Re: wheat vs. rice bran mashes

Susan F. Evans (suendavid@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:07:54 -0800

How are these two brans different?

> >As far as I know, there is basically no nutritive value to wheat bran but
> >a lot of nutritive value in rice bran. Comparing the labels anyway.
> >
> >I'd like to comment here on an observation: the research I've been doing on
> >tying up lately tells me that excess calcium loss is a cause of tying up. If
> >this is so, then feeding high quantities of wheat bran mashes at endurance
> >rides would be asking for trouble since wheat bran prohibits calcium
> absorbtion.

Hi,

Actually, there is alot of "nutrition" to wheat bran, it's not just a
bowl of feathers, even though it looks like it. Wheat bran is high in
protein 15-16%, and is considered an energy source, as it provides 2.94
Mcal of energy per kg fed, which is higher than oats and somewhat lower
than corn and barley. I don't want to get into a big hot debate over
the purported wonders of rice bran, but the National Research Council
says rice bran provides 13% protein and 2.62 Mcal of energy per kg. The
rice bran manufacturers say their product is 10% fat by weight, but
even if this 10% fat is in addition to the existing NRC rice bran
values, it still only brings the energy content up to what's already in
wheat bran for a quarter of the price. Both wheat bran AND rice bran
are VERY high (actually rice bran is higher than wheat bran) in
phosphorus which has a relationship with calcium---the old saying is,
"as goes phosphorus, so goes calcium" What that means is that if you're
feeding too much phosphorus and not enough calcium to balance it, the
body will find the calcium it needs to balance the phosphorus wherever
and however it can, including pulling it out of the bones. This is
different than normal calcium reabsorption required for muscle activity,
and can be a factor in stress fractures in horses that have been fed an
inverted calcium/phosphorus ratio for a long time. This is also
probably a factor in the inhibitory effect wheat bran has on calcium
absorption and so rice bran would have even more of an effect, as rice
bran is even higher in phosphorus than is wheat bran.

I really don't want to offend everyone who adores rice bran---if it
works for you, fine, go for it. The stabilized fat in rice bran has a
longer shelf life than a jug of corn oil, and that is a nice
convenience, and alot of horses will eat rice bran and get at least
some fat when they won't touch oil. IMHO, it's an expensive convenience
and I personally don't care for the excessive phosphorus levels, because
I don't feed alot of alfalfa and I don't want the calcium/phosphorus
ratio to get inverted. If I can provide a Mcal of energy to my horses
in the form of corn oil and pay only twenty-six cents, I would rather do
that than have to feed three-quarters of a pound of rice bran, pay twice
as much, and have to deal with extra protein and excessive levels of
phosphorus that I don't want.

My primary concern about someone feeding alot of rice bran is that if
they are doing so without knowing what a calcium/phosphorus ratio is,
and if they are feeding a grass hay that doesn't contain much calcium,
they could be getting themselves into trouble with bone integrity.

I know there are alot of claims attached to rice bran, and excuse me for
being skeptical---I'm not saying rice bran (as well as wheat bran)
aren't worthwhile nutritionally and don't have their place in equine
nutrition. But until I see some research published in a refereed
journal, I'm taking the claims with a grain of salt, and I'm still just
getting a jug of corn oil from the store.

Susan Evans
California State Polytechnic University