"TO CHOOSE OR NOT TO CHOOSE?"
The Free Choice Dilemma
|
The idea of feeding minerals free choice to livestock came about by a need to decrease over consumption of a liquid supplement containing phosphoric acid, protein, molasses, and other minerals. We discovered that if animals had access to a phosphorous source on a free choice basis, over consumption of the liquid ceased. The phosphoric acid in the liquid supplement was being used heavily by the animal as a phosphorous source. We then researched to see if the animal was able to select phosphorous on a free choice basis, perhaps calcium could be selected in the same manner, which proved successful. The next item was sodium in the form of sodium bicarbonate. It was feared that salt was not a satisfactory source of sodium because it is 1/3 sodium and 2/3 chlorine and chlorine was already in excess in most rations. This too was beneficial. In time, potassium, sulfur, silicon, magnesium, vitamins, and trace minerals were added to the list. Finally there were 16 separate minerals and vitamins fed free choice. As time passed, a number of competing companies, universities, and professionals took issue with the concept, while many other from the same ranks gave support. The "cons" were primarily against this concept because they could not accept an animal (specifically a cow) was more intelligent concerning daily requirements than researchers. Some of them did submit legitimate data that supported their claims. On the other hand there was data from other sources that supported the "pros" position as well! We at Free Choice Enterprises have analyzed thousands of pasture samples in our over fifty years of existence. In some of our tests, animals have consumed more of some elements than the standard (NRC) indicated they required. In other tests, animals consumed less than (NRC) standards indicated they required. Now we had results indicating the "cons" and "pros" were both right and wrong. There was one other possibility, perhaps the cow knew what they required and the NRC did not. |
This dilemma continued for many years, until Free Choice Enterprises discovered what seems to be a reasonable explanation showing both groups could be right. We believe there should be several standards representing the amount of mineral required by the animal based on the protein/energy balance of the ration. If the energy content of the ration is low, the protein requirement is also low corresponding to reduced mineral requirements. Conversely, if the energy of the ration is high, the protein requirement is also high corresponding to increased mineral requirements. As a result, there are many variations making at least fifteen standards for the amount of mineral required by the cow. It appears to us the cow knew the energy/protein ratio of her ration and adjusted her mineral intake accordingly. From all this, we have learned a valuable lesson; consider the "whole" or the entire variable before we criticize the cow. At least now we can save face and report that both the "pros" and "cons" were right (allowing us to forget both were also wrong and the cow right). There are two truths we can prove about free choice feeding of minerals. First: The health of the animal is much improved. Second: The cost per head is 1/2 or less than the alternative programs. Mark Bader
|
