Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:25:57.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of crop husbandry and growing conditions on storage losses of Pentland Crown potatoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. J. Wilcockson ,
E. J. Allen ,
R. K. Scott  and
D. C. E. Wurr
S. J. Wilcockson
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD
E. J. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture (Crop Husbandry), University College of Wales, Penglais, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DD
R. K. Scott
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD
D. C. E. Wurr
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Over five growing seasons (1976–80) experiments were carried out using at least three contrasting sites per season to study the relationship between growing conditions and storage losses in Pentland Crown potatoes. Crops were harvested by hand and storage was carried out in a single environment over a period of 6–7 months without sprout suppressants. The range in growing conditions was great and reflected in the pattern of leaf growth and range in yields of the stored crops (30–90 t/ha). Crops from Tenby (S. W. Wales) produced the most consistent and frequently the highest yields and usually lost the least weight during storage. Although the range in total weight loss over all experiments was large from 5·4 to 16·3%, treatment effects were much smaller than in field growth and yield. Delaying the date of harvest usually increased weight loss and tubers harvested in early August stored at least as well as late-harvested tubers. Tubers harvested without prior defoliation stored as well as tubers harvested on the same day from crops defoliated at least 2 weeks previously. Lengthening the interval from defoliation to harvest usually increased weight loss in storage. Although the tubers were hand harvested effects on saleability were found at the end of storage and there was no evidence that earlier harvesting, which may involve some loss of field yield, would result in any loss of saleable yield out of store.

The results provided no evidence to support the widely-held view that the suitability of a tuber for harvesting improves during maturation associated with natural or imposed crop senescence. It is therefore suggested that the use of the term maturity be avoided as it is wholly unhelpful in studies of the relationship between field growth and storage losses in potatoes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 413 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Allen, E. J. (1977). Effect of date of planting on growth and yield of contrasting potato varieties in Pembrokeshire. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, E. J. & Scott, R. K. (1980). An analysis of growth of the potato crop. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleman, C. O. & Miller, E. V. (1926). A chemical and physiological study of maturity in potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Research 33, 569–577.Google Scholar
Braue, C. A., Wample, R. L., Kolattukudy, P. E., Thornton, R. & Dean, B. B. (1984). Influence of vine senescence and storage on wound healing of Russet Burbank tubers. American Potato Journal 61 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, W. G. (1966). The Potato. Wageningen: Veenman.Google Scholar
Burton, W. G. (1978 a). Post-harvest behaviour and storage of potatoes. In Applied Biology Vol. 3 (ed. Coaker, T. H.). London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Burton, W. G. (1978 b). The physics and physiology of storage. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Burton, W. G. & Hannan, R. S. (1957). Use of gamma radiation for preventing the sprouting of potatoes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12, 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. A. (1975). Maximum potato yield in the United Kingdom. Outlook on Agriculture 8, 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, D. & Hughes, J. C. (1978). Tuber quality. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Green, H. C. (1956). Potato damage. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1, 57–65.Google Scholar
Hampson, C. P., Dent, T. J. & Ginger, M. W. (1980). The effect of mechanical damage on potato crop wastage during storage. Annals of Applied Biology 96, 366–370.Google Scholar
Ifenkwe, O. P. (1975). Effects of row width and plant density on growth and development of two maincrop potato varieties. Ph.D. thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Ifenkwe, O. P. & Allen, E. J. (1978). Effects of row width and planting density on growth and yield of two maincrop potato varieties. 2. Numbers of tubers, total and graded yields and their relationships with above ground stem densities. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iritani, W., Pettibone, C. A. & Wellee, L. (1977). Relationship of relative maturity and storage temperatures to weight loss of potatoes in storage. American Potato Journal 54, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, R. A. (1968). Soils of the Reading District. Memorandum of the Soil Survey of England and Wales, Harpendon.Google Scholar
Jones, J. L. & Allen, E. J. (1983). Effects of date of planting on plant emergence, leaf growth and yield of contrasting potato varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (1984). Control of Diseases of Potatoes. Booklet 2388.Google Scholar
Moorby, J. (1978). The physiology of growth and tuber yield. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1984). Recommended List of Potatoes, 1984/85.Google Scholar
Nielsen, N. K. (1973). A quick microtechnique for inspection of potato periderm or wound periderm formation. Potato Research 16, 180–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Othuis, B. G. (1957). The effect of ventilation capacity on weight losses in ventilated potato stores. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 5, 180–194.Google Scholar
Pawson, H. C. (1960). Cockle Park Farm. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1970). The economics of potato storage. Sutton Bridge Experimental Station Report Number 5.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1974). National Damage Survey 1973.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1976). Sutton Bridge Annual Review for 1975.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1979 a). Report on the Survey of Maincrop Potato Production 1977–78.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1979 b). Sutton Bridge Annual Review for 1978.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1980). Annual Report and Accounts 1980.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1981). Annual Report and Accounts 1981.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1982). Report on the National Potato Damage Awareness Campaign 1981.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, J. E. (1978). The variety in relation to husbandry. In The Proceedings of the N.I.A.B. Fellows Conference, Report no. 2, pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
Rothamsted Experimental Station (1981). Analysis of growth and yield of sugar beet from contrasting sites. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Report for 1980, Part 1, pp. 71–72.Google Scholar
Schippers, P. A. (1971). The influence of storage conditions on various properties of potatoes. American Potato Journal 48, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schippers, P. A. (1977). The rate of respiration of potato tubers during storage. III. Relationships between rate of respiration, weight loss and other variables. Potato Research 20, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Wilcockson, S. J. (1978). Application of physiological and agronomic principles to the development of the potato industry. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Record No. 24 (1974). Soils in Dyfed II (Pembroke/Haverfordwest).Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. J. (1971). Soils of the Melton Mowbray district. Memorandum of the Soil Survey of England and Wales, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Whitfield, W. A. S. (1974). The soils of the National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne. Report of the National Vegetable Research Station for 1973, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Wigginton, M. J. (1974). Effects of temperature, oxygen tension and relative humidity on the woundhealing process in the potato tuber. Potato Research 17, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. R., Twiss, P. T. G. & Lessells, W. J. (1962). Weight loss and sprouting of bulk-stored maincrop potatoes in England. European Potato Journal 5, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar