Loading…

Postharvest quality of two orange‐fleshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam] cultivars as influenced by organic soil amendment treatments

Two orange‐fleshed sweet potato cultivars: Apomuden and “Nane” were grown on cow dung‐, chicken manure‐, compost‐amended soils, and untreated soil. Apomuden is a variety, while “Nane” is being evaluated to be released in Ghana. The storage roots (SRs) were harvested at 3 months, cured by heaping the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Food science & nutrition 2018-09, Vol.6 (6), p.1545-1554
Main Authors: Atuna, Richard A., Aduguba, Wilberforce O., Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak, Abukari, Issah A., Muzhingi, Tawanda, Mbongo, Daniel, Amagloh, Francis K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3
container_end_page 1554
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1545
container_title Food science & nutrition
container_volume 6
creator Atuna, Richard A.
Aduguba, Wilberforce O.
Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak
Abukari, Issah A.
Muzhingi, Tawanda
Mbongo, Daniel
Amagloh, Francis K.
description Two orange‐fleshed sweet potato cultivars: Apomuden and “Nane” were grown on cow dung‐, chicken manure‐, compost‐amended soils, and untreated soil. Apomuden is a variety, while “Nane” is being evaluated to be released in Ghana. The storage roots (SRs) were harvested at 3 months, cured by heaping the SRs and covering with the sweet potato foliage for 7 days in the field. The cured SRs were kept in an evaporative cool chamber to study the effect of soil amendment treatments on weight loss, rot, some nutrient composition, and sensory attributes. Boiled SRs were assessed by 70 untrained panelists after 7 weeks of storage based on the following: general appearance, sweetness, finger‐feel firmness, and overall acceptability using a 5‐point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely to 5 = like extremely). Percent rot for “Nane” showed a linear trend, while that of Apomuden was nonlinear. Both cultivars showed similar trends in terms of cumulative weight loss with “Nane” recording lower weight loss compared with Apomuden. A significant (p 
doi_str_mv 10.1002/fsn3.700
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6145229</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2113272071</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kd9qFDEUxoMottSCTyABb-rF1CTzJzM3gpRWC4sK6pVIOJM52U3JTLZJZpe98w30GX0Ss7TWKhgIOcn5nS8n-Qh5ytkpZ0y8NHEqTyVjD8ihYFVbSC7lw3vxATmO8Yrl0VW8EeIxOSiZqNu6k4fk-wcf0wrCBmOi1zM4m3bUG5q2nvoA0xJ_fvthHMYVDjRuERNd-wTJ0y-Xaz96BNpD3kOkJ4sXdAHjV6pnl-wGQqT51E7GzTjpXN5n5bCEyWoavXUURpyGPBNNASHto_iEPDLgIh7frkfk88X5p7O3xeL9m8uz14tC16xmBS9FK5nhXd8a7LXWopSVLutKd7KpTdUNTcPRDMbUOQFV2_W86jQAh0ZiOZRH5NWN7nruRxx0vjuAU-tgRwg75cGqvzOTXaml36iGV7UQXRY4uRUI_nrOv6dGGzU6BxP6OSrBc49SMMkz-vwf9MrPYcrPyxRr25qJrv0jqIOPMaC5a4YztTda7Y1W2eiMPrvf_B3429YMFDfA1jrc_VdIXXx8V-4FfwHBoLWx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2108850298</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Postharvest quality of two orange‐fleshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam] cultivars as influenced by organic soil amendment treatments</title><source>PubMed Central Free</source><source>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Wiley Open Access</source><creator>Atuna, Richard A. ; Aduguba, Wilberforce O. ; Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak ; Abukari, Issah A. ; Muzhingi, Tawanda ; Mbongo, Daniel ; Amagloh, Francis K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Atuna, Richard A. ; Aduguba, Wilberforce O. ; Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak ; Abukari, Issah A. ; Muzhingi, Tawanda ; Mbongo, Daniel ; Amagloh, Francis K.</creatorcontrib><description>Two orange‐fleshed sweet potato cultivars: Apomuden and “Nane” were grown on cow dung‐, chicken manure‐, compost‐amended soils, and untreated soil. Apomuden is a variety, while “Nane” is being evaluated to be released in Ghana. The storage roots (SRs) were harvested at 3 months, cured by heaping the SRs and covering with the sweet potato foliage for 7 days in the field. The cured SRs were kept in an evaporative cool chamber to study the effect of soil amendment treatments on weight loss, rot, some nutrient composition, and sensory attributes. Boiled SRs were assessed by 70 untrained panelists after 7 weeks of storage based on the following: general appearance, sweetness, finger‐feel firmness, and overall acceptability using a 5‐point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely to 5 = like extremely). Percent rot for “Nane” showed a linear trend, while that of Apomuden was nonlinear. Both cultivars showed similar trends in terms of cumulative weight loss with “Nane” recording lower weight loss compared with Apomuden. A significant (p &lt; 0.001; r = 0.71) strong positive correlation was observed between weight loss and rots. “Nane” had higher dry matter (37.15% vs. 30.19%; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) and starch content (59.16% vs. 51.86%; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) than Apomuden. Stored SRs grown on chicken manure‐amended soil recorded the highest protein (6.41%; p &lt; 0.001) and β‐carotene (16.64 mg/100 g; p &lt; 0.001) content than the other treatments. There was a 35% decline in β‐carotene for Apomuden, while “Nane” increased by 24% at the end of the 7‐week storage. “Nane,” the cultivar with high dry matter content had good storage properties than Apomuden. Stored SRs cultivated on soils amended with chicken manure had higher β‐carotene and protein content. All sensory attributes ranged from 3.35 to 3.68 indicating a good consumer preference for both cultivars irrespective of the soil amendment treatment applied. Stored SRs cultivated on soils amended with chicken manure had higher β‐carotene and protein content in both cultivars compared with the other treatments. Therefore, chicken manure is recommended to farmers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2048-7177</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2048-7177</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.700</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30258597</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Carotene ; Cattle manure ; Chickens ; cooling ; Dung ; evaporative ; Evaporative cooling ; Foliage ; Manures ; organic ; Original Research ; Potatoes ; poultry ; Poultry manure ; Proteins ; Recording ; Soils ; storage ; sweet potato ; Sweet potatoes ; Weight loss</subject><ispartof>Food science &amp; nutrition, 2018-09, Vol.6 (6), p.1545-1554</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2432-2165 ; 0000-0001-7243-0972 ; 0000-0002-4888-8710</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2108850298/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2108850298?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,11562,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,46052,46476,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30258597$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atuna, Richard A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aduguba, Wilberforce O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abukari, Issah A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muzhingi, Tawanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mbongo, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amagloh, Francis K.</creatorcontrib><title>Postharvest quality of two orange‐fleshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam] cultivars as influenced by organic soil amendment treatments</title><title>Food science &amp; nutrition</title><addtitle>Food Sci Nutr</addtitle><description>Two orange‐fleshed sweet potato cultivars: Apomuden and “Nane” were grown on cow dung‐, chicken manure‐, compost‐amended soils, and untreated soil. Apomuden is a variety, while “Nane” is being evaluated to be released in Ghana. The storage roots (SRs) were harvested at 3 months, cured by heaping the SRs and covering with the sweet potato foliage for 7 days in the field. The cured SRs were kept in an evaporative cool chamber to study the effect of soil amendment treatments on weight loss, rot, some nutrient composition, and sensory attributes. Boiled SRs were assessed by 70 untrained panelists after 7 weeks of storage based on the following: general appearance, sweetness, finger‐feel firmness, and overall acceptability using a 5‐point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely to 5 = like extremely). Percent rot for “Nane” showed a linear trend, while that of Apomuden was nonlinear. Both cultivars showed similar trends in terms of cumulative weight loss with “Nane” recording lower weight loss compared with Apomuden. A significant (p &lt; 0.001; r = 0.71) strong positive correlation was observed between weight loss and rots. “Nane” had higher dry matter (37.15% vs. 30.19%; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) and starch content (59.16% vs. 51.86%; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) than Apomuden. Stored SRs grown on chicken manure‐amended soil recorded the highest protein (6.41%; p &lt; 0.001) and β‐carotene (16.64 mg/100 g; p &lt; 0.001) content than the other treatments. There was a 35% decline in β‐carotene for Apomuden, while “Nane” increased by 24% at the end of the 7‐week storage. “Nane,” the cultivar with high dry matter content had good storage properties than Apomuden. Stored SRs cultivated on soils amended with chicken manure had higher β‐carotene and protein content. All sensory attributes ranged from 3.35 to 3.68 indicating a good consumer preference for both cultivars irrespective of the soil amendment treatment applied. Stored SRs cultivated on soils amended with chicken manure had higher β‐carotene and protein content in both cultivars compared with the other treatments. Therefore, chicken manure is recommended to farmers.</description><subject>Carotene</subject><subject>Cattle manure</subject><subject>Chickens</subject><subject>cooling</subject><subject>Dung</subject><subject>evaporative</subject><subject>Evaporative cooling</subject><subject>Foliage</subject><subject>Manures</subject><subject>organic</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Potatoes</subject><subject>poultry</subject><subject>Poultry manure</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Recording</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>storage</subject><subject>sweet potato</subject><subject>Sweet potatoes</subject><subject>Weight loss</subject><issn>2048-7177</issn><issn>2048-7177</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kd9qFDEUxoMottSCTyABb-rF1CTzJzM3gpRWC4sK6pVIOJM52U3JTLZJZpe98w30GX0Ss7TWKhgIOcn5nS8n-Qh5ytkpZ0y8NHEqTyVjD8ihYFVbSC7lw3vxATmO8Yrl0VW8EeIxOSiZqNu6k4fk-wcf0wrCBmOi1zM4m3bUG5q2nvoA0xJ_fvthHMYVDjRuERNd-wTJ0y-Xaz96BNpD3kOkJ4sXdAHjV6pnl-wGQqT51E7GzTjpXN5n5bCEyWoavXUURpyGPBNNASHto_iEPDLgIh7frkfk88X5p7O3xeL9m8uz14tC16xmBS9FK5nhXd8a7LXWopSVLutKd7KpTdUNTcPRDMbUOQFV2_W86jQAh0ZiOZRH5NWN7nruRxx0vjuAU-tgRwg75cGqvzOTXaml36iGV7UQXRY4uRUI_nrOv6dGGzU6BxP6OSrBc49SMMkz-vwf9MrPYcrPyxRr25qJrv0jqIOPMaC5a4YztTda7Y1W2eiMPrvf_B3429YMFDfA1jrc_VdIXXx8V-4FfwHBoLWx</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Atuna, Richard A.</creator><creator>Aduguba, Wilberforce O.</creator><creator>Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak</creator><creator>Abukari, Issah A.</creator><creator>Muzhingi, Tawanda</creator><creator>Mbongo, Daniel</creator><creator>Amagloh, Francis K.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2432-2165</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7243-0972</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4888-8710</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>Postharvest quality of two orange‐fleshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam] cultivars as influenced by organic soil amendment treatments</title><author>Atuna, Richard A. ; Aduguba, Wilberforce O. ; Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak ; Abukari, Issah A. ; Muzhingi, Tawanda ; Mbongo, Daniel ; Amagloh, Francis K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Carotene</topic><topic>Cattle manure</topic><topic>Chickens</topic><topic>cooling</topic><topic>Dung</topic><topic>evaporative</topic><topic>Evaporative cooling</topic><topic>Foliage</topic><topic>Manures</topic><topic>organic</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Potatoes</topic><topic>poultry</topic><topic>Poultry manure</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Recording</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>storage</topic><topic>sweet potato</topic><topic>Sweet potatoes</topic><topic>Weight loss</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atuna, Richard A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aduguba, Wilberforce O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abukari, Issah A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muzhingi, Tawanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mbongo, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amagloh, Francis K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Backfiles (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health Medical collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep (ProQuest)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Food science &amp; nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atuna, Richard A.</au><au>Aduguba, Wilberforce O.</au><au>Alhassan, Abdul‐Razak</au><au>Abukari, Issah A.</au><au>Muzhingi, Tawanda</au><au>Mbongo, Daniel</au><au>Amagloh, Francis K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Postharvest quality of two orange‐fleshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam] cultivars as influenced by organic soil amendment treatments</atitle><jtitle>Food science &amp; nutrition</jtitle><addtitle>Food Sci Nutr</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1545</spage><epage>1554</epage><pages>1545-1554</pages><issn>2048-7177</issn><eissn>2048-7177</eissn><abstract>Two orange‐fleshed sweet potato cultivars: Apomuden and “Nane” were grown on cow dung‐, chicken manure‐, compost‐amended soils, and untreated soil. Apomuden is a variety, while “Nane” is being evaluated to be released in Ghana. The storage roots (SRs) were harvested at 3 months, cured by heaping the SRs and covering with the sweet potato foliage for 7 days in the field. The cured SRs were kept in an evaporative cool chamber to study the effect of soil amendment treatments on weight loss, rot, some nutrient composition, and sensory attributes. Boiled SRs were assessed by 70 untrained panelists after 7 weeks of storage based on the following: general appearance, sweetness, finger‐feel firmness, and overall acceptability using a 5‐point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely to 5 = like extremely). Percent rot for “Nane” showed a linear trend, while that of Apomuden was nonlinear. Both cultivars showed similar trends in terms of cumulative weight loss with “Nane” recording lower weight loss compared with Apomuden. A significant (p &lt; 0.001; r = 0.71) strong positive correlation was observed between weight loss and rots. “Nane” had higher dry matter (37.15% vs. 30.19%; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) and starch content (59.16% vs. 51.86%; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) than Apomuden. Stored SRs grown on chicken manure‐amended soil recorded the highest protein (6.41%; p &lt; 0.001) and β‐carotene (16.64 mg/100 g; p &lt; 0.001) content than the other treatments. There was a 35% decline in β‐carotene for Apomuden, while “Nane” increased by 24% at the end of the 7‐week storage. “Nane,” the cultivar with high dry matter content had good storage properties than Apomuden. Stored SRs cultivated on soils amended with chicken manure had higher β‐carotene and protein content. All sensory attributes ranged from 3.35 to 3.68 indicating a good consumer preference for both cultivars irrespective of the soil amendment treatment applied. Stored SRs cultivated on soils amended with chicken manure had higher β‐carotene and protein content in both cultivars compared with the other treatments. Therefore, chicken manure is recommended to farmers.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>30258597</pmid><doi>10.1002/fsn3.700</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2432-2165</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7243-0972</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4888-8710</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2048-7177
ispartof Food science & nutrition, 2018-09, Vol.6 (6), p.1545-1554
issn 2048-7177
2048-7177
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6145229
source PubMed Central Free; ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database; Wiley Open Access
subjects Carotene
Cattle manure
Chickens
cooling
Dung
evaporative
Evaporative cooling
Foliage
Manures
organic
Original Research
Potatoes
poultry
Poultry manure
Proteins
Recording
Soils
storage
sweet potato
Sweet potatoes
Weight loss
title Postharvest quality of two orange‐fleshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam] cultivars as influenced by organic soil amendment treatments
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T18%3A25%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Postharvest%20quality%20of%20two%20orange%E2%80%90fleshed%20sweet%20potato%20%5BIpomoea%20batatas%20(L)%20Lam%5D%20cultivars%20as%20influenced%20by%20organic%20soil%20amendment%20treatments&rft.jtitle=Food%20science%20&%20nutrition&rft.au=Atuna,%20Richard%20A.&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1545&rft.epage=1554&rft.pages=1545-1554&rft.issn=2048-7177&rft.eissn=2048-7177&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/fsn3.700&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2113272071%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-132870f19b8febccc2374c354c9765f49d661efdff5374a489b149caa1a67e3d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2108850298&rft_id=info:pmid/30258597&rfr_iscdi=true