Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Loose Minerals
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="certherfbeef" data-source="post: 57266" data-attributes="member: 190"><p>This came from Beef Stocker Trends. I don't agree with the article. But who am I to disagree with Texas A&M???????</p><p> 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:</p><p> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>"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." </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>The review includes a ranking of different supplement types (1 being best): </p><p></p><p>Intake variability</p><p></p><p>1.Hand-fed (cubes and blocks) </p><p>2.Self-fed (tubs and liquids)</p><p> </p><p>Flexibility of low-cost formulation</p><p></p><p>1.Cubes </p><p>2.Blocks </p><p>3.Tubs </p><p>4.Liquid Feeds </p><p></p><p>Labor associated with delivery </p><p></p><p>1.Liquid feeds (dealer filling feeders) </p><p>2.Tubs </p><p>3.Blocks </p><p>4.Cubes (hand-fed) </p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>The review is part of TAMU's "2004 Texas Beef Cattle Management Handbook." For more info, contact TAMU at 979/845-6931.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="certherfbeef, post: 57266, member: 190"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Loose Minerals
Top