Source:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=91711
Re:
By: Caustic Burno » Thu May 22, 2014 8:38 pm ( Texas )
Most of those mineral salt blocks I have seen don't have nothing but trace minerals.
And they mean a trace.
If all that is in the block is trace minerals, you are looking at a trace mineral block, not a mineral block.
Trace minerals are given in PPM ( parts per million aka micro minerals ). Minerals are given as a %. ( aka macro minerals )
See:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us
Re:
I would think Vigortone or Cargill Emerald for this time of year.
IMO, without knowing the daily total intake of both minerals and trace minerals from forage of hickey214 cattle it is impossible to safely recommend any minerals or trace minerals, as you could do more harm then good.
Re: by novatech » Thu May 22, 2014 10:00 pm ( Texas )
The mineral you need to put out will have a lot to do with what you have or have not in your soil. Your county agent may be able to help.I agree with Caustic on the blocks.
You first sentence is true, but then you should not agree with Caustic as he has recommended feeding minerals without knowing soil conditions, hence, not knowing forage mineral content.
Your two statements are diabolically opposed to each other.
Re: by bigbull338 » Fri May 23, 2014 10:18 am ( Texas )
youll be money a head by buying the best loose sack mineral you can buy.
Again! You are recommending feeding minerals without knowing if hickey214 cattle even need supplemental minerals which could do more harm then good.
Re: by BC » Fri May 23, 2014 1:17 pm (Texas )
I don't know what part of the world you operate in, but in Texas they have done the research to show the value of mineral supplementation. Take a look at this:
http://animalscience.tamu.edu/files/201 ... tation.pdf
That is true, both trace minerals and minerals are important in an animals diet. But if you read your own source, it also warns of the dangers of feeding to much minerals.
As a Texan I would think you would know this:
Hardt et al reported that 76% of bermudagrass samples tested in Texas were deficient in copper and that half of these samples contained more than 0,3% sulfur. 35% of native forage samples in Texas were high in iron. Sulfur and iron are known antagonists of copper absorption.97% of bermudagrass and 98% of native forages contained zinc levels below the recommended levels of 40ppm.
Plus there has been numerous warnings about high levels of sulfur in Texas water.
by dun » Fri May 23, 2014 1:42 pm
Cattle are managed much more intently then in the past. Their genetics have been tweaked and screwed with so that they are a much different animal then they did at the survival stage. We expect them to calve, wean a good calf and breed back on a tight schedule. The 5 or 6 bucks a year that mineral costs are jsut cheap insurance that they will continue to produce up to our expectations.
Much of what you say is true, but the same can be said for the forage cattle eat today.
What I find interesting is the two totally opposite positions you take depending on the supplemental feeding being discussed.
When we discussed the feeding of ethanol by-products, you called those who did not have the by-product, their water and forage tested to determine their cattle's present daily sulfur intake before feeding it, idiots!
Yet, now that we are discussing minerals, which can contain ethanol by-products and high levels of sulfur, you make no mention of doing any testing, nor do you call those who don't know their cattle's present daily sulfur intake before adding more, idiots.
Why is that?
by Workinonit Farm » Fri May 23, 2014 2:30 pm
hicky214-----check your PM's.
If you think you can back stab John or myself without us knowing it, you are sadly mistaken!
You need to grow up young lady!!
by TexasBred » Fri May 23, 2014 3:03 pm ( Texas )
Who mentioned sulfur???
I do believe his name is hickey214, and he did it in his very first post.
You do know "sulfur" is a mineral, don't you?
TTFN I'm back to making hay
SL
