Absorption by the animal For any trace mineral to deliver its intended value, the metal contained within the trace mineral must make it into the ani- mal’s bloodstream. But simply adding an ingredient to the ra- tion does not necessarily mean the ingredient makes it into the bloodstream. Because the bonds in sulphate trace miner- als are weak, the metals contained within the minerals can easily bind with antagonists in the feed before the animal’s system even has a chance to metabolise them. The end result is less metal originating from sulphate trace minerals is avail- able for absorption in the bloodstream. In contrast, hydroxy- chloride trace minerals’ tight covalent bonds and low solubili- ty help protect the mineral from breaking down in the rumen, allowing more metal to be available for absorption within the animal’s bloodstream.
Sustainability and precision nutrition As governments and responsible companies seek to support sustainability initiatives, many regions have established lower thresholds for the use of various minerals. These regulations aim to keep various minerals – copper and phosphorous, for example – out of the environment. Unfortunately, trace mineral absorption is not necessarily effi- cient in ruminants. Because sulphate trace minerals are not effi- ciently absorbed, they can be more easily excreted into the en- vironment than hydroxychloride minerals. With an eye toward precision nutrition, hydroxychloride trace minerals were engi- neered to accurately and adequately meet the cow’s biological requirement. By delivering the precise amount of minerals re- quired, the true physiological requirements of the cow can be accurately met and less of the mineral is excreted into the envi- ronment. This approach delivers the least amount of product required to meet biological requirements, maximising absorp- tion of the product in the animal, and minimising destruction of other nutrients in the feed. Ultimately, hydroxychloride increases the efficiency of inputs invested in the animal. A good example is phytate, the natural source of phosphorous existing within plants. Because of their weak ionic bonds, sul- phate trace minerals can easily breakdown, tying up phytate and making it no longer biologically available to the animal. At the same time, phosphorous – a highly regulated element – can be released, presenting a sustainability concern. In con- trast, hydroxychloride minerals do not tie up phosphorus and allow it to be absorbed versus excreted by the animal.
Avoiding the dangers Of course, the benefits of any investment in improved nutri- tion and performance must be weighed against the associated cost. Organic sources of trace minerals have been around for many years and do not inflict the harm associated with sul- phate trace minerals. However, organics typically have a high price point, meaning the benefits may not exceed the cost. From both an economic and performance perspective,
hydroxychloride trace minerals provide an attractive alternative to organics, allowing farmers to avoid the harmful effects of sulphate trace minerals at a significantly lower price point than organics. Farmers can replace all of their sulphate trace miner- als with hydroxychloride trace minerals or replace sulphate trace minerals with a blend of organic and hydroxychloride trace minerals. The most critical factor is to remove sulphate trace minerals – and the harm they cause – from the dairy ra- tion. A conversation with a nutritionist is a good place to start.
For more insights on research related to the harm sulphate trace minerals present, check out a recent FeedChat podcast episode with Dairy Global editor Zana van Dijk available at
DairyGlobal.net
References available upon request.
Figure 1 - Findings from 10 studies conducted by Trouw Nutrition. P=0.90
Bold a
P=0.90 P=0.99
c d d e f
g h i
-6 -4 -2 0
a b
P=0.79 P=0.10 P=0.10
P=0.02 P=0.43
P=0.09 P=0.04 P=0.04
24 6
a = Genther and Hansen, 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98:566-573. b = Micronutrients Trial #2017D103CACZM. c = Micronutrients Trial #2017D123USCZM. d = Miller et al. 2019 J. Dairy Sci. 102 (Suppl. 1):280. e = Faulkner and Weiss. 2017. J. Dairy Sci. 100:5358-5367.
f = VanValin et al. 2018 J. Anim. Sci. 96:5336-5344. g = Caldera et al. 2019. J. Anim. Sci. 97:1852-1864. h = Micronutrients Trial #2017R120USCZM. i = Guimaraes et al. 2019. J. Anim. Sci. ASAS abstract #414.
Table 1 – Diets free of sulphate trace minerals. Trace mineral
Cost difference (vs. form
1. 100% organic trace minerals
2. 100% hydroxy trace minerals
sulphate trace minerals) + € .07 to € .11/cow/day There’s no question organic trace minerals
provide a result, but most producers find the benefits of feeding 100% organic trace minerals don’t outweigh the cost.
+ € .01 to € .03/cow/day Hydroxy trace minerals are affordable. The
additional cost over sulphate trace minerals is easily offset by the increase in bioavailabil- ity and NDFD. For those reasons, many pro- ducers choose this option.
3. 80% hydroxy-
chloride trace minerals, 20% organic trace minerals
+ € .03 to € .05/cow/day This is an option for producers who want to keep organic trace minerals in their ration while keeping the cost of removing sulphates at a reasonable level.
▶DAIRY GLOBAL | Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 21 Considerations
In Situ
uNDF240 In Vivo Total Tract In Vivo
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
