Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T15:53:38.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of defoliation and time of harvest on tuber dry-matter percentage of Pentland Crown Potatoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. J. Wilcockson
S. J. Wilcockson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NEl 1RU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two experiments are reported which investigated the effects of time and method of crop defoliation and of extending the interval between defoliation and harvest on the relationship between dry-matter percentage and tuber size in Pentland Crown potatoes.

Differences in average tuber dry-matter content between seasons and treatments were large, but the relationship between tuber dry-matter percentage and tuber size was always negatively quadratic. The dry-matter content of tubers of all sizes invariably decreased after defoliation, by about 0·6 % on average for each week that harvest was delayed in 1983 and 0·3 % in 1984. The largest decrease was from 22·7 to 16·7 % over the 10-week period following mechanical defoliation in mid-August 1983. In 1984, chemical defoliation in mid-August gave a smaller decrease than the mechanical method (0·25 and 0·38%/week) but their effects were similar when carried out in mid-September. Water uptake was the main factor responsible for the decrease because evidence showed that fresh weights of tubers increased proportionally following defoliation whilst dry weights remained virtually constant.

Natural senescence was late in both seasons experiments so that the crops foliage was still mostly alive when defoliation occurred, even in September and early October. Thus, the relatively large effects of late defoliation may have been greater than might be expected where haulm senescence is already well advanced by this time and water uptake has almost ceased. Nevertheless, the decline in dry-matter percentage which may occur between defoliation and harvest can be extremely important where potatoes for processing are concerned. It could make them unacceptable for particular outlets and should be considered when defoliation and harvesting programmes are planned.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 107 , Issue 3 , December 1986 , pp. 723 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Bevis, J. (1985). Desiccation of potatoes – which materials High Mowthorpe Experimental Husbandry Farm Annual Review 1985, pp. 18–24.Google Scholar
Burton, W. G. (1966). The Potato. Wageningen: Veenman.Google Scholar
Clarke, S. J. (1978). Potatoes for french fry production. NIAB Fellows' Conference Report No. 2, pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
Eley, D. E. (1978). Canned new potatoes. NIAB Fellows' Conference Report No. 2, pp. 43–44.Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. P. (1978). The crispers' requirements. NIAB Fellows' Conference Report No. 2, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar
Gray, D. & Hughes, J. C. (1978). Tuber quality. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.), pp. 504–544. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkett, P. J. (1983). Quality requirements of potatoes for french fry and crisp production. National Agricultural Centre Cereal Unit, Yield of Potatoes Course Papers, pp. 14–19.Google Scholar
I.C.I. Plant Protection (1983). ‘Reglone’ 40 for Potato Haulm Destruction. Technical Information Bulletin 55.Google Scholar
Ifenkwe, O. P.& Allen, E. J. (1978). Effects of tuber size on dry-matter content of tubers during growth of two maincrop potato varieties. Potato Research 21, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifenkwe, O. P., Allen, E. J. & Wurr, D. C. E. (1974). Factors affecting the relationship between tuber size and dry-matter content. American Potato Journal 51, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackerron, D. K. L. & Jefferies, R. A. (1985). Observations on the effects of relief of late water stress in potato. Potato Research 28, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1984 a). Potatoes: Seed Production and Marketing – Recent Developments. Booklet 2338.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1984 b). Potatoes: For Processing as Crisps and French Fries – Recent Developments. Booklet 2339.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1984 c). Control of Diseases of Potatoes. Booklet 2388.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1974). Report on a National Damage Survey 1973.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1979). Report on the Survey of Maincrop Potato Production 1977–78.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1983). The effects of cultural and environmental conditions, physiological age and crop maturity on storage potential. In Sutton Bridge Experimental Station Annual Review 1982, pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1984). Annual Report and Accounts, 1983.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1985 a) Potato processing in Great Britain 1984.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1985 b). Effect of soil moisture status after defoliation on dry matter content and storage potential of Maris Piper. In Sutton Bridge Experimental Station Annual Review 1984, pp. 41–42.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1974). Dry matter content of potatoes in relation to country of origin. Potato Research 17, 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talburt, W. F. & Smith, O. (1967). Potato Processing. Westport, Connecticut: The Avi Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Wilcockson, S. J., Allen, E. J., Scott, R. K. & Wurr, D. C. E. (1985). Effects of crop husbandry and growing conditions on storage losses of Pentland Crown potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E. (1974). Some effects of seed size and spacing on the yield and grading of two maincrop varieties. 2. Bulking rate. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wubr, D. C. E. & Allen, E. J. (1974). Some effects of planting density and variety on the relationship between tuber size and tuber dry-matter percentage in potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 277–282.Google Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E., Bean, J. N. & Allen, E. J. (1978). Effects of variety and date of harvest on the tuber dry-matter percentage of potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar