AJCN 19th International Congress of Nutrition
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liu, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, C. Q.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Liu, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, C. Q.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Liu, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, C. Q.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 57, 506-511, Copyright © 1993 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Nutritional efficacy of a fortified weaning rusk in a rural area near Beijing [published erratum appears in Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Oct;58(4):582]

DS Liu, CJ Bates, TA Yin, XB Wang and CQ Lu
Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, Academy of Preventive Medicine, Beijing, China.

A micronutrient-fortified rusk for weanling children was tested in a rural area near Beijing. Two hundred twenty-six children aged 6-13 mo were randomly assigned by village to either a micronutrient-fortified or an unfortified rusk, daily for 3 mo. The fortified rusk contained extra zinc; iron; calcium; vitamins A, D, and B-12; thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and folic acid. Infants receiving the fortified rusk exhibited no decline in hemoglobin concentrations during the study whereas those receiving the unfortified rusk exhibited a significant decline. Improvements were also seen in erythrocyte porphyrin, plasma vitamin A, and riboflavin status, but these improvements were seen in both of the groups. Micronutrient fortification was probably beneficial for iron status and the fortified rusk promises to be an effective vehicle for supplementation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
U. Ramakrishnan, P. Nguyen, and R. Martorell
Effects of micronutrients on growth of children under 5 y of age: meta-analyses of single and multiple nutrient interventions
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, January 1, 2009; 89(1): 191 - 203.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Nutr.Home page
U. Ramakrishnan, N. Aburto, G. McCabe, and R. Martorell
Multimicronutrient Interventions but Not Vitamin A or Iron Interventions Alone Improve Child Growth: Results of 3 Meta-Analyses
J. Nutr., October 1, 2004; 134(10): 2592 - 2602.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
A. Lartey, A. Manu, K. H Brown, J. M Peerson, and K. G Dewey
A randomized, community-based trial of the effects of improved, centrally processed complementary foods on growth and micronutrient status of Ghanaian infants from 6 to 12 mo of age
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, September 1, 1999; 70(3): 391 - 404.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by The American Society for Nutrition