly into the stomach tb_rough a small stomach tube all the animals cliecl "·ithiu t\l·enh·-folu hours. The stomach \l'alls \Yere necrotic, the kiclneys inten~ely eonge~ted and the liYers ,;lightly so.

'l'he spleens s'ho\\·ecl little chauge as did the hearts null lungs. Lewis and Le,1·is (1927) observed that sulphur when added to the milk pm1·der-starch rliet of Shennan ancl }len· ill (1925) was clefini tely

(2)

SULPRCR :IIETABOLIS:II III.

toxic~ anr1 caused the death \Yithin periods of from 3 to 21 days of fourteen out of hYent\·-two animals. "-'hose diet containerl it to the amount of 1 per cent." \Vi.th a few exceptions, the l~Yers of the rah which died shmTed a marked peripheral wnal necrosis.

Ho,YeYer the latter authors also observed that t'he feeding of 1 per cent. ~f sulphur with the Osborne-Mendel low prot.ein diet was less toxic than "·hen added to the same extent to the Sherman- Merrill diet. This observation seems to show that the toxieity of sulphur can be controlled to a certain extent by the coJnpos\tion of fhe food giYen. If that is true, it "·ill be of great pracbeal Import- ance in regions '"here sulphur is administered as a prophylactic to disease in man and .animals.

As "·ill be pointed out later on in this artide both the Shennan-

~Ierrill ancl Osborne-:Mendel rliets are deficient in certain foorl essentials ''"hereas the mixed diets of man and animals, unrler normal conditions, usually contain enough of the Yarious essential con- stituents. It \Yas thought, therefore, of interest to study the effect of elementar)· sulphur on the grO\dh of young animals giYen diets, which \Yere as complete as possible, from a nutritional standpoint.

ExPERIMENTAL.

Albino rats of about three to four weeks old and of the London strain of the \Yistar Institute stock were used in these experiments.

In the first experiment (preliminary) three groups of five rats each

\Yere used. Each group of animals was housed in a big eage with a raised screen bottom. 'I'he animals were feel acl l£bitwn ancl the total food consumption for each group recorded. 'I'he basal ration used in this experiment \Yas a modification of the Osborne-Mendel low protein diet gi-Yen in Table I. One group receiYed the basal ration and the other two the basal ration supplemented with 0·8 per cent. of :flowers of sulphur. The sulpur was .added at the expense of t'he dextrinized starch. The animals ''ere weighed once a week throughout the experimental period and on the last clay of the experiment. Fresh distilled "·ater \YfiS at all times avaibble to the animals except to those of one of the sulphur groups ,,-hich received fresh orange juice ad libitum instead of "-ater. The orange juice \Yas substituted for \Yater because it was thought that its basic elements might play a role in the detoxication of hydrogen sulphide. As a matter of fact the .author (1906) found that H"S is oxidized (detoxi- cated) better in an alkaline than in an acid or neutral medium. If this is also true for the oxirlation of H2S in living organisms, the observatiom of Say,Yell and Lane (1933) .and Sc'huck (1934) that the hydrogen ion concentration of the urine of men and women subjects can be decreased and the alkaline reserve of their bodies increased by taking 1,000 c.c. of orange juice daily might still prove itself of value in the detoxication of sulphur. The results are given in Table II.

200

(3)

J. II. KELLERi\IAK:N.

'l'ABLE l.

Composition of Basal Rations ·m Percentage by l!"eight.

Modified O:borne-Mendel

Diet.

Stock Diet.

- - - ' -- -- - -

)ferk's casein ............................ . 10

Crude casein .................. . ^;) Moclifkd Steen bock salts 40* ................ .

-!

⁵

Dextrinized starch ............................ . 54 ·5 Powdered sucnse ........................ . 5

Mer k' s pre parecl I arcl ...................... . 1!)

Cod li ver-c-il ......................... . :3

Aga.r ..................................... . 2

BI'Cwer's yeast. .................. . Yellow maizE meal ...................... . :! 5 68 Linseed oil meal.. ................... . 6

2\filk powder (Nestle's, S. Africa) ............. .

-!

Lucerne meal ........................ . :~ Butter fat ................................. . ^!) Reef Jiv"r (dried at 70° C.) ....... . ^.) Bone ash ....................... . 1

Calcium carbonate ............................ . 0 ·5 Sodium chloride ....................... . 0 ·5 - - - -- - - - *The MgS0₄·7H,O in Steenbock and Nelson Salts 40 (1923) was replaced b~· the same amount of magnesium carbonate. T:~HLE II. S1tmmary of Growth and Food ConsumzJtion. Rat. Nc. Sex. Diet. - ; - -- - ' ---^--- ^- ^{- - - -} I I Initial I Weight. Final

I

Weight.

I

I Gain or Loss. 1 Gm. Gm. Gm. ll Fm:n: ale Basal... . . . . . 43 56 + 13 12 . . . 52 84 + 32 13 ,. . . . .. . . . .. . . 45 72 -J-72 Total Food. Gm.

I

Gain per 100 gm. I Food. G1n. ~~ : ., I .. .. .. . . .. ~~ I ~~ =t~~ I I

--- - - ---Mt ;~~~~- - ^- ^. ^-- ^-4861 ^- ^--;os-J ^--::c. ^--;22 ^- ^2o2- ^- ⁸⁵

.

16 ¹ )Iale I Basal+ 0 ·8 per cent. S. 50 47 - :3

17 " - 44 54 + 10

18 . . _ 41 43

+

2 I

19 " I - 46 57

1-L ll - --

20 , - I 36 57 -j-:2J - I -

--~---~ --){;:~~~~~~~ 1 - ^4:~ ^4'1 ^-5161 ^-+ ^s2

₁

^-2 ^t ^ti- ^~-

- 21 Femal-;1 Ras-;J+ o s ;r ce~-:-&~~s-l--7s-l+ :30 - - - - -- - --

plus omngc juice ad lih. I

22 40 54 +14

23 " -

I

⁴⁰ ³⁵ ⁵ ^I

~~ : : =

^I

!~

^I

~!

^I

t ^b ^I = =

--- . ---- ---~~-- - .. - . ~- - - . -- ~-- -!38"1-53 ~02i -2t2¥ -i -~

*The food value of orange juice was not taken into consideration.

201

(4)

SrLPHu lc 11ETABOLIS~I Ill.

In Yie'Y of tl1 e fact that the group~ \Yere too small and, because the foo!l COJlsumption of each animal 11as not meas1uecl se11aratPly, no statistical analYsis c·an be made of the 1·esults. Ho,YeYer, the results seem to sho;,. that the incorporation of 0·8 per cent. of sulphur in t'he basalr:1tion retarded the rate of growth, an1l thnt the administration of orange juice harl, un1lPr the experimPntal (·mHlitions, no beneficial efiP!;t on tlw rate of g1mdh of the se!·OJHl ,;ulplnn· group.

01·er a period of GO !l:t_,·s thP :H!'J':Ige g·aiu in 11·eig·ht, the total foo!l consun1erl :tnll the gain per LOO gm. food 11e1·e 22·2, S·2 and 9·2;

2G2, 22G anll 222, an!l 8·5, ;!·6 :1nd 4·1 gnt. for fhe l1asal, crulphur f!n1l sulph111· plus orangP juice gmups respediYP]_, ..

],, a seconcl <•xperiment thP pftect of !liHereni l'Oil!'PU(r:dions of Ho11·er~ of sulphut· \\'<b ~tudiell lilt tbP grO\dlt of )'O\Ing r:ds h-•1l a h:1sal ration, \Yhich in the light of pre,;Pnt knowledge, is complet!-' in :tll respects for thi::; spe1·ies of animal. The diet ,,·as a slight modification of the stock Tation (Kellermann, HJ:3.f) used in this lahondor~-. It:> composition is gin•n in 'l'ahlP I. The sulplnn· r:tiions h:Hl the same COlllpO:sition <h the UU.'i:ll e.xc:e1Jt that ,-;nlpbur \\;IS 11SP!l in i'he place of like amounts of yellm1· maize meal in the 1liets. The paire!l- feecling- method of )Iitchell nncl Beadles (J 9:'30) \\·as Pmployerl, aud all pair-mate:; \H'l'e mah·hecl for litte1· ancl sPx. 'J'herP \l·ere :;ix pairs to eaelt group. The inttial and final ,,·eights of the rats 11·ere ihe aYerag-P of 11·eighings take11 on three r·onse!'utiYe clays. During the 1·est of the expe1·imentnl period thP_I. \YeJ·p '"eig·hecl ouce :1 \YePk. FrPsh distillP!l ll'::t!Pr \I':IH giYen in addition to the r:dion. 'l'lw :lnilllals \\Pre fed ac~·onliJJg·.to the methorl of )Iitehell (19:\:l). The r·p,;ults :1re g-tYeu

j n 'l'ahle Ill.

It will l1e SPell that on i he '' holP the l'onhol 1·ats gaine1l higltl_,.

::;ig·nifie:wtly lllOJ'e in weight than tho,.;e TeceiYing- the sulp'b11r supple- JnPnt. The JttJmher of 11·eek,.;, hOII't'Yel'. chuing- ,,·!Jic·h the control rah gained mm·e iu \l'eig-h t fhan thP i r mates is 1·ea so 11 nld _,. ue:1r 50 pe1

·r·pnt. aml therefore, inclieatP:-; no such clifferPuce :1s rPHedPcl h.\· the gnins in ,,·eight for thP entin• periocl. .Fnrtlwnnorl', tlw Yarious tre~,t

ments sho"· no sig-nifil'<lllt d ifl'eren!'e :uuong-st thPmseh-Ps.

It is abo of inte1·est to note t'hat 011 the 11·hole thP rats in i his experiment, inchuling those that JeceiYe!l 1·ations c•oJdaiHing- acl1lecl sulphur, m:ule a,; g-oocl gains a~ tho,.;p ohtai11erl by CheetJJnan and Dnlning (1U:23) for the albino rat uncler JJormal COJHlitions. As a mntter of f:1d eYeu the 11 male and ]:i ±emalP rats ferl ihP l1a~al

ration in \Yhich \Yas incorpmate1l elemental'~· sulp'hur in su!'h hig-h r·oncenh·ations as :2·0, 2·5, :1-0 ancl 8·'1 per l'ent. real'hPcl at .approxi-

Jll:ltel~· S:! da_1s of :1ge a1·er:~g·e \\Pig·hts of 20(i·5 g·m. ancl J-J.S·2 g-Ill., n•t>pel·tiYel_v, whi1·h 11'e1·e G0-8 g-m. :mel 11·2 g-m. ahoYe the n'SJIP!·tin•

JLonnal 11·eig-hts g-i1·en hi' UrPenn1an ancl Dnhring·.

DrscTsswx.

Lew is :uul Le1Yis (1927) acha ncecl the the on that tlw lessen Pel toxicit~· of sulphur on tht' Osborne-)[endel diet a~ 1·omparPd "·ith th8 Shennm1-Merrill ration mig-ht. be explained b.\' its hig·h<'r fat and Jlrotein contents. Ho,,·eYer, it .-dwulrl he vointecl out fltat, as a

202

(5)

TAilLE III. Growth Uecords uf Huts on lJawL Hution 1cith and witl1uitl Different Ferce1ttages of Elemclllllry Sllljd/1/r. (All period;;, .S 11·eeli:,;, and all weight, in grams). Percent-I ages of Pair l. Pair 2. Pair 3. Pair 4. 1

Pair 5. Pair G. Element-Data.

Sut ~ · hur

1 1 1

, I

p~ ~ ~~~~ l .

Contwl. Sulphur. Contml. Sulphur.IC'ontroi.JSulphur.[Control.JSulphur.JControl.JSulphur.IControJ .JSulphur 0 ·1

I

Initial weight... . . . • . . . . .

I

54 5:2

I

54 55 60

I

62 (il 61 65 (i4

~ ~

Final weight ............ 1 166 162 153 153 158 158 149 161 292 283 235 22:3 Total gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 110 ' 99 98 98 I 96 88 100 227 2 Hl 173 162 Total food............ 559 558 522 520 ·5 522 522 i\13 513 816 816 (i68 fiGS Comparisonofweeklygains 4 4 :l 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 4 4 --- 0·25 Initial weight............ 5ii 56 59 59 73 69 80 79 65 68 57 57 Final weight.......... 162 .I 67 :268 :282 287 ;ng 298 303 173 17:2 Hi7 163 Total gain.............. 107 ll1 :20!) 2:2;{ 214 210 218 :224 108 104 110 106 Total food.............. fi34 5i13 ·5 757 757 760 768 ·f) 7!l5 7!)5 570 i570 :i40 537 ·5 Compa•·isonofwceldygains 4 4 :3 5 5 :l 3·5 4·5 4·5 3·5 r, 3 ---1·--------·------------------ 0 ·5 Initial weight............ Gl 62 61 61 74 76 71 71 74 77 75 77 Final W<'ight......... 169 171 252 245 265 2(il 287 278 243 251 218 221 Total <Yain.......... 108 100 191 184 191 185 2Hi 207 169 174 14:! 144 Total food.. . . . . . . . . . . . . i\39 ii39 67:{ 67:3 708 708 7fi8 768 698 696 (i54 654 Compari:;onofwceklygains fi 2 55 2·5 :3·5 2·5 ;) 3 3 5 4·5 3·5 -----·--------]----]---·- 0·75 Initial weight...... 7(i 71) 62 63 88 90 (i(i 65 58 58 60 61 l•'inal weight............ 240 250 143 140 285 288 HiO 154 .171 170 164 1 (i7 Total gain...... l64 175 81 77 lll7 198 !J.J. Sf! 113 11:2 104 106 Total food... . . . . . . . . . 72fi 72() 48:1 -f8:{ 77:) 77G :i50. 550 :i96 . 1

f>96 56:2 562 C'omparisonofwoeklygains 2 6 4 4 4 4 5 :l 4 4 ;{ 5 --- 1·0 rnitial W('i<Yht.......... 5:~ ;i4 GG ()f) 80 78 73 7:1 (iS 70 5:l 56 Final wci"llt............ lf>O 148 147 158 :!+G 212 2+0 2:!7 248 ' :l:la :247 234 ·Total gail~... 07 0+ 81 Rl) HiH l(i+ 1()7 l:i+ 180 1(;:1 19+ I 178 'l.'oLal foot!...... :ilS :il 8 5:2!) ;>:!!J (i8ii (iKii li!H (i:iJ 74:2 74:! 660

I

G6!) ('ompaei,on ofw<:ekly gains 4 4 I' 2 li :{ fi :) :3 7 l 5 :{ 1·25 Initial weight............ 5(i 57 67 (i9 66 I 65 1 1 50 50 47 51 6:{ 66 Final w<:ight. . . . . . . . . . . . 159 l !i3 170 Hlii 153 liiO I +i> J 3() 132 130 228 228 ·~ Total gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:3 06 112 12fi 87

I

85 95 86 85 79 lfi5 162 Total f~o. d... 523 521 59? 50~

I

+U2 ,-49~ _ 1 :!2~ 23? 468 ·5 46~ (ii\7 (i57 Compan~onofwocklyga•n~ 4 [ 4 .1 :J +u .)·.>1 :J .l 5 :3 + 4 I I I

:-< ~ ~ 1:'1

E ""

~ > '7,

z

(6)

IV 0 """"

Percent· ages of J•:lcm<'" t ary tiulp.h 11 r I HH.:o r- pomted.

!Ja la.

'l'AJJLJ~ III-(r·untll!ucrl). l'ai r· I. Pair :!. l'air· :L Pair -L Pair 5. Pnir fi. 'onlrol.JSulplllrr.JColllrul ·IS"Iphur.lt 'untrol.ltirrlphiii".IConlrui.Jtiiilplurr.lt 'olllrui.IK"lJ>hm.J( 'onlrol.

~ ti nlphue .

..

,

--~ --------------

- - ,

l .;; Initial weight......... 61 (i I :;o 5:3 4!J 51 ~0 40 5~ 55 54 I 54 I Final weight............

Hl~

154

~ 1 0 ! ~H i

151 I 157 l4:J J:W 152 l(i(i

I 2 ~ 8

I' :l:25 • Tota I S(ain. . . I 0 I I !J:\ I GO 1 14~ I 02 lOti I 0~ \J(i I 00 lll I H 171 I ^T

otal food ... : . I 530 I 5:~0 I 5Hii I ;)81.i I 516 51 517 4R I I 481 . I ;):~7 537 I G3K I. u:n. 5 ____ Com p~son o[ wccldy_:~:_ --~2_l

__

:l

2._ ___

r; ___ ::__ --~2._ --~2._ --~2._ --~~ -~

_ _ 2._ _1 _ _ 2.__

--~- ·> 0 llnrtral wc1ght. ;)(i ,·,7 til l.i:l :)!=) ii!l 1 .J.tl I 4!J

I

73 1 7C!.

I

J8 ;)() li'Jnitl wc1ght . . . . . . . . . 164 J tHi ::71 I ~:)~ . 147 I lri:J Wi I :ll :l22

I

:2l(i 21!1 :lO:l Total gaw . . . . . . . . . lOS l O!J ~0!1 I H9 f 88 !):l HO H:Z 14!) 144 17 J I ii:l Total food. . . . . . . . . . . 1>07 607 7'i0 750 483 I +83 +G8 471 li75 675 5!)4

I

:)!14 :!-:) :l ()

~ ~ ~ tr ·i s o n ofw cc l:_':l~~ :.. - ~2_ __ _ ~2_ - ~ ~ ~ ~- G ~ ~ - G~~ -- G~ 2_ i _ _ (i ~ 2_ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~- 8 ~ ~ - G~~ - ~ ;)

I

1!J:l IH:l 184 145 "I 1:31

I

J;)l J:l!) 1:34 I 215 ll4H : l:l!J

(<·) ti~ :!07 l 30 I I !l I~~ ' RO (i(i !JO 7!J 1 I :i4 135 7!J li!l 50;! Gli4 I 5(i4 I 4G2 J(i:J

5 ~:! ; ;~ : l

I ti:35 I G35 48 I

I

4S I ~0 40 40 GO ~0 tiOI ~0 53 :!·;i ,;;; 1 :l;i Gs lili

- G7 _ 1 _

58

-~ -

58

- ~ - ~;;- -~- ~ ~ - ~ - 7 2 -l- -;;- - 1 - ~ ;- - 1 - ;;; -

l+i J ;)S !51 179 l(j;j lfi() J4;) ~;)8 I 24ti J5;) I Gti 70 !U 84 12l IO;i 100 S.J. 186 l/3 I !I~ !l:l 5:)7 :););) I 55:3 I 5!18 I 503 !iOti I ;j01i 7fi:2 76:2 I :)4() I !i40 -1 0 .J. ;) :3 · ;) 6 · 0 ~ 0 li 0 ~ 0 i'i ;j :l ;) + 0 ± 0 145 I :i6:1 G 0 -------- (if) 1.~0 81 5il7 4 () I ---~------~ ---------------------~----~--- /!1 7~ li!l 71 70 7!1 7!l iS 78 til ti~ I 15:! I 1ss 1n I l:i!J I J58 I 24.> n.J. I

~ 4 0

I 221 J:l+ IH /:{ I ll:l 10:3 88 88 lbli 1-1.) Iii.! l.J.:~ /:l I H~

78 141 fi::l +;>:1 :l-0 +.>:l ;;o 1 .>o 1 / .>n I 52~ Gss t>RR 1 (;,:;5 t;5.'i 1 .Jcso 1 +S~ 5 () .J. 0 I .J. 0 5 () :1 0 ti :; 1 5 I 4 5 I :; :; I 2 0 I (i 0

[/] c: '-< "'; ~ d ~ '-' h t:"l

:; 8

'-< H [/] '-"' ..., H H H

(7)

J. H. KELLERMANN.

whole, the U,;bmne-:Mendel diet is better balanced than th~ Sherm~n

:Merrill one. Not only are its protein and salts a bout hnce as h1gh as those of the latter <liet but it is also ric'h in both vitamins A and D.

The U ·bome-)Iendel diet, on the other hand, is tlecille<lly lower in the vitamin B <:omplex than the Shennan-:Jierrill diet, conseque11tl~·, in t'his parti<:ular case vitamin B can be ruled out a,; an ag-ent l l l

the detoxification of sulphur. Furthermore, it is very improbable that the fat in the Osborne-:M:en<lel diet played any appreciable role iu the detoxification of the sulphur in vie"· of the fad that it <:oul(l not he concluded from previous results (Kellermann, 1 9~15) that lard had an inhibitor.v effect on the absorption of sulphur. If, as sug- gested by Lewis aml Lewi,;, the fat formerl a coating- around tl1e

particle,; of ,;ulphur and thus made more diffi<·ult the intimate contact of the snlphur "·ith the intestinal mucosa o1· the action of bacteria, one \Youltl haxe expected a lo,Yer concentration of 'hy<hogen sulphide in the cligestiYe tract aml consequently a lower absorption of sulphur.

There remains one more point of tlifference in the composition of the Osborne-.Men<lel an<l Sherman-Merrill diets that deserves to be pointed out, namel:r, their contents in easily aYailable " food sulphur ". In Yie"· of t'he fact that the composition of the O,;borne- Mendel salt Jni.xture (191 :j) conforms closely to that of milk salts as such, it is eYi<lent that the sul11hur content of the Osborne-Mendel basal <liet must have bePn at least four times as high as fhat of tbP Sherman-)Ierrill one. Furthermore, it '"ill be remembered that the inferen('e was tlrawn in a previous publi<:a.tion (Kellermann, 1936) that thP presence of easily available " food sulphur " in a ration mig'ht. Pxert a <lepressing effed upon the toxicity of elementar,,- sulphur, and it is possible that the gTeater content of" food sulphur "

of the Oshorne-~Iendel diet .aceounte<l partly for the gTeater anti- toxic effect of sulphur poisoning.

From a perusal of the 1·esults given in 'l'ables II an<l Ill, it is eYitlent that, on the basis of ever)' 100 gm. of foo<l consumerl, fhe rats on the modified Osborne-~Ien<lel rliet gained over 50 per cent.

more in "·eig-ht than tho.qe on the same diet supplemented with 0·8 per cent. sulphm·; "·hereas in no ease 11·ere suc'h gTeat differences obserYed in the grO\dh of pair-mates fed the modified stork ration with and "·ithout sulphur. As a matter of fact, in only a fe,Y instances did the control rats gain as much as 12 to 10 per rent. OYer t'heir .. sulphur " mates on the same amount of food, and in 28·8 per cent. of the total number of pairs, the sulphur-fe<l a11imab gaine<l eYen more than their eo11trol mates. Furthermore, it should he borne iu mind that the sulphur-eontnining rations 'had a lo,Yer energy YahtP than the basal diet, an<l the rats iu the sulphur groups

"·pre, therefore, ]l11t at a <lisadvantage to those in fhe basal groups in so far as g-rowth "·as concernerl.

In the 0·70 and 1·0 per eent.. snl1Jlnu gToups, in eontrast to those that receiYed 0·8 per ceut. sulphur with the Osborne-Mendel

<liet, there \Yas practieall)· no difference in the aYerage gains made by the ('ontrol and " sulphur " grOU]JS. Tt is evident, therefore, that the stork ration ha~ much more antito.xi<: effeet to sulphur poisoning than the Osborne-)Iellclt>l rliet. The latte1· fliet, as modified in this

·t>xperiment, meets, as far as is knO\Yll, all the essential requirements 205

(8)

Sl:J.PRCit ~ILTADOLIS~I III.

for gTo11·th except th_at it is low in protein and cy~tine contPnls. It

\Yould f;eem that its lo11· c\·stine content coul<l be ruled out a,; a C<lUSe of the high toxicity of st~lphur, in Yie11 of t'he fact that Le1Yis and Le11·is (1927) £oun1l tlwt the toxicity of sulphur, 11·hen incorporated in the cystine deficient diet of Osborne nncl ~\lenclel, 11·a,; not nftedecl by the addition of amount,; of <·.~·~tine adc<1uate to produce goo<l growth. Ho,,·eyer, thi,; diet is nl,;o lo11· in ensil~· aYailabl<' " foocl sulphur " for the rea,;on tlia t tl1P Ushome-~leJHlPl salt mixture 11 as replace<l bY the ,;mne anwunt of StePtd>od;: and ::\'ebon salts JO (18:2:)), morlified ;;lightly ;so a~ to contain no ~ulphur. l<'uri:lwrlllOJP, it 11·as found h.1· tlw author (1!):):-)) t"hnt the ab,;orption of ~ulphur inn rat ion containing JU per cent. of <·n,;ein <lllll :2 per l'ent. of hre11·er·,; ye<1,;t, a:; the on}y sollJTe;; of foo<l sulphur, 11·ns r.nt her loll' 11·ith :1 suh;;e- quPntl.\· 'b,iglt ah,;orption of elemetlhtr.\· ,;ulphur ntHl it Jnight l>e, therefore, that the high toxicit.1· of ~ulpbur 1rhen fed 11 ith the ();;hom e-Mendel <liet ;t,; com pare<l 11·ith ih lo1Y dPleterions dted in fhe ~to('k ration, 11·a,; partl.1· (hlP to the lo11· protein and ·' food sulphur " contents of the former· <1 iet.

Sr~L\1.\RY.

l. ExperimeJil.-i are cle:-:cribed in 11·hich 11·ere stu(lietl the effect of fio,Yer,; of sulphur 011 the gTmdh of .\·oung white 1ah maintaiue<l on two types of hasal diets, one a mo(lific.ation of the lo11· protein diet of Usborne and JIP11clel an<l t'he other <t ration contpletP in :dl respects fron1 a Jlutr.itional ;;taiHlpoint for this ~pecie.-; of a11int:d.

2. Sulphur, 11 hen :lLl<le<l to the amount of O·B ver cent. to the lo11· protein diet 11·hich ,,·as abo lo11· in cystin<" an(l " food l'ulplnlr '',

<·ause(l .a m:trked retanbtion of the rate of gT011·th hut no <le~tt'hs

<luring nn experin1ental perio<l of GO da.1·s.

3. 'l'he toxicit.1· of ::;ulphm· 11 hen a<lderl to a well balanced rat ion in concentrations Yar.)·ing hom 0·1 to :l·o 11er cenL 11·as, <·omparn- tively ,.;peaking, rather ]o,,·. A comparison of thP rate of gro11·th of .1·oung rats by the ]Jairecl-feecling method of ~litc'hell aurl Hea(lle"

sho11·e(l that the numl>er of 11·eek~ dming 11·hich the control rats gaiuecl more in weight than t'lteir Litter mate.-; on the sulphur rations, is reaso1Jable near .jQ per cent., 11·hich indicate;; that 1he different treatments show no significant dillerencP alllOllgst themselYes .

.f. The solution of the problem <b to 11'lt1· certai11 1·ation,; shm1·

grPater autitoxic effect to ~ul]JIJur voi;;onin.g th:w other,; slwulcl J>rohauly be looked for in the clifl('renu' iu thei1· protein and ·' food sulphu1· " contents. Tlte results to date sePJJI to ~·Ito\\· t.lwt rations, complete in all 1·espeds f01· growth ll'ith optinlllm protPin <tnd e:bil1·

axailable " food sulphur " conte1ds, pos:;e::;s gre<der <tlltito:\i<· eJfp(:t to sulpJlllr IJOisoning than rations that are ]Oil. in the~e l"Ollstituents.

·J. Larg(-~ .amount::; of flo11P1·s of sulphur <·.an hP giY<'Il to :1nilllals (rats) ,,·it'hout marked dPleterious coifech on thPir rate of "TOidh "·hen 01_1timum amounts f_or gTo1dh of a IH~ll-bulanced Tati(~ll (l'tock) is gJVen at. the same tune.

206

(9)

J. H. KELLERMANN.

The author rlesires to aclmowleuge hi:; iudebteclness to .Jir. A. :P.

Malan, :M.Sc., of this Institute, who made a statistical analysis of -the results.

LITERATURE CITED.

BUlD[AX, C. K L. (1932). Impressions of, and personal obsenations on. the re<.:ent epidemic of l\Jalaria in Manhburg. S.A.. Med. J., Yo!. 6, pp. 591-594.

GREEJ\.:\1:\X A:-~u Dl~HRTXG (192!3) as quoted b~· DONAJ .. DSOK, H. H. (192-1).

Tile Hat, p. 281, Pilil:ldelpilia.

KEI,LERMANK, J. H. (1934). A "·ell-balan<.:ed ration for stock rnts.

U11!1rrstr•poort J. Vet. Sci. and Anin1. Jndust., Vol. 2, pp. 6±9-653.

"1-i:I•;LLElDL\.XN, J. H. (1935). Sulphur Metabolism l. The absorption and excretion of flo11·ers of sulphur. Ond. Jl. T'et. Sc. and :\nim. incl., .\.ul.

4, pp. 199-228.

KELLERMA~N, J. H. (1936). Sulphur l\Ietabolism IV. The oxidation and reclnction of elementary sulphur hy animal tissues ·in 'Cifm. 'J'!.i.\ J·ou rnal.

J .. AI\"SOi\, G. B., REJJFlELD, K.T., AND BOYCE, 0.

n .

(Hl3-l). The toxic etfect of suiphur on guinea pigs and rabbits. J. J.<:tl!. and ('lin. J!rd., Yol. 20, pp. 169-171.

LEWTS, G. T., AXD LRIYIS, H. B. (Ul27). The effect of elementary snlphur on the grm1·th of the ~·oung wl1itc rat. J. JJiol. Cltem., Yol. 7cl-, pp. 51.5- 523.

MITCHELL, H .. H., Axo BEADLRS. J. R. (1930). The paired-feeding method in nutrition expt>rirneuts and its application to the prohlem of t·ystine deficiencies in food proteins. J. ~1dr., Vol. 2, pp. 2:25-2-13 .

.:\ITTCHELL. H. H. (1933) . . -\n application of the paired-feeding method to the quantitative estimation of the relatiYe Yitmnin n l'Ontents of foods and artifi.cial con<.:entrates . . !mer. J. Physiol., Vol. 104, pp. 594-607 .

.:\JOXTGOMERY, W. l\f. (Hl:32). f->nlphur as a prophylactic in malarin. 8.A . .lied . .J., Vol. 6, pp. 771-772.

OSBORKI£, T. B., AKD MENDEL, L. B. (1913). The relation of gro"·th to the chemical constitltents of the diet. .J. Uiol. Chem., Vol. 15, pp. 311-326.

PHILIPS, A. G., CARR, 1L H., ^A:\'nKEKNARD, D. C. (19:ll). Green fePd

•rersn.s antiseptics as a preventive of intestinal disorders of groll"ing clticks. J. Agric. Heo~., Yo!. 20, pp. 869-873.

SA Y\\"ELL. L. G., AXD LAXE, K W. (1933). ComparatiYe effect of tomato and orange juices on urinar.v acidity. ./. Sutr., Vol. 6, pp. 263-270.

SCHUCK, C. (1934). Effect of ingestion of large amounts of orange juice and grape juice. J. :---1dr., Vol. 7, pp. 679-689 .

SHEHMA -. H. C., A:-~n MERlllLL, A. T. (1925). Cystine in the nutrition of the grO\Ying rat . . T. niol. Cltelll., Vol. 6B, pp. 3:11-337.

STEEXBOCK, H., A:-~u NELSON, K M. (1923). Light in its relation to ophthalmia and grO\dh. J. niol. Cl1e111., Vol. 56, pp. 355-373.

STEYK. D. G. (1931). The effects of sulphur on merino sheep. 17th Hr•pf.

])ir. ret. !:>er. anrl .:l.llim. Jndust., pp. 481-492.

:STEYi-1, D. G. (1832). The efl'ects of sulphur on merino sheep and their resistance to potassium cyanide poisoning. 18th Bept. ])ir. l'et. Ser. awl .-lnim. Jnd11sf., pp. 597-610.

Sulphur metabolism. III. The effect of flowers of sulphur on the growth of young rats fed an otherwise well-balanced ration