Information provided on feed tags has been somewhat misunderstood and is commonly used in comparisons among different products. Product feed tag comparisons using only the feed tag without consideration of many other factors can lead to decisions which may compromise animal performance. Information provided on a feed tag is regulated by state law. Each state has its own regulations governing feed tags, although many states follow a model established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).

Feed tags provide information pertaining to the safe, effective use of the product. Feed tags must provide a guaranteed nutrient analysis, ingredient list, the necessary instructions for use along with any precautionary statements, net weight of the package, and name of the feed manufacturer.
Table 1 illustrates an example of a mineral feed tag

Ingredient List
A list of ingredients used in the manufacture of the feed product is mandatory. Ingredients are individually listed except where collective terms are used. A collective term is a general category of feed ingredients identified by the AAFCO, such as plant protein products. Each collective term includes designated feed ingredients, which perform a similar function, but do not imply equivalent nutritional values. Collective terms commonly used on feed tags include:

• Animal protein products

• Plant protein products

• Roughage products

• Processed grain by-products

• Forage products

• Grain products

• Molasses products

In today’s competitive feed industry, the use of collective terms is not unusual. Collective terms maybe used for several reasons:

• A company may choose to use collective terms to help retain formula “secrecy” for proprietary products.

• The use of collective terms may enable cost savings by facilitating the substitution of nutritionally similar products in a formula without effecting nutritionally adequacy of the finished product.

• Unfortunately, collective terms can also be used to “hide” the use of nutritionally questionable ingredients. Feed quality and animal performance provide the telltale sign of poor-quality ingredient usage in a product.

The reputation of the feed manufacture to produce high-quality, consistent products should be a major consideration when evaluating a feed tag, especially when a collective term is used on the tag.

Guaranteed Analysis
The feed product must provide the amount of nutrients listed in the guaranteed analysis. The nutrients that must be listed in the guaranteed analysis is dependent upon class of animal and type of feed product. Feed manufacturers may choose to include additional nutrient guarantees beyond those required by law. Typically, guarantees for protein, fat, and fiber are given for complete feeds along with some mineral guarantees. Mineral product tags usually provide guarantees for more minerals in comparison to complete feeds. State feed control officials randomly select products to be sampled for compliance to the guarantees. The higher the compliance rate, the more reliable the company is to produce feed products that meet the given guarantees.

Feeding Instructions
To obtain the best results from feed products, follow the feeding instructions. Feeding less than the recommended rate will lower performance and makes the feed appear as though it’s poor quality, when in fact, the feed may be high-quality. The same effect will occur when a feed product is fed to a class of animal for which it is not intended. Overfeeding can also occur, which is uneconomical and may lead to health problems.

Precautionary Statements
Review and follow the caution and warning statements on all feed products. Medicated products commonly have withdrawal times and may have warnings or statements not to feed to other species or classes of animals. For example, monensin is toxic to horses. Some nutrients or amounts of certain nutrients may be toxic to some animals. For instance, sheep are sensitive to copper.

Feed Tag Comparisons
Feed tags cannot tell how well the product will meet animal nutrient needs or performance objectives. Producers have to rely on their feed supplier and actual results to determine performance. Feed tags that look very similar can provide very different performance results. Also, feed tags do not tell how well an animal will consume the product. A feed product with a higher nutrient level does not necessarily make it a better feed product. When comparing feed tags, many people feel “more is better.” This theory does not always hold true. If nutrients are not in the right proportion they may be antagonist or tie-up other nutrients.

Figure 1 (click to enlarge) illustrates how minerals and vitamins interact with each other. A good example of mineral-vitamin interaction is the relationship between calcium and vitamin D. An inadequate amount of vitamin D reduces calcium absorption. This is why vitamin D is added to milk.

Consider the nutrient guarantee amount (if there is one given) and feeding rate. Compare the amount of nutrient supplied by the product to animal needs and amount of nutrient supplied by forage and/or grain. Does the animal need the nutrient supplied? Does the animal need the amount supplied? Or, will the animal still be deficient after supplementation and consuming available feedstuffs? Also consider the source of nutrient. When evaluating minerals, one key difference to consider is bio-availability of different mineral sources. Some nutrient sources are more bio-available than others. An example of this is the difference between bio-availability of copper oxide and copper sulfate. Copper sulfate is much more bio-available than copper oxide. When comparing feed tags, check the ingredient level and the source.

Table 2 lists two products’ guarantees. Just looking at the guaranteed analyses might lead one to the conclusion that product A does not provide nearly as much minerals as product B. Go a step further and consider the feeding rates. Product B is formulated to be fed at 2 oz/hd/day while product A is designed to be consumed at 4 oz/hd/day. When one considers feeding rates, the product nutrient guarantees are not as different as they may appear based solely on the feed tag.
 

Table 2  Example of Product Nutrient Guarantees
Nutrient	Product A	Product B
Calcium, min.	12.0%	20.4%
Calcium, max.	14.4%	23.8%
Phosphorus, min.	6.0%	10.0%
Salt, min.	12.4%	13.5%
Salt, max.	14.8%	16.2%
Magnesium, min.	0.7%	2.5%
Potassium, min.	0.5%	0.4%
Copper, min.	550 ppm	1100 ppm
Selenium, min.	20 ppm	39 ppm
Zinc, min.	1900 ppm	3800 ppm
Vitamin A, min.	100,000 IU/lb	200,000 IU/lb
Feeding rate	4 oz/hd/day	2 oz/hd/day

Two general approaches are used to formulate mineral products.

► Formulate product to provide the total amount of minerals needed by the animal. This approach ignores the mineral nutrient value of forages and/or grains. While it obviously provides a large margin of safety, it is not the best approach from cost and environmental perspectives. Also, an excess of certain minerals can have a detrimental or antagonistic effect on bio-availability of other minerals.

► Formulate mineral product with consideration given to minerals supplied by the base diet. This approach is more economical and more environmentally sustainable, and is the approach Alliance Nutrition’s formulation team uses when formulating cattle mineral products. With specific grazing situations, cattle may need a mineral with a higher level of a key mineral, such as when grazing low magnesium forages or in areas with high molybdenum levels which can tie-up copper and zinc.

 Complexed (chelated) trace mineral (use “chemically” organic rather than inorganic trace minerals) formulations are available. While complexed (“chemically” organic) trace mineral formulations maybe more bioavailable in comparison to inorganic forms, their use and resulting benefit needs to be closely evaluated due to the cost of complexed trace minerals. A word of caution regarding complexed trace mineral products: the listing of a complexed trace mineral on a feed tag can be misleading if the product only provides a small portion of the trace mineral as complexed. The inclusion of a small percentage of the mineral as a complex enables the feed manufacturer to sell the product at a lower cost, yet the customer maybe deceived into thinking they are getting more complexed minerals than what are actually in the product.

Conclusion
When comparing feed tags, keep in mind consumption level, amounts of nutrients, type and source of ingredients, animal requirements, feed form, management, and environment. The old saying, “You can’t judge a book by its cover” also applies to feed tags. To determine the difference among products, “let the performance scale tell the tale.” While product validation from research is powerful product support, local field tests and demonstrations are often the key to producers’ decisions to incorporate Alliance Nutrition’s products into their nutritional programs. Alliance Nutrition is a leader in nutrition research and recommends and supports customer field demonstrations to substantial the true value difference.