kenny thomas said:
Thanks for the clarification. But at .68 a lb and let's say an intake of .4 lb a day that would get really expensive. Give me your thoughts on $90 per cow per year for mineral. I'm just figuring off the top of my head so excuse any mistake in the figure. But you get what I'm talking about.
What is getting confused is consumption versus bioavailability.
The elements such as copper, zinc, selenium, magnesium, chloride, calcium, and the other elemental atoms that cows need to function do not occur in elemental form in minerals. They come in compounds.
Chelated compounds, oxides, sulfates and carbonates. How these elements are formulated by the manufacturer is ESSENTIAL in order to evaluate the mineral. For example if copper comes in a compound the cow cannot use, it will pass right out the anus or in the urine.
Assuming that consumption is .4 pounds per day per cow of a mineral that is 65 % bioavailable versus one that is 15 % bioavailable. The one that is more bioavailable is going to result in much higher blood levels of all the elements.
Intake is what they eat per day. Uptake is what percent of the intake gets into their cells.