4.6 Article

Comparative mineral composition among canola cultivars and other cruciferous leafy greens

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 112-116

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2008.11.002

关键词

Brassicaceae; Brassica napus; Canola greens; Rapeseed greens; Leafy greens; Green leafy vegetables; Macrominerals; Microminerals; Nutrients; Harvest stage; Food composition

资金

  1. USDA-CSREES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential of canola (Brassica napus L.) leafy greens as a food source for human consumption is being considered to increase the variety of nutritious vegetables available to consumers. Scientific evidence supports that the consumption of cruciferous vegetables tray reduce individual risk factors for some diseases. Five canola cultivars were grown at Alabama A & M University, Winfred Thomas Agricultural Research Station, in Hazel Green, AL, USA, and wet a analyzed to deter mine mineral composition of raw canola leafy greens for comparison to those of collard greens (Brassica oleraceae war. viridis), kale. (Brassica oleraceae L. acephala) and cabbage (Brassica oleraceae L. vat. capitata). Results showed that collard greens were significantly higher in potassium (K) than the other crops tested; however, canola was significantly higher in K titan cabbage and kale. The essential micronutrient, iron (Fe), (24.77 mg/100 g city weight). was significantly higher in canola and lowest in cabbage (7.65 mg/100 g dry weight). Zinc (Zn) and manganese (Mn) contents of canola (3.00 and 16.40 g/100 g dry weight, respectively) were greater than cabbage and collard. Anions (lie three canola harvest stages (rosette, budding and blooming), K content increased with growth, while Fe and aluminum (AI) decreased; sodium (Na) was lowest at the budding stage compared to the other two stages. The results of this research indicate that canola greens can he all acceptable substitute for traditional leafy green vegetables. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据