Rod
Well-known member
What would be a good example of a good loose mineral brand and type? How much and how often?
Loose Minerals
- Thread starter Rod
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Several different good types. Depends on where you are, and what your area is deficient in. For example, our area is copper deficient, and we use a mineral that has extra copper in it. Also, find a mineral that the cows will freely eat. We have tried several types that the cows wouldn't touch, unless mixed with feed. I'm not mixing feed with them, so we swapped around and found some the cows would eat. My experience says keep the minerals out all the time. If you let them run out, they always eat more than they normally would to make up for it, and it takes too much money to fill them up.
Brad
Brad
Texan
Well-known member
I would have to echo nearly everything that Brad said. Evergreen is the best brand that I have found for the money. Seems to handle the moisture better without rocking up. I use the Triple 12, but your area might require something different. The Triple 12 contains equal amounts of Calcium, Phosphorous and salt, plus trace minerals and vitamins. Although I have used them, I don't like the straight minerals without salt because I don't necessarily buy into the line about cattle eating what they need of all minerals. The salt will make them do that.Rod":3v85x9ns said:
I wouldn't dream of mixing a meal or any other feed with a mineral. I know that some people advocate doing that, but for me, minerals are too high to waste. Mixing a feed to make them more palatable promotes overconsumption of both. A good mineral program is important enough to justify its own trough! If you need a protein supplement, that should be separate for the most accurate consumption of mineral. I will mix a little extra salt with minerals in the summer when their salt craving is higher to keep consumption at the 2 to 4 ounce per day recommended rate. Also, if you're using a mineral that contains salt, don't keep out any other source of salt. The only way that you can get a reliable average consumption is to make sure all of your cattle only have one selection.
cattle_gal
Well-known member
Right Now is a good one. I used it. If it gets wet it doesn't harden or cake, stays loose. That's one thing when mineral shopping to ask about. I went to a Montana made mineral that has the chelates in it and more of what I need and doesn't cost as much as Cargill when it comes down to how much the cow consumes. Just looking at the cost on a per ton basis it's the same, but if you break down how long it lasts then the other was the choice.
Like Brad said give it to them year round. If they are hording it to much after they have caught up then put some salt in another tub. You can then see if they are hungry for mineral or for salt.
But each region varies in what they need. One rancher that was used to being def in selinium around here move to where it is toxic.
I wouldn't wanting to put a protein supplement and mix it with a mineral supplement. I have thought about getting the mineral put in with the cake, however I felt if they had free chose of when they want the mineral and how much that would leave out the chance of the "pigs" eating all the cake and mineral and some not getting the mineral at all.
Like Brad said give it to them year round. If they are hording it to much after they have caught up then put some salt in another tub. You can then see if they are hungry for mineral or for salt.
But each region varies in what they need. One rancher that was used to being def in selinium around here move to where it is toxic.
I wouldn't wanting to put a protein supplement and mix it with a mineral supplement. I have thought about getting the mineral put in with the cake, however I felt if they had free chose of when they want the mineral and how much that would leave out the chance of the "pigs" eating all the cake and mineral and some not getting the mineral at all.
greenwillowherefords
Well-known member
I've got ahold of some mineral before that HAS to be fed with feed. I don't like it! 
It is my experience that the more the mineral costs, the longer it lasts; they require less of the potent stuff.
It is my experience that the more the mineral costs, the longer it lasts; they require less of the potent stuff.
polledbull
Well-known member
Moormans has a good mineral that stands up to water . It stays loose in the worst conditions , however it is the most expensive I have seen yet. It last good and is of the highest quality , but real expensive.
greenwillowherefords
Well-known member
polledbull":2lq3fm23 said:
That's the one I was talking about, that is so expensive, but lasts longest.
certherfbeef
Well-known member
This came from Beef Stocker Trends. I don't agree with the article. But who am I to disagree with Texas A&M???????
I keep mineral out all the time and change to breeder-booster during calving and breeding seasons. It is my opinion that the cattle eat less and waste less when allowed to self-supplement.(after they initially get their fill, of course) Just make sure the mineral moves to the field when the cattle move. My other half is good at moving the cattle and not moving the mineral. Here is the article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just as no single mix of ingredients suits every nutritional situation, the different delivery types of supplement also come with their own pluses and minuses.
For instance, feed intake is more variable with self-feeding -- making supplement available in bulk for cattle to consume when they choose -- than it is with hand-feeding -- making supplement available in an amount that will be consumed immediately.
In fact, according to a review of supplement types by Texas A&M University's (TAMU) Jason Sawyer and New Mexico State University's Clay Mathis, research shows intake variability can be as twice as high with self-feeding. Subsequently, performance can be more variable with self-feeding supplements, especially depending on the effectiveness of the intake limiter and animal acceptance of the ration.
Of course, the flipside of this is that in most situations delivering larger amounts of supplement less frequently (self-feeding) is less costly than delivering smaller amounts more often (hand-feeding).
"If a self-fed supplement costs significantly more than hand-fed supplement, any labor savings may be offset," the reviewers say. "However, for energy or mineral supplements (which require every-day or alternate-day feeding) self-fed supplements may be more economical, even at a higher price per ton, because both labor and transportation costs are reduced. Furthermore, in rough or poorly accessible areas, self-fed supplements may be the only viable solution since the producer may have limited ability to deliver feed to the animals."
Incidentally, when it comes to supplementing protein and delivery frequency, Sawyer and Mathis point out research indicates hand-feeding once/week yields the same performance as hand-feeding three times/week. So, the cost of hand-feeding protein supplement can be similar to self-feeding it.
The review includes a ranking of different supplement types (1 being best):
Intake variability
1.Hand-fed (cubes and blocks)
2.Self-fed (tubs and liquids)
Flexibility of low-cost formulation
1.Cubes
2.Blocks
3.Tubs
4.Liquid Feeds
Labor associated with delivery
1.Liquid feeds (dealer filling feeders)
2.Tubs
3.Blocks
4.Cubes (hand-fed)
Mathis and Sawyer sum up, "The primary goal of any supplementation program is to deliver targeted amounts of specific nutrients in a uniform and consistent matter to generate predictable results. Variability in supplement intake is a major cause of variable performance response to a supplemental feeding program. Some systems may deliver the nutrients more precisely, but the costs and benefits of each system should be evaluated."
The review is part of TAMU's "2004 Texas Beef Cattle Management Handbook." For more info, contact TAMU at 979/845-6931.
I keep mineral out all the time and change to breeder-booster during calving and breeding seasons. It is my opinion that the cattle eat less and waste less when allowed to self-supplement.(after they initially get their fill, of course) Just make sure the mineral moves to the field when the cattle move. My other half is good at moving the cattle and not moving the mineral. Here is the article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just as no single mix of ingredients suits every nutritional situation, the different delivery types of supplement also come with their own pluses and minuses.
For instance, feed intake is more variable with self-feeding -- making supplement available in bulk for cattle to consume when they choose -- than it is with hand-feeding -- making supplement available in an amount that will be consumed immediately.
In fact, according to a review of supplement types by Texas A&M University's (TAMU) Jason Sawyer and New Mexico State University's Clay Mathis, research shows intake variability can be as twice as high with self-feeding. Subsequently, performance can be more variable with self-feeding supplements, especially depending on the effectiveness of the intake limiter and animal acceptance of the ration.
Of course, the flipside of this is that in most situations delivering larger amounts of supplement less frequently (self-feeding) is less costly than delivering smaller amounts more often (hand-feeding).
"If a self-fed supplement costs significantly more than hand-fed supplement, any labor savings may be offset," the reviewers say. "However, for energy or mineral supplements (which require every-day or alternate-day feeding) self-fed supplements may be more economical, even at a higher price per ton, because both labor and transportation costs are reduced. Furthermore, in rough or poorly accessible areas, self-fed supplements may be the only viable solution since the producer may have limited ability to deliver feed to the animals."
Incidentally, when it comes to supplementing protein and delivery frequency, Sawyer and Mathis point out research indicates hand-feeding once/week yields the same performance as hand-feeding three times/week. So, the cost of hand-feeding protein supplement can be similar to self-feeding it.
The review includes a ranking of different supplement types (1 being best):
Intake variability
1.Hand-fed (cubes and blocks)
2.Self-fed (tubs and liquids)
Flexibility of low-cost formulation
1.Cubes
2.Blocks
3.Tubs
4.Liquid Feeds
Labor associated with delivery
1.Liquid feeds (dealer filling feeders)
2.Tubs
3.Blocks
4.Cubes (hand-fed)
Mathis and Sawyer sum up, "The primary goal of any supplementation program is to deliver targeted amounts of specific nutrients in a uniform and consistent matter to generate predictable results. Variability in supplement intake is a major cause of variable performance response to a supplemental feeding program. Some systems may deliver the nutrients more precisely, but the costs and benefits of each system should be evaluated."
The review is part of TAMU's "2004 Texas Beef Cattle Management Handbook." For more info, contact TAMU at 979/845-6931.
I've been using Mooremans high phos. My area is low in it. It also helps the cows rebreed. Since starting on it my calving rate is up to 100%. They rebreed on time the last three years since changing. The right now program I have heard is good but it require you to change for the season.
Scotty
Scotty
TexasShooter
Well-known member
Scotty or anyone,
Is this loose mineral or block?
Also I tried going to their website http://www.mooremans.com, however it is no longer a vaild website. Does anyone know of another means to get info on the mineral?
Thanks,
certherfbeef
Well-known member
This link will give you info on Moorman's mineral. It is ADM Alliance Nutrition.
http://www.admani.com/alliancebeef/MoorMansMineralsWithVitamins.htm
Maybe give this a look too.
http://www.mycattle.com/health/updates/winterminsup.cfm
http://www.admani.com/alliancebeef/MoorMansMineralsWithVitamins.htm
Maybe give this a look too.
http://www.mycattle.com/health/updates/winterminsup.cfm
cattle_gal
Well-known member
Moormans really good product. The company where I get my mineral is part of there company.
I don't know if UAP (united agri products) is still in the feed business else where. But I think they pulled out of all the feed business.
Cargill does have a website and this goes right to the mineral section. And also has link for finding a dealer.
http://www.cargillanimalnutrition.com/l ... 7d146e9a22
I don't know if UAP (united agri products) is still in the feed business else where. But I think they pulled out of all the feed business.
Cargill does have a website and this goes right to the mineral section. And also has link for finding a dealer.
http://www.cargillanimalnutrition.com/l ... 7d146e9a22
TexasShooter
Well-known member
Thanks alot...just talked to a local dealer rep and he is going to meet with me, etc. If their product is as well as their service then I will be very pleased.
Thanks again for the help.
--Shooter
Thanks again for the help.
--Shooter
Rod
Well-known member
Thanks for all the input guys, I never had really thought that much about loose minerals. I had talked to an old-timer the other day about how his cattle were in such good shape and his calving success and he said three things,nutrition,nutrition, and nutrition!
cattle_gal
Well-known member
rws":xel0kigz said:
Do you have the information with the Guaranteed Analysis of what's in there? And if so would you be willing to list it. Mineral/Vit and min and max % or PPM or IU/LB. And also how much oz a day per cow.
ca,min-8.0% ca,max-9.6% p,min-4% nacl,min-5.5% nacl,max-6.5% mg,min-14% k,min-0.4% mn,min-1750ppm cu,min-1100ppm co,min-9ppm i,min-43ppm se,min-27ppm zn,min-3300ppm vitamin a,min-50,000iu/lb vitamin d,min-5,000iu/lb vitamin e,min-50iu/lb recomended 4 oz per head a daycattle_gal":2p06r4re said:
cattle_gal
Well-known member
rws":3sq5irzk said:
It is so interesting how each company has there take on how much is the right amount. Some like to have the Cal - Phos ratio at 1:1 and some have it at 2:1 and I have another tag from a mineral I used to use that has it less than a 2:1 ratio. I presume that the Mg you wrote is 1.4% instead of 14%. I hope :shock:
For the 27 ppm of Se I don't think that is very high at all. My mineral is 52 ppm of Se for those of us in the no trace of Se areas. I would say that the 27 -30 ppm is a normal level.
Now the consumption rate. Most people base the most bang for the buck by just the price per ton. Here's where feed companies can fool those people. If Product A costs 12.95 a bag(50lbs) then that is $518 per ton. Great deal considering when another Product B costs $700 a ton. However how much a cow eats a day will show if your Product A is a deal or a rip off compared to Product B. Product A has a median consumption rate of 4 oz a day. Procduct B has a 2 oz consumption rate/cow/day. If there are 32,000 oz in a ton the 4 oz/cow/day Product A would last 200 cows 40 days and the 2 oz/cow/day Product B would last 200 cows 80 days. It would cost $1036 of product A to supplement the cattle the same amount of days as Product B. That's $336 dollars thrown away using the cheaper per ton Product A.
