Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:32:45.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Screening Cassava for Low Cyanide Using an Enzymatic Assay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. D. Cooke ,
A. K. Howland  and
S. K. Hahn
R. D. Cooke
Affiliation:
Tropical Products Institute, 56 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LU
A. K. Howland
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria
S. K. Hahn
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The cyanide contents were determined quantitatively of the peeled roots of 108 cassava clones, which had been previously selected as low-cyanide by the picrate leaf-test, and compared with the qualitative picrate leaf-test scores used for rapid screening. The correlation coefficient between root tuber cyanide content (dry weight basis) and leaf-test score was r = 0·36 (P < 0·01). The picrate leaf-test, while useful for screening large numbers of clones in early stages of breeding, needs augmenting by more accurate methods. There was no significant correlation between root cyanide content and dry root yield (r = 0·18). The cyanide content varied considerably between roots of the same plant; and plants of the same cultivar grown under the same conditions. Possible improvements in the effectiveness of the cyanide screening procedure are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 1978 , pp. 367 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

AOAC (1970). Methods of Analyses (ed. Horwitz, W.), 11th edn. Washingon D.C.: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Boey, C. G., Yeoh, H. H. & Chew, M. Y. (1976). Phytochemistry 15, 1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIAT (1973). A Rep. Centro Internac. Agric Trop. Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
Conn, E. E. (1969). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 17, 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, R. D. (1978). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 29, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coursey, D. G. (1973). In Chronic Cassava Toxicity (ed. Nestel, B. L. & Macintyre, R.). Ottawa: Internat. Develop. Res. Centre.Google Scholar
de Bruijn, G. H. (1971). Meded. Landbouw., Wageningen 71, 1.Google Scholar
Esquivel, T. F. & Maravalhas, N. (1973). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 21, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holleman, L. W. J. & Aten, A. (1956). Processing of Cassava and Cassava Products in Rural Industries. FAO Agri. Rev. Paper 54, 115 pp.Google Scholar
Moh, C. C. & Alan, J. J. (1972). Trop. Root Crops Newsl. 6, 29.Google Scholar
Munoz, A. G. & Casas, I. P. (1972). Turrialba 22, 221.Google Scholar
Sadik, S. & Hahn, S. K. (1973). In Chronic Cassava Toxicity, Turrialba 22, 221.Google Scholar
Sadik, S., Okereke, O. U. & Hahn, S. K. (1974). Tech. Bull. 4, Ibadan, Nigeria: Internat. Inst. Trop. Agric.Google Scholar
Sinha, S. K. & Nair, T. V. R. (1968). Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 38, 958.Google Scholar
Zitnak, A. (1973). In Chronic Cassava Toxicity, Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 38, 958.Google Scholar