Abstract
ABSTRACT The aim of this work was to evaluate the physical quality of the genetically modified corn grains (Herculex 30S31) as a function of drying and wetting processes in relation to conventional corn (AG 1051). The experimental design was a completely randomized design, with a factorial scheme (7x3x2), seven drying or wetting times (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 minutes), three drying air temperatures (80, 100 and 120 °C) and two types of maize (conventional AG 1051 and Herculex 30S31 transgenic). The grains of transgenic and conventional corn were harvested with a water content of 13.5% (w.b.) and dried in convection oven with forced ventilation, then the same grains were submitted to a wetting process for the same time. The width, thickness, length, contraction and expansion of the grains were determined, the water contents and the electrical conductivity were determined before and after drying, after the wetting process, at each interval of twenty minutes. Drying and wetting processes adversely affected the quality of conventional and transgenic maize grains. However, when compared, transgenic corn kernels were more resistant to physical damage. It was concluded that the changes in water contents in the grains during the drying and storage operations intensify the physical losses, even if at the end the grains remain with water content favorable to storage.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Drying adversely affected conventional maize grain quality.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drying and wetting processes adversely affected the quality of conventional and transgenic maize grains”
Claim · model-written summary
Wetting adversely affected conventional maize grain quality.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drying and wetting processes adversely affected the quality of conventional and transgenic maize grains”
Claim · model-written summary
Drying adversely affected transgenic maize grain quality.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drying and wetting processes adversely affected the quality of conventional and transgenic maize grains”
Claim · model-written summary
Wetting adversely affected transgenic maize grain quality.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drying and wetting processes adversely affected the quality of conventional and transgenic maize grains”
Claim · model-written summary
Transgenic maize kernels were more resistant to physical damage than conventional kernels.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when compared, transgenic corn kernels were more resistant to physical damage”
e1“types of maize (conventional AG 1051 and Herculex 30S31 transgenic)”
Claim · model-written summary
Changes in grain water content during drying and storage intensify physical losses.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“changes in water contents in the grains during the drying and storage operations intensify the physical losses”
e1“types of maize (conventional AG 1051 and Herculex 30S31 transgenic)”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.