Tools of the Trade

Precision Tools

The other day when I had my van in for service, I noticed the fine array of wrenches and other tools available for use by the mechanic. Since I am a guy who feels fully equipped if I have more than one adjustable crescent wrench, I was impressed not only by the sheer numbers of the different tools but also by the specific applications for some of them. Given the necessary skills, the mechanic had all the tools he needed to take apart and reassemble the complex engines powering today’s vehicles.

I remembered then some things I learned years ago from my good friend and veterinary colleague, Dr. Bob Scott. Bob had a unique way of looking at things and could translate complicated subjects into an easy to understand broad overview using simple analogies. Here is his view of the role of minerals in plants and animals.

Plants are made up of air and water. If you combine carbon, as from carbon dioxide, with oxygen and hydrogen (also from air or water), you have the basic building block of starch, sugar, or carbohydrates. Add nitrogen to this basic formula and you have an amino acid or a basic building block for protein.

If you burn a plant thus reducing it to ash you are left with the part of the plant that came from the soil -- usually around 5%. Therefore, 95% of the makeup of plants comes from air and water, combined by the sunshine generated miracle of photosynthesis.

Minerals are nature’s “tools” that enable this process to proceed. They are basic to the enzyme systems that catalyze the storage of the sun’s energy into the chemical bonds within the plant itself. The major elements are the big wrenches, and the smaller wrenches are the trace minerals. All are essential. Any deficiency or imbalance limits the production and the quality of the crops grown. If some elements are lacking in the soil, they will be lacking in the crop. If they are lacking in the crop, they will be lacking in the animal eating the crop.

When an animal consumes plants the same tools used by the plant to combine the CHO & N to store energy are needed to break down chemical bonds and release energy to power the metabolic processes of life and production. If the plant doesn’t have enough built-in tools (minerals), extra tools must be provided. Most of our soils are so depleted in minerals it is almost a given that some mineral supplementation is necessary, especially to arrive at the high levels of productivity we strive for today. Without the mineral tools, proper digestion and assimilation of the energy in the feeds simply does not take place.

Even without computers, animals are smarter than man when it comes to balancing their individual needs for the elements of nutrition, especially the major, minor and trace minerals. Providing a choice in mineral supplementation allows the animals to pick the tools they need without being totally locked-in to only the tools recommended by the computer.

A Precision Tool

Most farmers probably wouldn’t think much of a mechanic who tried to overhaul a tractor with a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, and a couple of crescent wrenches. Unfortunately, in their role as animal caretakers, some livestock men seem to think a cheap sack of high calcium minerals and a trace mineral salt block are all the tools needed by our livestock to utilize fully the energy stored in ourfeeds. They are wrong!

This item was originally posted to a previous issue of Doc' Holliday's Blog on 3 April 2016

A Quick Start Mini Cafeteria Style Mineral Program

Many folks are hesitant to begin feeding their animals individual self-select minerals. No doubt some are concerned the unknown results may not justify the expense. Some are put off by the perceived need to 'fiddle around' with so many different items rather than just providing an OBFA (one-bag-fits-all) mineral. Then too, the fact that such an innovative program is downplayed and sometimes ridiculed by mainstream nutritionists is discouraging to say the least.

If you are curious about cafeteria-style mineral feeding and want to prove to yourself whether or not animals have innate nutritional wisdom and can balance their own minerals if given a choice — here is a program for you.

You will need a few separate compartments to contain the minerals used in this experiment. They can be as simple as a divided wooden trough or a couple of three-hole rubberized feed tubs.  Either way, they should be protected from the elements.

1. Provide one separate basic mineral mix that is higher in Calcium than Phosphorus and another that is higher in Phosphorus than Calcium. Most mineral companies have basic mixed minerals with different levels of calcium and phosphorus. Legume forage diets are higher in calcium and need more phosphorus. Conversely, Silage based diets require more calcium. Both of these products usually contain a similar variety or other minerals.  It is not necessary to withdraw any other mineral mixes you are currently providing free-choice.

The separate sources of Ca and P allow individual adjustment of the critical Ca/P ratio. The absorption and utilization of many other minerals depend on this relationship. (See Mineral Wheel)

2. Plain white salt should be available at all times. Salt is an extender in most mineral mixes. If separate salt is not available, animals may overeat the basic mineral mix for the salt and not the minerals.

3. Kelp should be available free-choice.  If they lack trace minerals they may eat a lot of kelp. If kelp consumption remains high you may want to provide separate sources of some of the trace minerals. For example, Copper or Zinc can be missed with salt at levels of 1 to 2% but the mechanics of getting an even mix are daunting. At some point it may be easier and cheaper to consult commercial companies that provide a broad range of separate free-choice mineral mixes.

Some Other Options:

• If animals are eating dirt, provide a source of bentonite.
• For high producing dairy cows and feedlot animals being fed "hot" rations, provide a bicarbonate buffer to alleviate rumen acidosis. 
• If your cattle are grazing lush spring pastures, provide some magnesium.
• Do not change your current ration.

If you have questions, please leave your contact information in the comment box.

Antibiotics — Good or bad?

I had a phone call from a man with a question about injecting his horse with antibiotics. His Vet had diagnosed a case of Strangles (Streptococcus equi) and recommended a course of antibiotic treatment. The owner wanted to know if that would upset his plans to be organic. I think he was concerned that using antibiotics would violate some basic precept of holistic thought. I assured him it would be a prudent thing to do.

I think antibiotics are a good and useful technology. Since Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin in 1927 it has saved many thousands, perhaps millions, of lives. Antibiotics, in and of themselves, are not bad. The problem we have with them is misuse. Fleming warned, early on, that if penicillin was used at too low a dose or for too short of a time it would lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. We ignored his advice.

In 1947, a hospital in London experienced an outbreak of staph infections that did not respond to penicillin. By 1953, the same resistant bug sparked an epidemic in Australia. In 1955 it crossed to the United States, infecting more than ore 5,000 mothers who had given birth in hospitals near Seattle –and their newborns too.

..
In 1948 Thomas Jukes, a poultry nutritionist at Lederle Laboratories, fed a few ounces of the left over growth medium from the production of the newly discovered broad-spectrum antibiotic tetracycline or aureomycin to a group of chicks. The results in increased growth rates were amazing as were the short-term health benefits.

Jukes shared his results with some colleagues and the practice of feeding low levels of antibiotics to livestock spread like wildfire. This enabled the start of the CAFO industry and was the beginning of the lethal game of leapfrog that organisms and antibiotics have engaged in ever since.

                                         This item was originally posted to a previous issue of Doc' Holliday's Blog on 21 March 2018

Are OBFA Minerals Suitable for Livestock Feeding?

In the early 1960s one of my dairy clients called me about a couple of problems he was having. Two of his heifers in late pregnancy had aborted calves about two weeks early. The calves survived but both heifers died. I recommended he take one to the Veterinary Diagnosttc Lab at the University of Missouri for an autopsy. The diagnosis came back "starvation” which really didn’t fit the circumstances on the farm. This shed little light on the problem so the actual cause was still a mystery.

Carl was also concerned that his animals were eating an unusual amount of minerals. He was feeding a ‘one-bag-fits-all’ (OBFA) mixed dairy mineral and they were eating all he would put out for them.

A feed store next to my Vet office sold products made the Morea Company of Crete, NE. Their main product was a feed supplement made from molasses. They also promoted a cafeteria style mineral program. Carl decided to try this new system.

The 12 compartment mineral feeder, on skids, was positioned in his cow lot, and he began loading it with the separate minerals. The cows watched him as he carried two 25# bags of minerals into the lot and emptied them into the feeder. When he entered again with another two bags, the cattle suddenly ran up, tore one of the bags from his hands and ate the entire contents of one of the bags. The main ingredient in that bag was zinc. Over the next week his cattle ate another bag of zinc and small amount of some of the other mineral. No more heifers aborted, the animals quit eating the OBFA minerals, and overall herd health improved. 

What was happening here? The previous season had not been the best crop year and the animals' preference for zinc indicated their feed was low in zinc. — this increased their appetite for zinc. — the OBFA mineral had a minimal amount of zinc, but was high in Calcium. — Calcium ties up zinc. (See Mineral Wheel) . Thus the excess calcium in every bite of mineral they ate increased the mineral imbalance and adversely affected the metabolic processes in the animals. The young heifers, pregnant and still growing, were the most vulnerable and suffered the earliest and most drastic symptoms.

In actuality, the herd was being force-fed excessive amounts of calcium which affected the absorption and utilization of other essential minerals. (See Mineral Wheel).

I suspect that if the exact same type and amount of minerals in this OBFA mix had been separated out and fed separately the animals would have adjusted for their own needs and no problems would have occurred.

This incident, from over 50 years ago, was the beginning of my education in mineral nutrition. It epitomizes the many pitfalls of feeding OBFA minerals. Since that time, I have never questioned the intrinsic nutritional wisdom that animals exhibit when given proper choices

Doc Sez: The goal of any mineral program should be to achieve balanced mineral adequacy for each individual with no excesses.

Trouble Shooting Mineral Deficiencies

I occasionally get phone calls something like this, “Hey, Doc. My horses have XYZ , what mineral should I be feeding for that?” Further conversation usually reveals they are being fed a bunch of different supplements — some force fed in the ration and some fed free-choice.

It is not usually possible to prescribe appropriate minerals just on the basis of symptoms, but there are situations when symptoms or signs do point to a certain mineral deficiency. For example, if the normally black hair coat of a cow is tinged with red it almost always signifies a copper deficiency. Hoof and hair problems may be associated with deficiencies of zinc and copper.  Then too, certain environmental conditions influence consumption of certain minerals — some animals take more sulfur in the spring and fall when building new hair. Cattle on lush spring growth pasture usually need more magnesium.

When encountering questions similar to the one above—and knowing that an accurate diagnosis is based on good information—I immediately start asking questions.

1,  What are you currently feeding? I am often amazed at the number of supplements some folks give their animals, I suspect sometime different supplements can cause problems with mineral interference. What I am looking for here, is any obvious incompatibilities or gross over feeding, Resulting in metabolic deficiencies even with adequate minerals.

2. Have you tested the water for livestock suitability and especially for nitrates

3. Do you provide separate sources of calcium and phosphorus?

4. Do you have a separate source of plain white salt available?

5. I usually ask the owner or caretaker, “What do you think is the problem?” Since I am sitting at a desk hundreds of miles away and they are right next to the animals, I believe their observation and impressions should be factored into the decision mix.

Answers to the above questions will usually identify some things to be changed or improved. Many times, that involves the removal of some of the duplicated supplements and I always recommend providing a full-array, free choice mineral feeding program.

This item was originally posted to a previous issue of Doc' Holliday's Blog on 6 July , 2018

Seasonal Mineral Needs

I am occasionally asked what minerals for livestock are required at different times of the year — for example, “Going into winter, what minerals should I make sure are available for my livestock?”     It is true that mineral consumption may vary with the season, under different circumstances, and even in different areas of the country. You may see other consumption patterns on your own farm, but here are some examples.

When cattle are grazing on lush, fast growing spring grass they will generally eat more Magnesium.

Young stock seem to eat more Copper as do animals having to eat moldy feed.

Sulfur is involved in hair and hoof growth, of ration changes.
When animals shed their winter coat and grow a summer coat they will eat more sulfur. The same is true in the fall when they are growing a winter hair coat.

Calcium consumption may go down in summer and up in winter. I have no explanation for this, but I suspect it has to do with a seasonal variation in phosphorus availability.

Animals will often drastically alter their mineral consumption within one day

of ration changes.

Animals will sometimes take more minerals in advance of imminent weather changes. It seems they anticipate feed may be limited during a storm and stock up on minerals to tide them over. Bison appear to be especially canny in this regard.

If the water is high in nitrates, animals will need more need more Vitamin A. They will take more Vitamin A and B when forage quality in stored feed declines.

Animals under stress for any reason will eat more Vitamin B.

If well nourished animals are changed to a mineral deficient ration it may take several months for them to deplete their body reserves and begin to show deficiency symptoms. When they are again supplied with adequate minerals, it may take several months for them to eat what is required to replenish these reserves — refilling the tank.

I don’t think it’s possible to accurately predict what minerals animals will need under varying circumstances. Thus, it is important to provide a full array of minerals at all times and let the animal’s innate nutritional wisdom make that decision.

In the last analysis, there is only one answer to the question, “What is the most important mineral to have available for your animals?” — and the answer is, “The one that’s most deficient.”

             This item was originally posted to a previous issue of Doc' Holliday's Blog on 13 November 2017

Science or Speculation

With all the furor over coronavirus there isn't a lot of other interesting news floating around on the web. The following headline did catch my eye, "Climate change is making nightingales' wings shorter and their annual migration harder, study finds .” I read on.

It seems a group of researchers from the Complutense University of Madrid have been studying the size of birds. They discovered that over the past two decades the wingspan of nightingales in central Spain have decreased. Natural selection caused by rising average temperatures in the region as the likely cause of the trend. They hypothesized this would make it more difficult for them to complete their annual migration to sub-Sahara Africa,

My question is: “If the short winged birds didn't survive the migration wouldn’t that tend to remove the short wings trait from the gene pool?>>

It is interesting to note the article mentions that under similar climate change situations in theUS, birds actually grew in size and had longer wingspans. Then too, Audubon Society research stated that two-thirds of North American birds species are at risk of extinction frpm climate change. Another study claims nearly three billion birds have disappeared from the North American continent in the past 50 years. 

A few years ago it was reported in USA Today that cats kill up to 3.7 billion birds on the continental US every year. That’s a lot more bird deaths than are attributed to climate change. I wonder how you tell the difference in the cause of death — cats or weather. Is it possible that blaming cats for killing birds is not as politically corrected as blaming climate change?

Another report that entrigued me was, “Ancient Mayans caused their own 'climate change,' shocking study says.”   The study suggests that ancient Mayans may have inadvertently caused their own demise by radically altering the climate. The research looks at newly found evidence in Belize that shows the Mayans responded to increases in population and environmental pressures by creating canals and wetlands. They also had regular "burn events" while farming their lands, which may have caused a rise in carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. Before recorded history, the largest increase in methane around the globe is thought to have occurred between 2,000 and 1,000 years ago, coinciding with the increase in the Maya wetlands, as well as those seen in South America and China.

The newly discovered evidence, based on aerial scans, is thought to have occurred between 1,800 and 1,000 years ago. I read this as meaning the evidence upon which the report was based was gleaned from aerial photographs with "no actual boots on the ground.”

Both articles referred to above were interesting, informative, ad well written. Future research on these topics might someday result in valuable information.

I do not mean, in any way, to impugn the integrity or expertise of any of these researchers, but I am concerned the language of the reports seems speculative in nature rather than scientific. For example, the articles are rife with such ambiguous terms as: may have changed, may have caused, suggests that, likely caused, and many other. This is a plea for more science in so-called scientific reports and less ambiguity.

Having said all that, the most intriguing mystery still remains – “Who pays for this kind of research?” 
What say ye?

Links to the above reports:
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/nightingales-wingspan-climate-change-scn-scli-intl
https://www.foxnews.com/science/ancient-mayans-caused-own-climate-change