Re: wheat vs. rice bran mashes
Joyce Kellenberger (joyce@homer.ca.boeing.com)
Wed, 27 Nov 96 16:39:18 PST
>
> 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
>
>