DONT FEED BRAN!! rant

Mrs B said:
We always used to feed it - as did everyone else I knew in the 70's :) Bran, oats, new-fangled things called pony nuts and sugar beet in the winter - all in one bucket and twice a day.

I seem to remember that all but the teeniest ponies used to get at least half a scoop to a scoop of bran per feed. What I can't remember is any of the assorted 26 equines on the yard having digestive problems...
Click to expand...

Agree.
Very under rated feed, and I think every yard should have some in their feed rooms. Simple, plain is still often the best.
 
I'd rather pay a few pounds more for organic products, surely cheaper than having your horse developp a metabolic desease. Although I don't feed much bran, may be why I don't mind.
 
competitiondiva said:
lol, what about those hot guiness bran mashes, my old horse always got one on her birthday and lurrrrvveed it!! I loved the smell too! Have to say it was the only time I ever fed bran!
Click to expand...

My old pony used to have a guinness bran mash after hunting, and every Christmas Day. My first pony lived out all through the winter of 63 (google it you youngsters:o) and all he had was hay and a daily bran mash. He came out in the spring looking a picture of health. I always buy a small amount of bran (local pet shop sells it loose) to have in over the Christmas holiday period in case any of the nags look a bit colicy, touch wood haven't had to use it but have given some to a neighbour over the same period when her old lad was bad.
 
Fauvea said:
I'd rather pay a few pounds more for organic products, surely cheaper than having your horse developp a metabolic desease. Although I don't feed much bran, may be why I don't mind.
Click to expand...

Non-organic bran causes metabolic diseases now? :eek: Care to post a link to the peer reviewed primary article publishing good quality trial data in a scientific journal which backs up that statement? :D
 
Fauvea said:
I'd rather pay a few pounds more for organic products, surely cheaper than having your horse developp a metabolic desease. Although I don't feed much bran, may be why I don't mind.
Click to expand...

Organic or not has zilch to do with developing metabolic disorders.
 
JFTD said:
Non-organic bran causes metabolic diseases now? :eek: Care to post a link to the peer reviewed primary article publishing good quality trial data in a scientific journal which backs up that statement? :D
Click to expand...

No, of course, RoundUp and co. are totally harmless products. Care to watch a documentary on Monsanto?

I've got my own research to do, so no time to go around looking for a paper for you. But I'm pretty sure there is no such paper anyway as those kind of studies don't get funding unfortunately.
 
Fauvea said:
But I'm pretty sure there is no such paper anyway as those kind of studies don't get funding unfortunately.
Click to expand...

If you're going to make sweeping assertions against the body of science available, the onus is on you to provide the research to back it up. And those sorts of studies do, very often, get funding, where there is a scientific basis for them. I suspect there is no such paper because there is no such basis :rolleyes:
 
Dancing Queen said:
im going to show my ignorance here - but isnt bran organic anyhow?
Click to expand...

Bran is the outside of the wheat grain - organic or not depends on how the wheat is grown, so bran can be organic or not depending on how the wheat plant has been grown and if pesticides/fertilizers etc have been used.
 
ThePony said:
Bran is the outside of the wheat grain - organic or not depends on how the wheat is grown, so bran can be organic or not depending on how the wheat plant has been grown and if pesticides/fertilizers etc have been used.
Click to expand...

thank you - I was thinking its naturally occuring, not man made therefore it cannot be inorganic.

So bran itself is organic but depends on how its been treated to which secondary category it goes into.

TBH i would be less worried about the bran being organic to what was actually going into the HUMAN food chain, so many new cancers and higher incidences or cancers.
 
JFTD said:
If you're going to make sweeping assertions against the body of science available, the onus is on you to provide the research to back it up. And those sorts of studies do, very often, get funding, where there is a scientific basis for them. I suspect there is no such paper because there is no such basis :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I only explained why I feed organic bran to my own horse, I don't have to provide any proof to anyone. Obviously you need to get a life, or is that your way of feeling superior to others?
 
Fauvea said:
I only explained why I feed organic bran to my own horse, I don't have to provide any proof to anyone. Obviously you need to get a life, or is that your way of feeling superior to others?
Click to expand...

No. I expect it's her way of telling you not to spout your opinion as fact when there is no scientific basis for it!
 
Dancing Queen said:
thank you - I was thinking its naturally occuring, not man made therefore it cannot be inorganic.

So bran itself is organic but depends on how its been treated to which secondary category it goes into.

TBH i would be less worried about the bran being organic to what was actually going into the HUMAN food chain, so many new cancers and higher incidences or cancers.
Click to expand...

Argh, too much thinking!! Organic tends to refer either to its chemical constitution (organic or inorganic) or to how a feedstuff has been produced (also organic!!). So that it is grown just means it isn't man made/synthesised iyswim.

Given all the generally horrible things in the ground/air/water/food/cosmetics etc I think that wether the bran you feed a couple of handfulls of a day is organic is probably low on the order of things to worry about. But that is something that is just down to what you feel happy with really.
 
Fauvea said:
I only explained why I feed organic bran to my own horse, I don't have to provide any proof to anyone. Obviously you need to get a life, or is that your way of feeling superior to others?
Click to expand...

I think it was a fair question - this is a really good thread as we have felt around odd bits of information together to try and piece it all together and all learn more as well as seeing what other people do and for what reasons. It is interesting! If you post something as fact then you must expect people to want to know more about that, perhaps if it is infact your opinion, where you heard it from or read it. Human nature and a thirst for knowledge, rather than a need for a life I think!
 
Mrs B said:
We always used to feed it - as did everyone else I knew in the 70's :) Bran, oats, new-fangled things called pony nuts and sugar beet in the winter - all in one bucket and twice a day.

I seem to remember that all but the teeniest ponies used to get at least half a scoop to a scoop of bran per feed. What I can't remember is any of the assorted 26 equines on the yard having digestive problems...
Click to expand...

dont forget the flaked maize Mrs B----
 
At the yard I keep mine at, they usually feed the horses bran mash with sugar beet (to balance the phosphorus to calcium ratio) once or twice weekly as a treat for the horses and also to give them a 'flush out'.. true, it may not have the highest nutritional value compared to other feed stuffs, but it has its uses and my horse appears happy and healthy with his weekly treat :) xx
 
I always understood it that bran (or the high phosphorous content) doesnt cause leaching of calcium from the body's stores, but interferes with its absorption so you need to balance it with extra calcium and then its fine?
 
ThePony said:
I think it was a fair question - this is a really good thread as we have felt around odd bits of information together to try and piece it all together and all learn more as well as seeing what other people do and for what reasons. It is interesting! If you post something as fact then you must expect people to want to know more about that, perhaps if it is infact your opinion, where you heard it from or read it. Human nature and a thirst for knowledge, rather than a need for a life I think!
Click to expand...

OK, I did not think that people needed proofs that herbicides and pesticides are unhealthy, but here you go, the first articles that pop up about effect of pesticides/herbicides on different mammals:

An exploratory analysis of the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion in an Ontario farm population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240415/

Effect of pesticides on oestradiol-receptor complex formation in rat uterus cytosol
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4399707

Effects of pesticides on the ratio of 16 alpha/2-hydroxyestrone: a biologic marker of breast cancer risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1518879/

Current Health Effects of Agricultural Work: Respiratory Disease, Cancer, Reproductive Effects, Musculoskeletal Injuries, and Pesticide–Related Illnesses
http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=8432&t=1

Neurotoxic Effects of Organohosphorus Insecticides
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198703263161301

Effect of atrazine on ovarian function in the rat
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0890623896000548

Hypolipidemia and peroxisome proliferation induced by phenoxyacetic acid herbicides in rats
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295283900916

Effect of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Enzymatic Activity in Pregnant Rats and Their Fetuses*1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935100942294
 
Last edited:
JFTD said:
Care to post a link to the peer reviewed primary article publishing good quality trial data in a scientific journal which backs up that statement
Click to expand...

Careful...one of the first thing I learnt at Uni was that it's possible to find such proof to back up whichever theory that you're trying to prove ;)
 
Dancing Queen said:
are these articles peer reviewed? I cant be arsed to open them if not.
Click to expand...

I would think most of them are. But they aren't free, so unless you buy them (or have access to the journals) you will only get the abstract.

Although, you should always use own personnal judgement and good old common sense, it's not because it's peer reviewed that it is true.
 
Fauvea said:
Although, you should always use own personnal judgement and good old common sense, it's not because it's peer reviewed that it is true.
Click to expand...

True, although it is a good starting point - if it's not peer reviewed, it's probably not worth wasting the time reading it! If it is peer reviewed, it's probably still nonsense or irrelevant, but it is at least worth some further analysis.

Firstly, I will confess not to have opened a single link you've posted yet. But the first few things that strike me are that you've posted indescriminately links relating to pesticide use in general - including organophosphates, whilst previously you talked about Roundup which is glyphosphate based (the last paper you link to is relevant there). Both pesticides are potentially relevant in this case, but it is worth being clear that there are different pesticides in use, with different safety profiles. Even within organophosphates, there are widely variable degrees of toxicity.

They're heavily skewed towards in vitro studies in rat tissue or rodent in vivo work. Rat models aren't perfect and there are species differences in susceptibility to toxins. Lab studies tend to expose to higher concentrations than are environmentally relevant, especially in the context of the amount of pesticide likely to be found in a bag of bran from your feed store. I have a gut feeling you would encounter more whilst out hacking, but I can't back that up at all.

Most importantly, I don't see any mention of metabolic diseases there - and as I recall, that is the specific claim you made.

I make these points, and I asked for scientific back up for a very specific claim, because I have a problem with people declaring things they suspect or believe to be true, as absolute fact. If you make claims, you should be prepared to back them up, or else we have to write you off as another crackpot, doing things for no real reason.

I regularly post things on here that I'm not 100% sure of. I always try to make that clear when I'm posting, because I don't want to be responsible for misleading someone - I'd rather they double checked a reliable source for themselves. If it's your opinion, say so - don't announce it as fact.


Gingercat, yes, you can almost always find evidence to support your theory, however mad it is, but if you link to that evidence, we can judge for ourselves how strong that evidence is and how reliably it was generated. From there, we stand a chance at being able to deduce that the theory is unsubstantiated, despite the poster's claims! (Speaking hypothetically, this poster's claims aren't mad, but they aren't necessarily right either.)
 
JFTD said:
True, although it is a good starting point - if it's not peer reviewed, it's probably not worth wasting the time reading it! If it is peer reviewed, it's probably still nonsense or irrelevant, but it is at least worth some further analysis.

Firstly, I will confess not to have opened a single link you've posted yet. But the first few things that strike me are that you've posted indescriminately links relating to pesticide use in general - including organophosphates, whilst previously you talked about Roundup which is glyphosphate based (the last paper you link to is relevant there). Both pesticides are potentially relevant in this case, but it is worth being clear that there are different pesticides in use, with different safety profiles. Even within organophosphates, there are widely variable degrees of toxicity.

They're heavily skewed towards in vitro studies in rat tissue or rodent in vivo work. Rat models aren't perfect and there are species differences in susceptibility to toxins. Lab studies tend to expose to higher concentrations than are environmentally relevant, especially in the context of the amount of pesticide likely to be found in a bag of bran from your feed store. I have a gut feeling you would encounter more whilst out hacking, but I can't back that up at all.

Most importantly, I don't see any mention of metabolic diseases there - and as I recall, that is the specific claim you made.

I make these points, and I asked for scientific back up for a very specific claim, because I have a problem with people declaring things they suspect or believe to be true, as absolute fact. If you make claims, you should be prepared to back them up, or else we have to write you off as another crackpot, doing things for no real reason.

I regularly post things on here that I'm not 100% sure of. I always try to make that clear when I'm posting, because I don't want to be responsible for misleading someone - I'd rather they double checked a reliable source for themselves. If it's your opinion, say so - don't announce it as fact.


Gingercat, yes, you can almost always find evidence to support your theory, however mad it is, but if you link to that evidence, we can judge for ourselves how strong that evidence is and how reliably it was generated. From there, we stand a chance at being able to deduce that the theory is unsubstantiated, despite the poster's claims! (Speaking hypothetically, this poster's claims aren't mad, but they aren't necessarily right either.)
Click to expand...

i wanted to say that but my brain is tired. thanks its perfectly worded, i havent looked at them because they are only abstracts which means the woman herself hasnt really looked at the full article to identify the point made and correlate them to her argument. failed im afraid not even a 3rd class hons.
 
JFTD said:
Most importantly, I don't see any mention of metabolic diseases there - and as I recall, that is the specific claim you made.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I've been a bit clumsy in my wording there. Not sure what you call metabolic diseases (I've found "metabolic disorder" and "metabolic syndrome" on wikipedia but not disease). I used "metabolic deseases" for problems related with metabolism, so that could include cancer, hormones problems... and a load of other stuff.

As for the RoundUp and the different herbicides/pesticides, I don't know which ones are used and I've never seen the list of chemicals written on the bag's label so I am not sure there is any traceability. However, I seem to remember that RoundUp is used with special GMO plants that have a resistance to it (otherwise it'd kill the cultivated plants too), so I don't think it would be commonly used in the UK over the crops.

Also, for the lab studies, they give higher levels but the study is generally on a much shorter timescale.


All in all, I did not go at great length to get organic bran, it just happened that I was putting an order with this company and when you take shipping into account a few quids don't make that much of a difference. But most importantly, the question was where you can buy bran online and not where is it cheapest to buy.
 
Dancing Queen said:
i wanted to say that but my brain is tired. thanks its perfectly worded, i havent looked at them because they are only abstracts which means the woman herself hasnt really looked at the full article to identify the point made and correlate them to her argument. failed im afraid not even a 3rd class hons.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'am a PhD student and have worked as a researcher in one of the UK's best institutions, the Natural History Museum, and English is only my second language. I'm afraid that your tax money has been used to pay a not even 3rd class hons and a foreigner at that! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top