AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (2) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Mineral Comparison
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Stock TalkMessage format
 
Sprunk
Posted 1/22/2024 23:05 (#10588722 - in reply to #10587769)
Subject: RE: Mineral Comparison


SE ND
Ksbee - 1/22/2024 12:54

Look at the calcium, phosphorous and salt. Those are the macro-minerals that grass and feed grains are short on. The Kent mineral has a lot higher salt content than the others. Salt is going to be the cheapest ingredient for them in this mix, and I bet the price is cheapest of the 3 brands. On the other hand I imagine intake will go up with the extra salt and you'll be buying more bags.

Phosphorous is the most expensive of the macro-minerals and generally the number that I look at first.

Also- On fresh grass a Hi-Magnesium (more than 10% mag) mineral is good to prevent grass tetany. Particularly in cows with calves as they're pushing out a lot of magnesium in the milk.




The white tag is the 2:1, the Kent is the higher salt white tag, and the red tag mineral is roughly $40/bag. I took a few bags of the cheap 2:1 mineral for now.


Edited by Sprunk 1/22/2024 23:08




(PXL_20240119_223825005 (full).jpg)



(PXL_20240119_223820310 (full).jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments PXL_20240119_223825005 (full).jpg (99KB - 21 downloads)
Attachments PXL_20240119_223820310 (full).jpg (115KB - 25 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)