Liquid vs. Dry Feedlot Supplements
By Glenn Ross, Ph.D., Beef Nutritionist
Molasses has long been recognized as an excellent feed for livestock and has been used as a carrier for feed additives for over 100 years. The first patent in liquid feed technology was written in 1896 for the addition of phosphoric acid to molasses. Liquid technology has improved considerably since the late 1800s and liquid supplements have come to be an important supplementation method for the feedlot industry.
Research comparing a dry pelleted supplement to a liquid supplement was conducted by South Dakota State University in 1993. The finisher diets were formulated to meet 73% dry matter, 12% crude protein and 60.3 Kcal/lb net energy for gain. Rumensin® and Tylan® were offered in both the dry and liquid supplements. Overall, dry matter intake was increased 4.4% by the use of liquid supplements. Average daily gain (ADG) was improved by 7.2%. Feed conversion was improved by 2.3%. Dressing percent, hot carcass weight, and percent choice were improved for the liquid fed cattle. There was also a significant reduction in liver abscesses from 17.5% to 8.8% in the liquid-fed cattle. Speculation hints that the more consistent distribution of the Tylan® in the liquid feed may be a benefit in reducing liver abscesses.
A summary of eighteen research trials shows that liquid supplements improve ADG over dry supplements containing urea by 4.36% and over the dry all-natural supplements by 7.09%. Feed efficiency is also improved by 5.2% and 4.5% for liquids over dry with urea and all natural protein, respectively.
There are many other benefits to feeding liquid feeds over dry in the feedlot. The cost of storing, conveying and mixing liquids is lower than the cost of dry products. Liquids improve the texture of mixed feeds so animals accept them better. Dustiness is eliminated and the mixture stays more uniform. There is less shrink loss associated with liquid vs. dry and higher fat levels can be added through liquids than dry.
One thing that needs to be kept in mind in selecting a feedlot liquid is that not all liquids are created equal. When comparing the price of two liquids from competitive companies three aspects should be considered: dry matter, crude protein, and fat content. The price of liquids should be compared only with similar protein and fat content. Comparison between two liquids with dissimilar dry matter contents is possible and is encouraged. Take the following example:
feedlot liquid 1 is a 50% protein, 5% fat liquid with 34% moisture, the price delivered to the feedyard is $210 per ton. Liquid 2 is a 50% protein, 5% fat liquid with 30% moisture, and the delivered price is $220 per ton. Which is the better deal? Liquid 1 is 66% dry matter (100-34% moisture) thus the cost is $318.18 per ton of dry matter. To figure, simply divide the price by the dry matter content. Liquid 2 is 70% dry matter (100-30% moisture) and the dry matter cost of this liquid (220 divided by .7) is $314.28 per ton of dry matter. Although liquid 2 is $10 per ton higher in delivered price, it is also higher in dry matter. The end result is liquid 2 is $4.10 per ton cheaper on a dry matter basis. Dry matter is what cattle convert into red meat. If you want water in your ration, turn on a faucet; it will be much cheaper than buying from a feed company.
Liquids do not meet the needs for all feeding situations. Moisture and mineral content of other ration ingredients can affect the performance of liquid feeds. Kent Feeds, Inc. manufactures a full line of liquid feeds for feedlot cattle. They are designed to meet the nutritional requirements of feedlot cattle and complement the ingredients available to the feedyard. They can be manufactured with all legal combinations of Rumensin®, Bovatec®, Tylan®, and MGA®.
Rumensin and Tylan are registered trademarks of Elanco Animal Health
Bovatec is a registered trademark of Alpharma, Inc.
MGA is a registered trademark of Pharmacia & Upjohn Co.