<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: Re: [RC] Rice Bran questions again? (Long response--feeds class isin session!-part 1)
Ridecamp@Endurance.Net

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:28:59 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: [RC] Part 2--rice bran response
  • - Lisa Redmond
  • Prev by Date: Re: [RC] ENDURANCE NOT
  • - FASTGraphic

    Re: [RC] Rice Bran questions again? (Long response--feeds class isin session!-part 1) - Lisa Redmond


    Judy--
     
    One thing that immediately comes to mind, and you've probably already done this, is de-worm her.  That will help you eliminate one potential source of lost nutrients. 
     
     
    Now, as to the Moorman's rice bran (Truman just replied with some important info on the Ca:P ratio, too):
     
    On the corn oil question:  Rice bran is naturally high in oil (about 13%), and the Moorman's product has 2 types of oil added in, as well as heat processed soybeans--these are the whole beans ground, not meal, so they are contributing oil as well..  Adding more corn oil may push you beyond a safe level--I'd have to see how the fat percentage of the total diet worked out to say for sure.
     
    I do notice they point out natural source Vit. E and that it's better utilized than synthetic. Unless I've missed something somewhere, that's a sneaky tactic (I've seen it used by a former employer, and I didn't buy it there, either)...it's a long-drawn out explanation, and it would be cruel of me to subject the list to that much chemistry.  In a nutshell--on a weight to weight comparison, it takes about twice as much synthetic as natural source--but it's also cheaper to make than natural source is to extract.   What you should be concerned with on vitamin E supplements is that they have adequate IU activity/lb for the animal...a smart nutritionist will take the differences in utilization between synthetic and natural vitamin E into consideration, and make the ultimate decision on which to use based on the cost to the consumer per unit of activity.  In other words, bragging about "natural source" is to me a marketing ploy, but I'm a little biased when it comes to marketing tricks.
     
    Truman brought up the Ca:P ratio and the fact that the recommendation for the Moorman's brand mineral is to counteract the balance in the bran supplement.  I suspect a marketing ploy here, and I'll tell you why (sort of long, but I can't resist a chance to educate the masses!)  Rice bran and soybeans both contain something called phytate--it is an organic compound that can bind phosphorus and zinc.  Nonruminants can't break that bond because they don't secrete the enzyme phytase.  It is a bacterial enzyme.  Horses, of course, do have hindgut fermentation (bugs in the cecum), so they can deal with it to some extent, but I suspect that the amount of phytate-bound mineral released and absorbed is less than that in ruminants because this takes place after the feed leaves the small intestine.  Gut physiology 101--the small intestine is the major site of absorption for nutrients.  Zinc is more of a concern with rice bran and soybeans--to the extent that swine on bran-based diets develop zinc deficiency if they recieve traditional levels of zinc in the mineral supplement. 
     
    (Continued)
     

    Replies
    [RC] Rice Bran questions again?, JUDYK89