Okay, here is a point we can discuss.  
It's not all or nothing; I am not saying the Rumensin is not getting to the cattle in a mineral - I am saying the Rumensin is not getting to them in a consistent daily dose with variation running 15-30% in different places along the bunk.  The cattle are going to get a more even consistent day to day dose with our liquid because it distributes more evenly throughout the diet - not perfectly but about half the variation.  I have done enough mixer evaluations to know this to be a fact.  And I do believe the beef tech support staff at Elanco would agree with that point; I can have their UMW PhD Nutritionist call you if you would like.  

The more consistent daily dose of all nutrients carried in a supplement or balancer is a big reason (we believe) why we see improved performance on our liquid.  Pritchard alluded to this in his research - in his first trial they ran Tylan in both rations and checked the cattle for liver abscesses.  The cattle on a dry pellet had a 17% liver abscess rate (about average for hard fed yearling steers), the cattle on our liquid had a 8% liver abscess rate - more consistent ration intake, less sorting at the bunk, a more even daily dose of Tylan.

I'd also like to go back to point 5 - what I actually said was "Cattle need to get the same dose of Rumensin every day for rumen health and efficiency, this won't happen in a mineral" - I didn't say the cattle wouldn't get the Rumensin, I said they would not get the same dose every day.  While I mentioned TMRs as an example because I had numerous test results, the point was mainly about pellets vs mineral in a hand fed grain mix - in that situation the Rumensin variation could be off the chart.