Update on Mineral Nutrition of Establishing Mineral “Requirements”

Dairy Cows

Max. tolerable
“Requirement” level (MTL)
120
100
80

Response
60
40
20
Bill Weiss 0
Dept of Animal Sciences 0 1 2 3 4 5Cellular
6 7 Supply
8 9 10 11 12 13

Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Ohio State University Extension

NRC 2001 Factorial Approach Maintenance Requirements

(~30-50% of total req’t)
Inputs Requirements
BW (DMI) Maintenance 1. Amount of nutrient that is inevitably
Days pregnant Gestation lost that must be replaced (nonlactating,
Age Growth not growing, not pregnant)
Milk yield Lactation
2. Minimum amount of a nutrient needed
mg/d of absorbed mineral to maintain body functions and health
Effic. = excreted, accreted in without reducing body stores
100% fetus, secreted in milk, and
retained in new tissue
 Main Concerns with Use of Mineral balance to estimate total
requirement (diet, not TAR)
current factorial method
Likely Mn bal = -151 +0.26 X
error
900
800
700

Mn balance, mg/d
1. Maintenance requirement Under 600
500
(optimal health?) 400
300

2. Milk secretion vs milk synthesis

200
Under 100
0

3. Non-nutrient effects? -100

-200
-300
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Mn intake, mg/d
Weiss and Socha, 2005

‘Requirement’ estimated NRC 2001 Factorial Approach

by balance method*
Inputs
~625 kg cow, 35 kg milk
Feedstuffs Absorption
Total Mineral Mineral concentration coefficients
Balance method NRC .
Cu: 360 mg 250 mg
Mn: 580 mg 310 mg
Zn: 840 mg 870 mg
mg/d of mineral that
TAS
* Data from digestibility studies by OSU
is available for use
The AC is a weak link in formulating For Minerals (and vitamins)
for available TM substantial uncertainty exists

1. Very difficult to measure - requirements

2. Diet and source dependent
- absorption
• e.g., high S diet and Cu
• e.g., organic vs inorganic
3. Animal status dependent
You must evaluate: risk/reward
Uncertainty increases risk
If you are wrong does it cost
Formulation must consider risk
more to over or underfeed???

Trace Minerals Recommendations Trace Minerals Recommendations

Think mg/day, not ppm Basal feeds provide TM

Dry cow 80 lbs milk .

Cu reqt 175 mg 250 mg Problems with the data
Diet conc 14 ppm 10 ppm Get enough
- Variable
p
samples
- High sampling error
45 vs 60 lbs DMI: 410 vs 550 mg/d (20 ppm) - Non-normal distribution Use median

;Concentrations may be higher for dry cows Problems do not justify ignoring
but lower for high yielding cows basal supply
 Cu in Corn Silage Cu in Corn Silage Figure courtesy J. Knapp

Mean = 6.3
Median = 6.0
Number of samples

75% of samples >5 ppm Likely soil contamination

or grown in very high Cu soils

10% of samples
>8.5 ppm

Cu concentration, ppm
Figure courtesy J. Knapp

High TM in Basal Feeds Trace Minerals Recommendations

With high ash/and Fe Capture value from high availability TMs
- likely soil contamination
- availability probably low Need 6 mg absorbed Cu to meet reqt

Copper sulfate = 25% Cu; AC = 0.05

Without high ash
- could be interior metals Product X® = 25% Cu; Relative AC = 2X
- availability may be similar to
(6/0.05)/0.25 = 480 mg CuSO4 or
inorganic supplements
(6/(0.05 X 2)/0.25 = 240 mg of Product X ®
 Relative Availability Are differences between organic and
inorganic TM due to bioavailability?
1. Feed a standard mineral (e.g., CuSO4)
Organic Zn reduced the pathogen
2. Feed test mineral (same amount) associated with digital dermatitis in
3. Measure response and report ratio feces (inorganic did not)
Faulkner et al., 2017
Liver Cu when fed source Y
Liver Cu when fed Cu sulfate

1. Diet specific Intestine is a very important immune organ

2. Animal specific
3. Everything is relative Microbiome affects immunity

Potassium (NRC = ~1.1%) Higher K (DCAD) improves fat and FE

50
Control
The Good Diet K% (DCAD) 45 K Carb.
*
Cont: 1.3 (32) 40
1. Can improves milk fat (DCAD, not K)
K carb: 2.1 (53) 35
2. Helps with heat stress (K) 30

3. Some data: optimal is >NRC

kg/day
Both diets 25

34% forage
20

The Bad 6% DDG

15
*
1. Reduces Mg absorption (K) 1.68
10

Early lact. cows 5

1.79
2. Increases manure and manure (K) 0
Harrison et al., 2012 DMI Milk Fat, g/kg ECM/DMI
 Higher K (DCAD) improves fat and FE Higher Diet K =
35

Diet K% (DCAD)
Control More Manure
K Carb.
Cont: 1.2 (2) *
30 250
Urine
K carb: 2.2 (30) 25 200
* Manure
+28 lbs

Lbs or Liter/day
All diets
20 150

kg/day
27% DDG 15 100
4.2 or 5.8% Fat 10 50 +2.5 gal
1.18
No K x fat INT
5 0
1.26 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
Lamar and Weiss, 2013 DMI Milk Fat, g/kg ECM/DMI
Weiss et al., 2009

K and Mg Absorption in Dairy Cows Magnesium

35
Schonewille et al., 2008
1. Absorbed from rumen
30

-3.1X 2. Real world antagonists

Mg, Absorption, %

25

20 - K (linear)
15 - LCFA (probably not big)
10
Weiss, 2004 -7.5X - Rumen ammonia (RDP)
5 Acute vs. chronic
0

3. Minimal homeostatic control of absorption

0 1 2 3 4 5
Diet K, % of DM

0.45 vs 0.25% Mg
 Magnesium Mg Availability from4 sources of MgO
100

NRC 2001 ‘Correct’

90 MgOx1

Availability, % of Best
80 MgOx2

Basal feeds 0.16 0.30* +0.16

70
MgOx3
60
Good MgO 0.7 or 0.5 0.20 to 0.25 50
MgOx4

MgSO4 0.9 or 0.7 0.35 to 0.40 40

30
* @1.2%K 20
10 Jesse et al., 1981
Feeds are better than we thought
0

Supplements are worse than we thought Uncertainty increases risk

Formulation must consider risk

Sulfur (NRC = 0.2%) High S forage = Reduced Copper Stores

• Grass fertilized with
250
No reason to exceed NRC Nothing Beef
NH3-Sulfate 200
cows
1. Reduces copper availability

Liver Cu, mg/kg

• Forage S 150
2. Reduces selenium availability 0.2% 100
3. Reduces DCAD (milk and DMI) 0.5%
50

Higher S diets may be cheaper ($/lb) High S + normal Mo 0

reduces Cu status
No Fert NH3‐Sulfate
because of DDG inclusion Arthington et al., 2004
 Se and Sulfur Remember Water
-3% units/0.1% added S
60
Water with 250 ppm Sulfate-S
50 = +0.1% dietary S
True Se Absorption, %

Water with 700 ppm Sulfate-S

40
0% S
30
0.2% S
20
0.4% S = +0.3% dietary S
10

0 Take water samples occasionally

0.1 ppm 0.3 ppm

Ivancic and Weiss, 2001

Sulfur (NRC = 0.2%) Absorbed Cu = ~9-12 mg/d

Total Cu*: 200 to 270 mg/d

Watch total S (diet + water) Feed Enough !

Reduced mastitis
1. Reduces copper availability Improved immunity
2. Reduces selenium availability Reduced RP
3. Reduces DCAD (milk and DMI)
Don’t feed too much !
Real world toxicity (i.e., death)
Accumulation of liver Cu
Copper: Lots of Real World Antagonists +4 to 7 Liver Cu continues to
mg/kg
monthly
accumulate (diet = ~20 ppm)
1. High Sulfur (Forage, DDG, water)
2. High reduced Fe (water)

Change in Liver Cu
3. Grazing (soil ingestion)

(umol/kg/day)
4. High Mo

NRC assumes minimal antagonism: 35 mg/kg wet

Real world situations justify increased Cu
Initial Liver Cu (umol/kg wet)
Balemi et al., 2010 (NZVJ)

Cu Recommendations Cu Recommendations
No DDG, good water:
▪ 1.2 to 1.5X NRC (12 to 17 ppm TOTAL Cu With Antagonists (eg. DDG, bad water …)
when using CuSO4)
▪ If using high bioavailability sources, feed ▪ Maybe 2 to 3X NRC (20 to 30 ppm)
less (i.e., no safety factor) ▪ Use proven ‘High available’ Cu
▪ Evaluate status (liver Cu from cull cows,
Lifetime moderate overfeeding of Cu biopsies)
may be causing problems !
Lifetime moderate overfeeding of Cu
may be causing problems !
 Probability of Disease vs Blood Se
Se: All animals: 0.3 ppm added
Mastitis
Lactating cows, normal situation Retained placenta
- all or predominantly inorganic Cystic ovaries

Lactating cows, antagonists (e.g. S)

- substantial amount from Se-yeast
Late gestation cows and heifers
- mix of inorganic and Se-yeast
Kommisrund et al., 2005

Whole blood = 0.16 – 0.18 ug/ml

Selenium Yeast Relative Response: Selenite vs Se-yeast

Benefits:
Selenate Se‐Yeast
- 1.2 to 1.3 X more available
Control Selenite Se‐Yeast
0.16 10

- Builds up body Se reserves

0.14
5

Quarters infected, %
0.12
Se, mg/L 0.1
- Increases milk Se (humans) 0.08
0

0.06 ‐5
- Transfer to fetus and colostrum 0.04
0.02 ‐10
- Limited absorption antagonists 0
‐15

Disadvantage: Cost
Malbe et al., 1995
Weiss and Hogan, 2006
 Use of Mineral balance to estimate
NRC (2001): ~14 - 18 ppm maintenance requirement (diet, not TAR)
Mn bal = -151 +0.26 X
580 mg/d = 0 balance: At mean DMI; 28 ppm
Beef cows fed 18 ppm produced calves
900
800 Faulkner and Weiss (2016): 33 to 38 ppm
with signs of clinical Mn deficiency
700

Mn balance, mg/d
600

(Hansen et al., 2006) 500

400
300
200

Dairy cow balance

100
0

data suggests
-100
-200

30-40 pp
ppm -300
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Weiss and Socha, 2005 Mn intake, mg/d

Chromium (No NRC requirement, Production Responses

FDA max = 0.5 ppm from Cr prop) Lb/d increase from control
12 studies, 30 trt <0 0 to 3
▪ Part of Glucose Tolerance Factor (GTF) 3 to 6 6 to 9
Typical rate: >9
▪Enhances insulin sensitivity (early lactation ~1 ppm dry
cows are insulin resistant) 0.5 ppm lactating 10%
17%
23%
▪Reduces lipolysis and lowers NEFA which Typical duration 20%
can stimulate DMI in early lactation -3 wk to +4 WOL 30%

▪ Enhances cellular immunity ( cortisol?) Multiple Cr sources

~2/3 of trt comp.
>3 lb/d increase
 Summary Summary
1. Uncertainty and risk management justifies
moderate overfeeding of MANY minerals 4. Do not ignore minerals in basal ingredients
(use means or medians for TM)
Moderate = +20 to 50% of NRC
5. Supplemental Mg is not as good as you
2. Safety factors should be farm, mineral, thing but feed Mg is better than you think
and mineral source specific

3. Consider long term effects of overfeeding

http://dairy.osu.edu