154
protein content ranging from 6.95 to 10.75 g/100 g
with an average of 8.07 g/100 g while Basak et al.
(2002) reported a much lower protein content of 6.6–
7.3 g/100 g in Indian rice genotypes. Chinese and
North American wild rice samples had a relatively
higher protein content of 12–15 g/100 g (Zhai et al.,
2001). Frequency distribution showed that 45.2 per-
cent of the samples had protein content below 9
g/100 g while only 3 percent of the samples were
above 12 g/100 g. The highest protein content of 12.9 8
g/100 g was observed in Phoudum, a traditional high-
yielding variety. The majority of the samples (51%)
had a protein content of between 9 and 12 g/100 g.
Brown rice crude fat content in 269 Indian rice culti-
vars ranged from 1.23 to 3.77 g/100 g with a mean of
2.38 ± 0.46 g/100 g which is comparable to that re-
ported by other investigators (Juliano, 1985; Scherz
et al., 2000). Similar fat content ranging from 1.81 to
2.24 g/100 g and from 2.1 to 3.2 g/100 g has been re-
ported in Italian rice varieties (Brandolini et al., 2006).
The highest fat content of 3.77 g/100 g found in Kavya
variety is substantially high even though it is within
the range of 1 – 4 g/100 g reported for brown rice (Ju-
liano, 1985). Frequency distribution of brown rice fat
content showed that the 73 percent of the samples
had fat content between 2 and 3 g/100 g while as
many as 30 cultivars had more than 3 g/100 g.
Though rice is not a rich source of fat, the study re-
vealed that considerable variations exist within rice
cultivars with some cultivars having substantially
higher content that can be utilized to marginally in-
crease fat intake.
The total dietary fibre content analysed in 105 rice va-
rieties ranged from 3.99 to 4.71 g/100 g, with MLT-
ME6 having the highest content. The average
insoluble fibre and soluble fibre content was 3 .62 ±
0.16 g/100 g and 0.79 ± 0.06 g/100 g, respectively. In
all varieties, the content of insoluble dietary fibre was
significantly greater (p<0.001) than that of soluble
dietary fibre. Compared to the present study, Cheng
(1983) has reported a much lower total dietary fibre
content of 1.36 – 2.83 g/100 g in brown rice. Rice ap-
pears to be a moderate source of dietary fibre; how-ever, milling or polishing to produce white rice dras-
tically reduces the dietary fibre content in rice. In
Asian countries where higher intake of white rice has
been associated with increased risk of metabolic dis-
eases and type 2 diabetes, substitution with brown
rice has shown to lower the risk of type 2 diabetes,
CVD and mortality (Katcher et al., 2008; Villegas et
al., 2007). Therefore using brown rice to overcome
current physiological effects in human health due to
its high fibre and other bioactive compounds appears
to be an advantage.
Brown rice ash content in 269 rice cultivars ranged
from 0.9 g/100 g in Pantdh to 1.99 g/100 g in IR36 va-
riety. Mean brown rice ash content was 1.38 g/100 g,
comparable to brown rice from Brazil (1.21 g/100 g)
and wild rice varieties from China (Heinemann et al.,
2 005; Zhai et al., 2001). Frequency distribution
showed that 64 percent of the samples had ash con-
tent between 0.9 and 1.5 g/100 g, while 36 percent
had ash content between 1.5 and 2.0 g/100 g reflect-
ing mineral abundance in many rice varieties.3 .2 Mineral Content
The concentration of elements in 269 brown rice
genotypes is summarized in table 3.Table 3.Mineral content of high yielding Indian rice
varieties (mg/100g)Min. N P R E S E N T S T U D Y Juliano and Marr et al Scherz et al
Bechtel ( 1995 )( 2000 )
Mean ± SD Range (^1985 )
Fe 23 61.2 3 ± 0. 53 0. 5 2 – 3 .7 5 0.2 – 5 .2 0. 5 – 5 .7 2 – 3 .6
Zn 23 62. 3 8 ± 0.4 5 1.01 – 3 .46 0.6 – 2.8 1. 3 – 2.1 0.8 – 2
Cu 23 60. 3 1 ± 0.10 0.1 3 – 0.78 0.1 – 0.6 0.14 – 1. 3 0.24 – 0. 30
Mn 23 6 1.41 ± 0. 31 0.7 5 – 2.46 0.2 – 3 .6 2. 5 – 6 3 .74
Ca 23 6 12.27 ± 2. 59 8 – 19 10 – 50 3 – 11 11 – 39
Mg2 3 6 116 ± 14.04 69 – 150 20 – 150 100 – 1 30 110 – 166
P 23 6 297 ± 71.18 113 – 4987 170 – 4 30 240 – 310 25 0 – 383
K 104 2 53 ± 27.81 162 - 347 60 - 280 210 – 300 15 0 – 260The sum of nutritionally important minerals as-
sayed in this study represents 36 percent of the total