Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:05:08.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iron status of suckling rats as influenced by maternal diet during gestation and lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Barbara A. Kochanowski  and
Adria R. Sherman
Barbara A. Kochanowski
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
Adria R. Sherman
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
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. Two experiments are reported. In Expt 1, pregnant Sprague–Dawley rats (200–220 g) were given purified diets containing 35, 75, 150 or 300 mg Fe/kg throughout gestation and lactation. In Expt 2, the levels of Fe given were 250 and 300 mg/kg diet.

2. Litters were standardized at birth to contain seven pups. On day 20 of lactation blood, milk, spleen and liver were collected for Fe analysis.

3. A dietary Fe concentration of 35 mg/kg maintained maximum weight gain, food intake, liver and spleen weight, haemoglobin concentration and packed cell volume in the growing maternal rat through 20 d of lactation. Dam liver and spleen Fe concentrations were maximized between 75 and 250 mg Fe/kg diet.

4. Pups (20-d-old) nursed by dams given 35 mg Fe/kg tended to have lower body and organ weights compared to other groups. Liver and spleen Fe concentrations increased with increasing maternal dietary Fe and were significantly increased between 150 and 250 mg Fe/kg.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Ahlstrom, A. & Jantti, M. (1969). Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A, Biologica 152, 1.Google Scholar
Anaokar, S. G. & Garry, P. J. (1981). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 34, 1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerklewski, F. L. (1979). J. Nutr. 109, 1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, C. L., Lonnerdal, B., Clegg, M. & Hurley, L. S. (1981). J. Nutr. 111, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, W. J. & Kirksey, A. (1976). J. Nutr. 106, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, M. C., Moor, J. R., Scott, L. E. & Munro, H. N. (1972). Biochem. J. 129, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, M. G., Newman, G. E., O'Brien, J. R. P., Valberg, L. S. & Witts, L. J. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1978). Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals no. 10, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrennar, K. & Bent, D. H. (1975). SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Richterich, R. (1969). Clinical Chemistry. Basel: Basler Purck und Verlagsanstalt.Google ScholarPubMed