HUMATE, ALL NATURAL ORGANIC ANIMAL FEED ENHANCER

By Winston Broussard/Humate Feeding Trial

Humate:

All natural organic animal feed enhancer – Contains 100% Humate (USDA Approval Pending)

Animal husbandry has relied primarily on additional protein levels in feed or chemical stimulation to increase production levels and net operation profits. Science has reached the limit in crop production for animal feed and has actually experienced crop declines in the past few years. The general public is looking for alternatives to hormone and enzyme laden foodstuffs.

Nature has an answer:

Humate is 70 million years old and naturally complexed and compressed plant material. It causes an increase in the efficiency of feed nutrient digestion and uptake. Improve your animal’s health and reduce your feed budget with one product!

Dairy Cattle
Louisiana test results show a 15% increase in milk production, a 12% increase in butterfat, and a 12% decrease in feed during June and July 1994. Tests run in Pennsylvania and Texas have produced similar results.

Swine
Swine breeders have noticed more rapid weight gain, reduced scowers, leaner more tender meat, and less solid waste with less ammonia smell and fewer flies.

Poultry
Poultry producers report faster growing, calmer, and more tender birds. Reports also show a decrease in leg turnout and toe dislocation. Egg producers report an increase in marketable eggs.

Fish
Trout gained an average of 5% more weight and mortality was reduced in thirty day studies.

August 1995 Dane Hobbs, Technical Advisor Brenham, Texas:

The objective of this experiment was to determine how Humate would influence milk production. The secondary focus of this trial was to try and determine the level of humate needed to evoke a positive productional response. The trial was conducted in Southern Louisiana in hopes of determining Humate’s role in heat stress management. The Southeastern United States is plagued with a significant reduction in milk production during the hot and humid summer months. Holsteins, the primary dairy breed, are especially vulnerable to heat-induced stress. Since this period of warm temperatures can last anywhere from three to five months, it is critically important to determine a way to combat heat stress.

Current milk prices have many dairymen teetering on the brink of financial disaster. Monsanto announced to the world that their synthetically produced bovine growth hormone (BST) was the answer to the dairymen’s woes. To their surprise, both consumers and producers rose up in opposition. People are beginning to worry about what they are putting in their bodies. Consumers are demanding more naturally produced products. Monsanto is trying to entice economically stressed dairymen into using a product that will enhance their milk production. Unfortunately, a high price will have to be paid for this action. Research has shown that herd health problems can increase significantly with the use of BST. Dairymen have noticed that these effects are greatly exaggerated when animals are subjected to heat stress. Some producers have even lost BST treated cows because of this. The average life of a milk cow is already brief enough and complicated by numerous health problems. We should be concerned with enhancing their health as well as our own. The logical choice is to pursue the use of natural products which will not only increase production but will positively enhance the health and welfare of the animal. Humate appears to fulfill this niche.

Humate contains high levels of Carbon, Humic acid, Organic matter, and any array of trace minerals. One of the primary modes of action attributed to humates is the increase in microbial activity. Increasing the number of microbes will stimulate greater breakdowns of nutrients. It does not matter if the microbe is found in the soil or the rumen of a Holstein. A microbe is a microbe, regardless of location! The following entails what actions are thought to take place when animals are fed Humate.

1. The high amount of readily assimilated Carbon increase microbial number. An enhanced microbial population allows food to be digested to a greater extent, thereby extracting more nutrients from the same amount of food. It has also been observed that manure from humate fed animals have less ammonia odor and decomposes better. The apparent reason is that nitrogenous compound, which are responsible for the odor problems, combine with readily available Carbon (supplied by the humate) to form proteinaceaous compounds.
2. The vast array of organic acids found in humate contribute to the breakdown of food particles. These organic acids complement digestiove enzymes, allowing greater digestion of the animal’s feed. This translates into increaded feed efficiency.
3. Supplies an array of trace elements which are no longer found in our trace mineral deficient soils. Trace minerals enhance the immune systems, thereby enabling animals to fend off sickness and disease. Building up an animal’s immune system allows it to overcome stress.

Winston Broussard has a grass-based seasonal dairy. The thirty-five Holstein cows used in this trial were in their sixth and seventh months of lactation. At this late stage of lactation it is generally difficult to stimulate an increase in production. Coupling this with heat stress creates an arduous task for Humate. Beginning on April 26, 1994 unexpected heat and humidity resulted in a rapid decline in milk production. When the feeding trial began on May 3, 1994 the cows were already experiencing a steady daily decline in production. According to records, this decline was almost one month earlier than that reported in 1993 (May 20). The trial commenced with cows receiving two ounces Humate per head per day for a two-week period. Next, three ounces of Humate were fed daily to each cow for an additional two weeks. The trial culminated with the ingestion of four ounces of Humate for another two weeks. Milk production figures and butterfat were recorded by Winston’s milk producer’s association every second day.

Since it was not logistically possible to separate Winston’s cows into two separate herds for comparison, records from 1993 were used for comparative evaluation. Production figures from April, May, and June of each year were used to compute monthly changes in milk production and butterfat. These monthly changes would help denote any changes decline in milk production. But from May to June 1993 there was a decline of 30.2%. If you recall, in 1993 heat and humidity resulted in production declines beginning on May 20. A significant proportion of this reduction can most likely be attributed to heat stress. In 1994 there was a 16.7% decline in milk production from April to May. If you were not aware of the significant role that adverse weather plays, your assumption would be that feeding humates resulted in a larger decrease in production compared to last year’s figures. The important point to remember is that in 1994 the unexpected early h eat and humidity resulted in a drop in milk production that was one month ahead of schedule. Under these environmental conditions a 30% decrease, such as seen from May to June 1993, could be expected. Milk production figures for 1994 showed only a 18.1% decline from May to June. This, according to May-June 1993 records, translates into a 12% increase in milk production. (See Exhibit A).

Butterfat production declined 5.9% from April to May 1993. This decline was comparable to the one noted for milk production. In 1993 from May to June a 29.5% decrease in butterfat was seen. Once again, this decline followed the trend observed in milk production. A 17.3% decline in butterfat was recorded from April to May 1994. As previously stated, due to early hot and humid weather, almost a 30% reduction could have been expected. It is interesting to note that from May to June 1994 only a 11.6% decrease in butterfat was observed. During the same 1993 time period, almost a 30% reduction was recorded (see exhibit A). In the past, reductions in butterfat closely paralleled decreases in milk. When a four ounce level of Humate was fed butterfat production significantly improved.

In order to establish if humate ingestion influences butterfat, percentage butterfat for the two weeks previous to the start of the trial was averaged. This value was compared to the average value obtained from feeding Humate at the two, three, and four ounce levels. The pretrial value was 3.16% butterfat, while the two and three ounces levels had 3.14% and 3.12% respectively. At the four ounce level 3.37% butterfat occurred. This is a 8.01% increase in butterfat when compared to the pretrial figure. Since no differences were noted at the two and three ounce level, four ounces per head per day appears to be the minimum amount at which to start.

In addition, Winston noticed a significant reduction in the fly population. Before the trial began Winston was treating the cows with a pour-on insecticide every seven days. The cost per treatment per cow was $.56. This equates to a monthly cost of $2.24. After the trial commenced the interval between treatments increased to 17 days. At this interval it would only cost $.99 per month. Since Winston continued to feed his cows four ounces of Humate even after the trial had culminated, he noticed that treatment was now necessary only every thirty-two days. Since the feeding Humate, fly control costs have dropped more that 75%.

There are several plausible explanations for the aforementioned results. If flies are attracted to manure because of its strong ammonia odor, the reduced odor from humate fed animals could explain the reduced number of flies. Another possible scenario is that since humates increase feed efficiency, there are less nutrients excreted into the manure. This might result in an environment, which is less favorable for the growth of larvae. If less larvae survive to adulthood, subsequent fly generations will continue to dwindle in numbers. Another possibility is that the ingestion of Humate causes physiological changes to the body’s chemistry, making the animal less attractive to flies.

Winston also noticed a change in urine color. Before he began feeding Humate, urine was a yellowish-gold color. Shortly after feeding Humate, he noticed the urine was almost clear. Urine color can be modified by factors such changes in diet or increases in water consumption. Although increased water consumption results in increased urine output, the same amounts of waste products are excreted. This change in waste product dilution can effectively alter the color. As was theorized, regarding nutrient excretion in manure, it is also possible that there are less nutrients excreted in the urine due to the feeding of Humate. This could also result in a deviation in urine color. Since urine was not analyzed it can only be speculated as to the cause of the color change.

Before the start of the Humate feeding trial Winton’s cows always fought aggressively over the available feed. There was a constant jostling at the feed bunk until all the feed was consumed. After he began feeding Humate a definite charge in feeding behavior was noticed. The cows no longer were in a hurry to eat. The contented cows were now leisurely consuming their feed. This would logically seem to suggest an increase in feed efficiency. This seems to be substantiated by a conversation that Winston had with a LSU dairy nutritionist. According to the nutritionist, based on Winston’s milk production, he should be feeding fourteen pounds more of this ration per head per day. Winston was informed that his cows were energy deficient and must be in poor body condition. When Winston stated that his cows were in excellent condition and were in fact gaining weight, the nutritionist was curious. This would seem to corroborate our belief that feed efficiency improved.

During the trial Winston noticed that his cows were more heat tolerant. Holsteins are notorious for their inability to cope with excess heat and humidity. His cows were grazing several hours longer than previously. Also, when the cows came into the milking parlor they were not panting as hard or as frequently as before. Some of this increased heat tolerance might be attributed to the change in the cow’s hair coats. After feeding Humate their hair coats became shorter, slicker, and shinier. This should enable a cow to maintain a lower body temperature.

In conclusion, when comparing records (May, June & July) between 1993 and 1994 and tactoring in climatic conditions, the addition of Humate significantly limited the decline in milk production. In simple terms, Humate helped to limit the negative productional influences of heat stress. At four ounces Humate per head per day a 6.6% increase in butterfat was recorded. Also, a 75% reduction in fly control cost was noted with feeding of Humate. Most importantly, increased feed efficiency resulted from the ingestion of Humate. Another important consequence of feeding the humate is the elevated level of herd health and welfare, something that can not be achieved with the use of BST! The next experiment will strive to establish the upper limits of Humate use.

Monthly Changes in Milk Production Month 1993 1994 % Change April - - - May -3.9% -16.7% -12.8% June -30.2% -18.0% 12.0%

Monthly Changes in Butterfat Production Month 1993 1994 % Change April - - - May -5.9% -17.3% -11.4% June -29.3% -11.6% 17.9%

Average Percent Butterfat Trials % Butterfat % Change Pre-trial 3.16% - 2 oz Humate 3.14% - 3 oz. Humate 3.12% - 4 oz. Humate 3.37% 8.01%