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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Food science & nutrition 2018-09, Vol.6 (6), p.1545-1554 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
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 < 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 < 0.001, respectively) and starch content (59.16% vs. 51.86%; p < 0.001, respectively) than Apomuden. Stored SRs grown on chicken manure‐amended soil recorded the highest protein (6.41%; p < 0.001) and β‐carotene (16.64 mg/100 g; p < 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 < 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 < 0.001, respectively) and starch content (59.16% vs. 51.86%; p < 0.001, respectively) than Apomuden. Stored SRs grown on chicken manure‐amended soil recorded the highest protein (6.41%; p < 0.001) and β‐carotene (16.64 mg/100 g; p < 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 & 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 & 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 < 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 < 0.001, respectively) and starch content (59.16% vs. 51.86%; p < 0.001, respectively) than Apomuden. Stored SRs grown on chicken manure‐amended soil recorded the highest protein (6.41%; p < 0.001) and β‐carotene (16.64 mg/100 g; p < 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 & 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 |