Trace Mineral Supplements - Buying Cheap Is Not Always Best

The more I read about trace mineral supplements, the more difficulty I have determining which types deliver best value for money. Recently I’ve waded through masses of data and promotional material for various types and forms of trace minerals. I’ve ended up a little punch-drunk, but it’s made me think about how to consider the value of any trace mineral supplementation programme. Essentially, it depends on what we are expecting to achieve for our livestock.

I’m going to ignore trace minerals formulations that can be given by injection or in other long-acting form, and discuss only minerals recommended as regular dietary supplements.

Firstly, a reminder on the basic forms that these trace minerals take. There are inorganic forms such as sulphates or chlorides, and organic forms such as chelates, proteinates, lignosulfonates, and amino-acid complexes. Each form has different characteristics, not only chemically, but also how they are absorbed and utilized by the body. It is the absorption and utilization characteristics that usually make the difference. And, of course, there are price differences.

Inorganic forms are the cheapest. Inorganic copper sulphate is widely used, as are the sulphate forms of other minerals such as zinc, cobalt, and manganese. The organic forms are more expensive, usually due to manufacturing costs, but can provide benefits the inorganic forms can’t.

And it’s these relative benefits that can make the difference when making value for money comparisons. But in determining this, one first needs to be clear what your supplementation programme is trying to achieve, and what your expectations are from the use of dietary trace minerals.

If you just want to avoid ill-thrift problems and other down-side consequences of gross trace mineral deficiencies such as copper or cobalt, than inorganic sulphates are really all you need. If you supplement to basic dietary requirements, you can achieve your objective fairly cheaply. You won’t get deaths or deficiency diseases, and that’s valuable.

If however, you want to ensure your stock maintain a good mineral status by having tissue reserves to draw on when required, and to pass on to the unborn or new-born calf, then you need to supplement a bit more scientifically. In this case, you would probably monitor mineral levels through blood and liver analysis and supplement according to these results. Your supplementation options still include inorganic minerals, probably at higher rates, but to maintain the blood and liver levels you decide on, you may need to consider more bioavailable forms of supplements. The cost of monitoring and supplementing to maintain this adequate reserve status will be more expensive than just trying to avoid a deficiency state, but you can expect healthier stock. In this case, the value for money of the supplements is reckoned against the cost it takes to maintain a good mineral status in the herd, as determined by blood or liver analysis. However, you may or may not be able to expect or detect any production benefits from this approach.

But you may supplement with the objective that your trace mineral investment will not just prevent deficiencies and maintain healthy stock, but also deliver production benefits like increased milk yield, better reproduction performance, reduced mastitis, lower SCC’s, and reduced lameness. In this case, inorganic minerals may not do the job even when fed at high levels. In fact, research indicates that even though high levels of mineral sulphates may boost and maintain good blood and liver mineral levels, they can actually depress milk yield levels compared to some organic minerals. It seems that organic minerals, particularly the amino-acid complexed minerals, are better absorbed and utilized by the body when it comes to helping improve production parameters.

So when looking at your expected return on investment from a trace mineral programme, it depends on what you are wanting to achieve. A supplementation programme that ensures high blood or liver levels, (which may be achieved with some inorganic dietary supplements), does not necessarily mean that milk production will be enhanced. High sulphate supplementation can, in fact, depress milk production. Further, high copper liver levels from over-enthusiastic copper sulphate use, can and has, led to deaths from secondary copper poisoning.

Expenditure on trace mineral supplementation to maintain herd health is always wise. But cheap inorganic minerals and some organic forms, may not actually give as good a return on investment as the seemingly more expensive organic forms like amino-acid complexes.