It's not ALWAYS the cow's fault!

[DOC HARRIS]

There have been several discussions recently regarding lack of fertility in cows (and bulls) and the causes pertaining thereto. The EPD in Scrotal Size seems to be one of the first considerations to approach in correcting lack of Fertility in the daughters of these bulls. The female Maternal traits, including Calving Ease and Milk Production EPD's, also come under fire.

I read an article today presented by The Noble Foundation concerning the necessity of Mineral Supplementation for the breeding herd to assist in alleviating some of the problems of Fertility and lack of Production in the breeding. I am including a portion of the article for your perusal.

I know most of the successful cattle breeders use minerals as a general rule - but I wonder if we really know WHY we feed minerals, and WHAT is necessary for optimal Fertility and Reproduction Mineral intakes of our beef herds. It seems that perhaps we should start thinking "Beyond the Pale."

I just thought that a lot of you might be interested in this subject.

DOC HARRIS

The ratio of calcium to phosphorous in the total diet is also important. While cattle can tolerate ratios of between 1:1 and 7:1, excessive calcium may decrease the absorption of other minerals. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain a ratio of calcium to phosphorous between 1.5:1 and 3:1. Deficiencies in calcium and phosphorous or an imbalance in the calcium to phosphorous ratio can result in decreased fertility, milk production, growth and feed efficiency; as well as an increased incidence of metabolic diseases such as urinary calculi.

Potassium (K), sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl) are important in water and acid-base balance, muscle contraction, nerve signal transmission and enzymatic reactions. A deficiency of these minerals can result in decreased intake, gain and milk production.

Sulfur (S) is required by ruminants for the synthesis of the sulfur-containing amino acids and the B-vitamins thiamin and biotin. Sulfur is also used in the detoxification of poisonous compounds like those potentially found in most sorghum forages. A deficiency of sulfur can result in reduced intake, gain and digestibility, and animals may be more susceptible to acidosis.

Trace minerals are also needed for optimal growth and performance, and many play a role in immune function. The trace minerals that are commonly supplemented to cattle include cobalt, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, selenium and zinc. Trace minerals are required at very small concentrations, making deficiencies difficult to recognize. Deficiencies of the trace minerals can result in decreased intake and gain, reduced fertility and libido, retained placentas, abortions and stillbirths, low birth weights and poor calf performance.

 

[EAT BEEF]

Good article I agree with everything except "it's not always the cows fault!"

 

[Mr. Greenjeans]

Thanks for the information DOC.

Most comments on this board are, from what I assume and deduce, an attempt for people to gain emotional currency for being "right". Occasionally I find some pearls of information. I always knew we provide yellow sulfur blocks for our cows -- now I know it is for production of sulfur containing amino acids and the processing of toxins in sorghum. From what you report it would seem preposterous not to use the correct ratio of phosphorous with calcium supplements. In humans I know the body can't properly utilize calcium if magnesium is in short supply -- It might apply as well in cattle. Harmony is to be sought in all areas I assume.

In our production of Brangus seedstock, we have had recommendations to use minerals on our young bulls prior to their sale in order to increase the likelihood that their sperm count would be high. Our vet mentions that ranches in our area have an excess of Iron in the soil while being deficient in Copper. He said this is the possible reason for poor testing. We see two sides to this and opt for no mineral supplements and "weeding out" the ones that don't test well. Minerals are good in general but we believe supplements should not be used to mask genetically inferior seedstock. We simply want seedstock that will thrive under the conditions of our environment. -- just a thought

By the way, even though your thread on Irish Blacks was hijacked, the information presented was interesting and I look forward to the statistical analysis and carcass evaluations of their crossbred offspring. It is nice to see ultraconcentrated gene pools available if we need them.

 

[KMacGinley]

One thing to keep in mind, which I suspect most people don't is what the cows are eating, if you are feeding high amounts of alfalfa hay, it will contain high amounts of calcium, which if you are just going by your 2:1 mineral mix, may push your ratio up to above 7:1. On the other hand if you are feeding the distillers grains, they are loaded with Phosphorus, which may cause even females to develop urinary calculi. It is important to know what is in your feed.

No minerals may be necessary it the diet of the animals is adequate to their needs. Just salt and selenium, if you are in a selenium deficient area. Or iodine and copper, if you have pinkeye problems
Feed sampling is important, and I bet most people don't.

 

[MikeC]

Feed sampling is important, and I bet most people don't.

I agree 100%.

Those that try to get by on hay alone have no business doing so if they don't have an analysis of that hay. Just a few dollars in supplements and/or minerals could head off later problems.

It would probably scare us to know how many have never had an analysis done on growing forages either.

Those so-called "grass farmers" out there have no idea that you cannot manage what you cannot measure. Sometimes "low input" comes at a high price.

 

[dun]

When it takes 6 weeks to get back an analysis I'll go by what I was tought by my old, late mentor, "The eye of the herdsman"

 

[MikeC]

When it takes 6 weeks to get back an analysis I'll go by what I was tought by my old, late mentor, "The eye of the herdsman"

My analysis is faxed back to me within 3-4 days after receiving it cause I got out and found a lab that has a fast turn around.

I am surprised by the results more than I care to reveal also. ;-)

Excuses, excuses. :lol:

 

[dun]

My analysis is faxed back to me within 3-4 days after receiving it cause I got out and found a lab that has a fast turn around.

I am surprised by the results more than I care to reveal also. ;-)

Excuses, excuses. :lol:

I'll just stick with what has served me well for 40 years or so

 

[MikeC]

My analysis is faxed back to me within 3-4 days after receiving it cause I got out and found a lab that has a fast turn around.

I am surprised by the results more than I care to reveal also. ;-)

Excuses, excuses. :lol:

I'll just stick with what has served me well for 40 years or so

That is certainly your prerogative and I respect that. But I thought I had put up some good hay about 3 years ago after about 40 years of guesswork. Turned out the hay was lacking in almost everything and cost me a pretty penny in weaning weights and slow breedbacks. Had no grazing that year due to drought to dilute the effects either.

That hays' appearance, smell, texture, and palatability fooled all of us old codgers around here.

I think testing is well worth the time, trouble, and expense. It especially would be wise to those less experienced.

 

[Scotty]

Could not agree more on testing hay. Who is to know how much the nitrate levels are. Easy in my rea to get them high. Second, minerals are cheap. To not have a good mineral out is stupid.

 

[TexasBred]

I hope most of us don't feed hay to supply minerals. If you're feeding cubes, liquid supplement or tubs you're cows probably don't have a mineral deficiency. For that matter most cattle don't have deficiencies except a few areas of the country may have a shortage of seleneium and others either a shortage of copper or an overabundance of iron in the soil. Many cattle eat mineral more or less because it's there than because they need it. It's got "goodies" in it to make it taste good and they like it such as cottonseed meal, ddg and dried molasses.

I'm feeding some of the best looking hay this year that I've had in ages. I mean it is green, fine and gorgeous but I know it was not fertilized and probably won't test 8% crude protein at best. The cattle are bred, they carry good body scores and are happy. Never had milk fever, ketosis, retained placenta or abortion. Something is going right. I do keep mineral out but they consume very little of it. (Now that I've said that.... all hell will probably break loose)

One good lab I can recommend is:
Dairy One
730 Warren Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Ph: 1.800.496.3344 or 607.257.1272
Fax: 1.607.257.6808

Great tests and fast results.

 

[dun]

That is certainly your prerogative and I respect that. But I thought I had put up some good hay about 3 years ago after about 40 years of guesswork. Turned out the hay was lacking in almost everything and cost me a pretty penny in weaning weights and slow breedbacks. Had no grazing that year due to drought to dilute the effects either.

That hays' appearance, smell, texture, and palatability fooled all of us old codgers around here.

I think testing is well worth the time, trouble, and expense. It especially would be wise to those less experienced.

The eye of the herdsman has nothing to do with looking at the hay, it's looking at the cattle. If I was dairying it would be a whole different ballgame unless I was doing DHIA testing or had weigh jars.

 

[goodbeef]

i dont consider mineral that costs between $500 and $900 a ton to be cheap, but it is very important, if you have a good mineral program it alieviates alot of problems!