Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:53:57.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of low-dose gamma-irradiation on the wholesomeness of mangoes (Mangifera indica) as determined by short-term feeding studies using rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

G. M. J. Horton
G. M. J. Horton
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, PO Box 12580, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. A control diet and diets containing 150 g non-irradiated or 150 g irradiated mangopulp/kg were given to female rats from day 15 of the gestation period until weaning in trials 1 and 2, and from 40 d before mating until 28 d post weaning in trial 3.

2. Food intake and dry-matter digestibility were similar with all diets.

3. There were no significant differences between animals given the different dietary regimens in the daily body-weight changes of weanling males, pups, nursing females or females during the immediate postlactation period.

4. No differences in haematological or blood chemistry values were found which could be attributed to the ingestion of irradiated mangoes. There was no evidence for the presence of any toxic substances in the irradiated-mango-pulp diet.

5. Gross pathological observations revealed no aberrations which could be related to the ingestion of irradiated mangoes.

6. It may be concluded that the wholesomeness of mangoes was not affected by gammairradiation at a dose of 75 krd.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 67 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis, 10th ed.Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. K. & Scott, J. E. (1960). J. clin. Path. 13, 156.Google Scholar
Karmen, A. (1955). J. clin. Invest. 34, 131.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1972). Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, 2nd ed.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council.Google Scholar
Read, M. S. (1960). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 19, 1055.Google Scholar
Reber, E. F., Raheja, K. & Davis, D. (1966). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. & Biol. 25, 1529.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Werner, W., Rey, H. G. & Wielinger, H. (1970). Z. analyt. Chem. 252, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar