Comparison of mineral mixtures and molassed minerals with respect to intake

by

Henning Lyngsø Foged

M.Sc. Agriculture

A comparison based on data from 14 cattle herds with 1,096 cattle shows that grazing heifers and beef cows gets 2.4, respectively 2.2 times more minerals if they are offered mineral mixtures (loose or granulated mineral feed supplements) in a mineral feeder (MineralRocker) rather than molassed minerals (or mineral blocks) in buckets or bowls. It is supposed that the difference is due to 1) the difficulty for the cattle to consume a sufficient amounts of minerals through licking, and 2) farmers restricted administration of the expensive molassed minerals. The consumption of mineral mixtures in the observed herds were at an acceptable level in relation to the envisaged intake of minerals. Molassed minerals in buckets or bowls can in general not comply with grazing cattle's requirement for mineral supplementation.

Background

A visit to a German farmer, the renowned Chrolais breeder Mr. Wilfried Seeger, customer of our dealer, GELITA, in Niedersachsen, revealed that his herd eats considerably more minerals after he shifted from the use of molassed minerals to mineral mixtures given in MineralRockers, and that this had resulted in clearly positive effects on the herd health and reproduction.

The Charolais herd of around 200 cattle, comprising 85 cows + young stock was earlier consuming 30 large mineral bowls of 80 kilo molassed minerals each during a grazing season. This consumption of molassed minerals equals 79 gram per cow per day, assuming cows eats three times more minerals than young stock, and that there are 0.9 young stock per 1 cow.

The consumption of minerals, after the shift to mineral mixtures in mineral feeders (4 MineralRocker's), increased from 2.4 to 3.75 tonnes during the 9 months grazing period, which is equal to 123 gram per cow per day.

The farmer is paying almost the same for his minerals as earlier, because the molassed minerals are much more expensive per kilo. However, his cattle gets more than 3 times as many minerals as earlier, considering the share of molasses and alike in the molassed minerals. The larger intake of minerals has, naturally, had a clear and positive effect. Earlier cases of cows dying from grass tetany have disappeared and problems with calving difficulties are strongly reduced.

Wilfried Seeger says: "We have experienced many positive effects of the shift from molassed minerals to granulated minerals given in mineral feeders."

This example from Germany has encouraged us to investigate whether there are systematic differences between the intake of mineral supplements in the form of mineral mixtures (loose licks, powdered minerals, granulated minerals, ...) and molassed minerals (in bowls, buckets, ...).

Collection of data from more herds

Two Danish mineral dealers, dlg Nordvest and LINDS, has collected data from accidentally selected herds chosen from the years' sales lists. The herds were contacted for information about type and number of cattle that had consumed the purchased mineral supplements, and about the duration of the grazing period. Some herds were excluded because they had used more types of mineral supplements. MineralRockers had in all cases been used for giving mineral mixtures.

Results

Data and calculation results for the individual herds are given from Table 1.

Table 1: Individual herd data and calculations concerning consumption of mineral mixtures and molassed minerals.

Herd No.	Type of cattle	Number of cattle	Type of  mineral feed	Consumption of mineral feed, kg.	Consumption period, date		Number of feeding days	Consumption, gram mineral feed per animal per day	% P+Mg in the mineral feed	Consumption, gram P+Mg per animal per day
					Start	End
1	Beef cows	18	Granulated	230	1/5	30/11	3,834	60	18.5	11.1
2	Beef cows	13	Granulated	170	1/5	30/11	2,769	61	18.5	11.4
3	Young stock	46	Granulated	450	15/5	1/11	7,820	58	11.0	6.3
4	Young stock	110	Granulated	975	20/5	1/11	18,150	54	11.0	5.9
5	Young stock	112	Granulated	500	15/5	1/11	19,040	26	12.0	3.2
6	Young stock	52	Granulated	500	15/5	1/11	8,840	57	12.0	6.8
7	Young stock	169	Granulated	975	10/5	1/11	29,575	33	12.0	4.0
8	Young stock	48	Molassed	220	10/5	15711	9,072	24	14.0	3.4
9	Young stock	39	Molassed	40	15/5	1/11	6,630	6	11.0	0.7
10	Young stock	157	Granulated	975	10/5	1/11	27,475	35	12.0	4.3
11	Young stocka	214	Molassed	450	1/5	1711	39,376	22	11.0	1.2
12	Beef cows	25	Molassed	200	10/5	20/11	4,850	82	11.0	4.5
13	Young stock	60	Molassed	400	1/5	1/11	11,040	72	11.0	4.0
14	Beef cowsb	26	Molassed	300	1/5	15/12	5,928	51	11.0	5.6

The calculation of the consumption of phosphorus (P) and magnesium (Mg) in Table 1 is due to the fact that it especially is those two minerals that are the reason for buying mineral supplements for grazing cattle, and because the amount and quality of those 2 minerals is decisive for the price of the mineral supplement feed. All minerals are important and have a role, but

• P and Mg are macro minerals and therefore found in relatively large amounts in the mineral feeds;

• Worldwide, phosphorus deficiency is reported to be the most prevalent mineral insufficiency in grazing livestock (see eg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/phosphorus-deficiency); and

• Grass tetany, caused by Mg-deficiency, is a major reason for cattle dying on the field.

Trace elements are, different from P and Mg, often included in the mineral feeds in the form of a premixture, which only constitutes 1-3% of the mineral supplement.

The content of phosphorus and magnesium in the mineral feeds used at the surveyed farms are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Share of phosphorus and magnesium in the mineral feeds used at the surveyed farms.

	% P	% Mg	% P+Mg
Komix Anmmeko Sommer	4.5	14.0	18.5
Komix Natur Sommer	4.0	7.0	11.0
Komix Opdræt Sommer	4.0	8.0	12.0
VM Slikbalje	7.5	3.5	11.0
Cimbria slikspand	6.0	8.0	14.0
LINDS slikbalje	7.5	3.5	11.0

The data and the calculated results from Table 1 gives the following picture after grouping according to herd type and mineral type:

Table 3: Real intake from mineral mixtures and molassed minerals, expressed as gram mineral feed per day and gram P+Mg per day, respectively, for beef cows and young stock.

		Beef cows		Young stock
		Granulated	Molassed	Granulated	Molassed
No of feeding days		37,047	41,222	110,900	67,406
Total consumption, kg mineral feed		4,150	2,900	4,375	1,100
Total consumption, kg P+Mg		599	223	510.8	128.7
Consumption of mineral feed, geometrical average	Gram per animal per day	112.0	70.4	39.4	16.5
	Index	159	100	239	100
Consumption of P+Mg, geometrical average	Gram per animal per day	16.2	5.4	4.6	1.9
	Index	312	100	241	100

Conclusion

We can from the registrations conclude the following:

• Beef cows have had an intake of 1.3 times more and young stock 2.4 times more mineral feed in physical amounts when it is offered as mineral mixtures in mineral feeders rather than as molassed minerals in buckets and bowls.

• The intake of P+Mg have similarly been 2.2 times larger for beef cows and 2.4 times larger for young stock.

• There is some variation in the consumption between herds.

Discussion

The intake of mineral mixtures from mineral feeders is on an acceptable level. A calculation with MineralCalculator shows, that

• A pregnant 2nd year heifer on 400 kg with a daily gain of 650 gram would need to be supplemented with 69 gram of a typical mineral mixture per day. More of the surveyed herds included also 1st year heifers wherefore an observed intake of 39.4 gram mineral mixtures per heifer per day is acceptable.

• An older, grazing beef cow on 650 kg in early lactation with 1 suckler calf would need 103 gram of a typical mineral mixture per day, while a dry first lactation cow needs 60 gram.

The much smaller consumption of molassed minerals is assumed to be caused by a combination of 1) herd owners much restricted administration of the very expensive molassed minerals, and 2) because it is difficult for the livestock to consume enough minerals through licking.

The improvements in production, reproduction and health, which are experienced in herds who use mineral mixtures given in mineral feeders, are probably due to the fact that the livestock in this way can consume minerals in accordance with their needs.

The variation in the consumption between herds can be caused by different factors, especially, that not all herd owners takes care that the livestock always have enough mineral feed; for herds using molassed minerals in buckets, it is often seen that there are alone empty buckets in the fence.

There are basically no difference in the quality of the mineral salts used in granulated and molassed mineral feeds. The high cost of molassed minerals is due to the fact that it is more complicated to mould it than to produce mineral mixtures, whereto comes an expensive packaging and distribution in small units and quantities.