Trace Minerals in Feedlot Cattle
Most feedlots add supplemental minerals to a grain ration, but feed consumption of shipping-stressed cattle coming into a feedlot is typically low, especially the first seven to 10 days. Some feedlots individually dose the animals.
Recent studies have evaluated performance of shipping-stressed cattle receiving injected minerals vs. performance of cattle that did not receive this supplement, and how trace mineral status affects risk for respiratory disease and finishing performance in feedlot cattle.
"These studies were done during the receiving period at the feedlot, and these were high-stress cattle. One study was done at Oklahoma State University, another was done at University of Missouri and the third at University of Arkansas," says Lourens Havenga (Multimin USA). Researchers found that if an injection of trace minerals was added to a processing protocol — when doing all the vaccinations, tagging, etc. — on incoming cattle, it could make a difference in health and performance.
"These trials looked at average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion, number of treatments (for health problems), number of re-treatments, and antibiotic costs. They found a significant improvement in health of mineral-treated cattle (compared with control groups) in all three studies, and also a significant decrease in antibiotic costs," he says.
For example, the Arkansas study used 90 heifers purchased from auction barns and randomly allocated to mineral-treated (using two different injected products) or control groups. During the 55-day trial, calves in the two mineral-treated groups consumed only 5.4 pounds (lb.) and 5.6 lb. of feed per pound of gain, while calves in the control group ate 6.2 lb. of feed per pound of gain. Overall, average daily gain for mineral-treated calves was 2.43 lb. and 2.39 lb. ADG for the controls was only 1.99 lb.
Mineral-treated calves had fewer cases of respiratory illness, and less antibiotic expense. Percent of calves showing illness in the control group was 87.1%, compared with 54.8% and 67.9% of mineral-treated calves. Fewer calves required a second treatment with antibiotics in mineral-treated groups (19.4% and 17.9%) compared with 51.6% of calves in the control group.
Average antibiotic cost per animal in the control group was $13.66. Average cost in the two mineral groups was $9.47 and $8.07. Reduction in antibiotic cost (savings per animal) was greater than the cost of administering trace mineral solutions ($1.50 per animal), and no injection site lesions were observed in the mineral-treated animals.
[Click here to go to the top of the page.]