In my last column, I reviewed the steps one takes when interpreting a typical mineral tag including clues to the nature of the product’s name as well as the concentration details on the macro and trace minerals and the vitamins that one finds listed under the “Guaranteed Analysis” section. Such information can be used to evaluate a given mineral/vitamin premix or can be used to compare different products, particularly those that differ in price. While details on the specific minerals and vitamins in the premix are important, there is one more piece of information that is critical to understanding whether or not a given product will meet the requirements of your cattle. That information is “expected consumption.”
Consumption information is located on the tag under “Feeding Directions.” Depending on the product, it may simply state expected consumption such as 50 or 100 grams per head per day. Alternatively, it may provide directions for creating a feed batch that consists of the mineral/vitamin premix, a cereal grain and perhaps a protein supplement, that in turn is fed at a predetermined rate to provide a specific intake of the mineral/vitamin premix (i.e. 50 or 100 grams per head per day).
The expected consumption along with the concentration details of the mineral/vitamin premix are the two critical pieces of information that can be used to evaluate how well that product meets the needs of your cattle or to compare two products. To illustrate, let’s look at evaluating a specific mineral/vitamin premix with an expected consumption of 100 grams per head per day. If this premix is a 2:1 product with 18 per cent calcium and nine per cent phosphorus, this means that the expected calcium consumption is (100*0.18) 18 grams of calcium and (100*0.09) nine grams of phosphorus. While this may not seem like a lot, the calcium requirement of a 1,400-pound cow in the eighth month of pregnancy is approximately 29 grams per day, while that of phosphorus is 20 grams per day. In other words, this mineral is supplying approximately 62 and 45 per cent of the daily calcium and phosphorus requirement, respectively, of this cow.
Read Also
Canadian farmers plant less barley in 2025
I’ve received many inquiries from cattle producers about the feed grain outlook for the 2025-26 crop year. Cow-calf producers have…
If we look at the trace minerals, the tag might list the concentration of copper at 1,000 milligrams and that of zinc at 2,500 milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg) of premix. According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM, 2016), copper requirements of beef cattle are 10 mg of copper per kg of dry matter (DM) intake assuming no complicating factors such as high dietary sulphur levels or consumption of high molybdenum forage. Zinc requirements are approximately 30 mg per kg of dry matter intake (NASEM, 2016). For the above cow eating 13 kg of DM, this translates to a daily requirement of (13*10) 130 mg of copper and (13*30) 390 mg of zinc. Again, if the expected mineral/vitamin premix consumption is 100 grams (i.e. 0.100 kg) per head per day, the animal receives (0.100*1,000) 100 mg of copper and (0.100*2,500) 250 mg of zinc daily from the premix or approximately 77 and 64 per cent of the requirement of each mineral, respectively.
Similar calculations can be used to evaluate vitamin intake. For example, the vitamin A requirement of the above cow is 2,800 international units (IU) per kg of DM intake or approximately 36,500 IU per head per day. If the vitamin A concentration of the mineral/vitamin premix is 500,000 IU per kg, consumption of 100 grams of the premix more than meets the animal’s requirement.
Knowledge of expected consumption is also valuable for comparing two minerals that differ in mineral concentration and pricing. Consider for example two minerals with tags listing copper concentration at 900 and 2,000 mg per kg, respectively. The first mineral (A), with an expected consumption of 150 grams per head per day, is valued at $850 per tonne while the second (B), with an expected consumption of 90 grams per head per day, is valued at $1,200 per tonne. Some of us would just look at the price per tonne and choose the cheaper mineral. However, if we follow through on the above calculations, mineral A just meets the animal’s copper requirement supplying only (.15*900) 135 mg of copper while mineral B supplies (.09*2,000) 180 mg and exceeds the requirement. Furthermore, over 90 days, the cost of mineral A is actually higher than mineral B ($11.48 versus $9.72 per head). In this case, cheaper is not always better!
The tag may also indicate whether a proportion of the trace minerals (i.e. copper, zinc or manganese) are chelated. Chelated trace minerals such as copper propionate or zinc methionine are absorbed to a greater extent than inorganic sources such as oxides or sulphates. Chelated minerals are particularly valuable when there are known mineral antagonists in the forage or water source such as sulphates, iron and/or molybdenum.
This concludes my review of the mineral tag. I hope the next time you are looking to purchase a mineral/vitamin premix you have a better understanding of the information that it carries and you are in a position to make an informed choice.
