2026 MineralTech conference: recent advances in ruminant mineral nutrition

Our knowledge about mineral nutrition of ruminants is increasing rapidly. A mineral nutrition program for cattle is not optimal if it only meets the requirements of beef and dairy cattle for micro and macro minerals. Trace mineral source is as important as level and if trace ion levels in the rumen are too high, a negative impact on cattle performance will be the result. The 3^rd MineralTech International Symposium on ruminant mineral nutrition took place on April 7, 2026 in San Antonio, Texas. A number of speakers presented recent advances in trace mineral nutrition of beef and dairy cattle.

Our knowledge of cattle mineral nutrition and metabolism has increased greatly over the past 100 years. All of the trace minerals for dairy and beef cattle were shown to be essential during this time with the exception of iron and two macro-minerals. Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of dairy and beef cattle mineral requirements, the dietary and genetic factors affecting mineral requirements and toxicities, and bioavailability of different mineral sources.

High-performance beef cattle require an adequate dietary supply of trace minerals to sustain productivity. Increasing supplementation with highly soluble trace mineral sources for cattle elevates ruminal ionic concentrations of Cu²⁺ and Zn²⁺, potentially impairing fibrolytic microbial activity. These effects on rumen health of beef cattle can reduce dry matter digestion and decrease mineral absorption efficiency of cattle. In high-forage diets for beef cattle, trace mineral losses are amplified due to metal–lignocellulosic cluster formation. Trace mineral sources with lower ruminal solubility such as hydroxychloride trace mineral sources can meet beef trace mineral requirements while preserving fiber digestion and improving mineral utilization of beef cattle.

A limitation of mineral supplementation in grazing systems of beef cattle remains the variability in voluntary supplement intake. Beef cattle mineral supplement intake is influenced by supplement formulation, the cattle’s physiological needs, the trace mineral source, delivery method, environmental conditions, genetic background, and cattle behaviour. Hydroxychloride trace mineral sources for beef cattle have been consistently reported as preferred over other trace mineral sources for beef cattle, regardless of the form of delivery. Mineral supplement consumption of beef cattle is episodic and highly individualized. To achieve consistent and biologically effective nutrient delivery, mineral supplementation programs for beef cattle should consider integrating intake monitoring technologies, strategic feeder placement, palatability-focused mineral formulation for beef cattle and region-specific soil–plant–animal considerations, including forage mineral profiling, antagonist evaluation, and seasonal adjustment.

Replacing sulfate trace mineral sources sources in beef cattle mineral supplements with hydroxychloride sources of copper, manganese, and zinc can improve the reliability and biological effectiveness of trace mineral supplementation programs in Bos indicus cattle. Hydroxychloride sources of beef cattle trace minerals improve voluntary beef cattle supplement intake, reduce intake variability, support growth and dampen inflammatory responses of beef cattle during specific stress windows. Hydroxychloride trace mineral sources also reduce diarrhea incidence of beef cattle during challenging forage transitions. These findings suggest that beef cattle trace mineral source should be considered a strategic component of beef cattle supplementation programs rather than a minor formulation detail in Zebu-based production systems of beef cattle.

Sulphur is an essential element for beef cattle but becomes a major antagonist of copper and selenium when intake exceeds practical thresholds for beef cattle. In practice, sulphur antagonism in beef cattle diets rarely appears as an acute toxicity problem but more often as a slow erosion of copper and selenium status with an impact beef herd productivity. In modern beef production systems, sulfur exposure frequently results from fertilizer-driven forage accumulation, byproduct feeds for beef cattle with high sulfur levels or sulfate-containing water. The most consistent biological signal of sulphur antagonism is failure to respond to copper supplementation rather than overt clinical disease. The most reliable management strategy to avoid sulfur antagonism in beef rations is to quantify total sulfur intake, identify major contributors, manage sulfur exposure and monitor liver copper and selenium status of beef cattle. An improved copper source for beef cattle, such as hydroxy chloride copper may be a useful consideration when dealing with basal diets of beef cattle containing elevated levels of sulfur.

Phytogenic feed additives for beef cattle produced modest, context-dependent effects on growth performance and dietary energetics of receiving and finishing beef cattle in feedlots. A trial in which beef cattle were fed a standardized capsicum, clove and garlic feed additive for beef cattle (CCG, Fytera Advance) at 500 mg/steer daily, a small improvement in feed efficiency was found, in combination with no changes in DMI or carcass characteristics of beef cattle. In a pooled analysis of 4 studies with the same phytogenic feed additive for beef cattle, a repeatable, but modest boost in energetic efficiency was found. This change in feed efficiency of beef cattle likely reflects metabolic or fermentation changes rather than altered intake behavior or tissue accretion of beef cattle. In contrast, when beef cattle that entered receiving pens in a healthy status were offered an ionophore and were and under low disease pressure, phytogenic feed additives did not seem to enhance performance responses of beef cattle.