Mineral mixes and supplements can be formulated with several trace mineral sources, each with advantages and disadvantages. There are some commonly held perceptions around trace minerals and their “be nefits” that need attention in order to optimize performance, health and feed costs. Let’s address some of them.
Myth 1: The rumen microbes need supplemental trace minerals
One of the most common misconceptions is that I need to supplement minerals to “feed the rumen microbes.” This may be true for some macrominerals like phosphorus, sodium, potassium and sulfur. In regard to trace minerals, there is evidence that supplemental cobalt can be helpful for vitamin B12 production and improve fiber digestion. But it is not the case for trace minerals like copper, zinc and manganese. Trace mineral solubility/availability from feedstuffs appears to be relatively high and partially available to be utilized by the rumen microbes.
Other research has indicated that supplemental copper, zinc and manganese above what the basal diet contributes can actually be detrimental to rumen fermentation/digestion. Therefore, supplementation programs should consider the basal diet as satisfactory for the ruminal needs; the supplemental portion needs to be supplied to meet the requirements of the animal, not the bugs.
Myth 2: Oxides and sulfate sources are well-suited for today’s animal nutrition
Traditionally, inorganic sources like sulfates and oxides have been the predominant sources used to meet animals’ mineral requirements. These are readily available and generally the cheapest to provide. However, these sources have some disadvantages.
Metal oxides have very inconsistent bioavailability due to their manufacturing locations and processes. Sulfate sources tend to be highly soluble because of their ionic bonding chemistry. This leads to a rapid release of the free-metal ion when exposed to moisture. This reactivity can have negative effects in the feed bag or bin, which could lead to the destruction of essential nutrients like vitamins. The reactivity can also have a negative effect in the rumen and lead to decreased nutrient utilization, with the most pronounced effect being depressed fiber digestibility. Other sources of trace minerals like organics and hydroxychlorides may be a more effective option because they have covalent bonding chemistry that keeps the metal more intact in the bag and the rumen, allowing for better feed and nutrient utilization and better bioavailability for biological purposes.
Myth 3: More is always better
In today’s beef production systems, we have been conditioned into always thinking more is better. If one implant is good, two will be better. If 30 gallons per ton monensin is effective, then 44 gallons per ton will be even better. This mentality has leaked into mineral nutrition. If 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of copper is good for the cattle, then 2,000 should be even better. This is simply not the case for copper, zinc and manganese.
There are multiple cow-calf studies that have demonstrated negative effects of “more is better” in trace mineral nutrition, especially if the “more” comes from sulfate sources. The negative effects these have are now more pronounced if we keep increasing the amount. This can eventually harm rumen function and, ultimately, reproduction. The use of sources like organics and hydroxychlorides at levels close to the animal’s requirement seems to be an ideal way to approach supplying trace nutrition for ruminants.
Myth 4: Adding a pinch of organic trace mineral will make things better
Organic trace minerals have been a nutritional option for livestock producers since the 1970s. These minerals were developed to improve mineral availability to the animal for “better production and health.” In general, the covalent bonding chemistry these minerals have should make them more stable and better than sulfate sources. However, there are so many on the market today, it is hard to truly understand the differences between them and whether one is truly better than the other. Producers fairly ask, “Which one should I use, and will it really work?”
Additionally, these are commonly fed in combination with sulfates because they are so expensive. It is practically infeasible to feed 100% organic trace minerals as the sole source for the animal because of their high cost. The hydroxychloride trace mineral sources offer a nice happy medium. They have similar chemistry and efficacy as an organic at a fraction of the price. Therefore, you can feed 100% hydroxychloride sources without having to worry about the negative effects of sulfates or the high cost of an organic.
It should be clear that traditional sulfate sources of trace minerals are not the best option, and simply feeding more is not going to help things, either. While organic trace minerals do have numerous benefits over traditional inorganic sources, there are new novel options like hydroxychlorides that work extremely well in many nutritional programs and are easy on the pocketbook.
Livestock producers need to consider these myths and evaluate alternatives. We do not need to keep doing things as we have always done. There are new alternatives to the same old way we have approached feeding our cattle.
