QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Register, U. D. Articles by Elvehjem, C. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Register, U. D. Articles by Elvehjem, C. A.

Studies on the Nutritional Adequacy of Army Combat Rations¹

Department of Biochemistry, College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Army combat rations K, C₂ and 10-in-1 were fed ad libitum to young growing rats. The materials fed represent only a limited sampling, since the items included in the rations have been changed from time to time. The growth of young rats over short periods of time was the chief criterion used in these experiments for evaluating the rations.

The growth response previously observed with the addition of the B complex to the K ration can be duplicated to a large extent with B₆. Pyridoxine completely replaced the B complex as a supplement to the 10-in-1 ration.

Pantothenic acid had no effect on growth of rats on the 10-in-1 ration supplemented with casein and pyridoxine, but did exert a small but consistent response when added to K and C₂ rations containing the same supplements. The two vitamins appeared to replace the B complex supplement.

The addition of 6 essential amino acids produced a growth response equal to that obtained when casein was added to the K ration supplemented with pyridoxine and pantothenic acid. In the C₂ ration, methionine appeared to replace the casein supplement.

The requirements for certain nutrients of experimental animals such as the growing rat are higher than those of man; therefore these results do not necessarily reflect the nutritional adequacy of these rations for human subjects.

This paper reports research undertaken in cooperation with the Quartermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces, and has been assigned number 270 in the series of papers approved for publication. The views or conclusions contained in this report are those of the authors. They are not to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views or indorsement of the Department of the Army.

Manuscript received 19 September 1949.