Advertisement

American Journal of Potato Research

, Volume 96, Issue 1, pp 33–47 | Cite as

The Effect of Harvest Timing on French Fry Textural Quality of Three Processing Potato Varieties: Russet Burbank, Alpine Russet, and Clearwater Russet

  • Addie WaxmanEmail author
  • Jeffrey Stark
  • Michael K. Thornton
  • Nora Olsen
  • Joseph Guenthner
  • Richard G. Novy
Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Harvesting potatoes at or near physiological maturity increases the likelihood of producing high quality tubers which contributes to producing high quality processed French fries with the desired sensory attributes. Processing with immature or overly mature potatoes may produce French fries with reduced palatability. This two year (2014 and 2015) study evaluated the effects of three different harvest dates; early, normal, and late, on quality attributes of French fries produced from three processing varieties, Russet Burbank, Clearwater Russet, and Alpine Russet over a nine month storage season at 8.3 °C. The seven quality attributes evaluated included crispness, exterior shell, mealiness, moistness, texture variation, texture defects, and internal appearance. Results of this study show that early harvest, relative to normal and late harvest, was more detrimental to producing high quality French fries with regard to texture, and most notably, crispness. During storage, French fries produced from early harvested potatoes declined in quality and were out of grade for crispness at five months after harvest in 2014 and were out of grade at harvest for the full storage season in 2015. Significant differences were noted among the three varieties with regard to texture quality. Alpine Russet declined in textural quality five months after harvest. Russet Burbank declined rapidly in textural quality over the course of the storage season. Clearwater Russet consistently maintained acceptable quality with the highest textural scores of all seven parameters for a full nine month storage season.

Keywords

Textural quality Crispness Russet Burbank Alpine Russet Clearwater Russet French fries Harvest Timng 

Resumen

Cosechar la papa en o cerca de la madurez fisiológica aumenta las probabilidades de producir tubérculos de alta calidad, que contribuyen a la producción de papas procesadas a la francesa de alta calidad con los atributos sensoriales deseados. El procesamiento de papas inmaduras o ya pasadas de madurez pudiera producir papas a la francesa con palatabilidad reducida. En el estudio en estos dos años (2014 y 2015) se evaluaron los efectos de tres diferentes fechas de cosecha; temprana, normal y tardía, sobre los atributos de calidad de papas a la francesa producidas de tres variedades de proceso, Russet Burbank, Clearwater Russet, y Alpine Russet, sobre una época de almacenamiento de nueve meses a 8.3 °C. Los siete atributos de calidad evaluados incluyeron lo crujiente, la capa exterior, lo harinoso, la humedad, la variación de textura, los defectos de textura y la apariencia interna. Los resultados de este estudio muestran que la cosecha temprana, en relación con la normal y la tardía, fue la de más detrimento en la producción de papas a la francesa de alta calidad en relación a la textura, y más notablemente, con lo crujiente. Durante el almacenamiento, las papas a la francesa producidas de papas de cosecha temprana declinaron en calidad y estuvieron fuera de la calificación para lo crujiente a los cinco meses después de la cosecha en 2014, y estuvieron fuera de la calificación a la cosecha por toda la temporada de almacén en el 2015. Se notaron diferencias significativas entre las tres variedades en relación a la calidad de la textura. Alpine Russet declinó en calidad de textura cinco meses después de la cosecha. Russet Burbank declinó rápidamente en calidad de textura a lo largo de la temporada de almacén. Clearwater Russet mantuvo consistentemente calidad aceptable con las calificaciones más altas de textura de los siete parámetros por la temporada completa de los nueve meses de almacenamiento.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was performed as part of the dissertation of Addie Waxman. We wish to thank 1,4GROUP for their financial support of this project. Specifically, we wish to thank John Forsythe for his educational program at 1,4GROUP, Dave Beuerman, Kelly Tesar, and Shane Von Krosigk for the chemical analysis of samples, Lee-Anne Tanaka for project management, and Bill Price and Oksana Morgan for statistical analysis and advice.

References

  1. Bethke, P.C., A.M. Nassar, S. Kubow, Y.N. Leclerc, X. Li, M. Haroon, and D.J. Donnelly. 2014. History and origin of russet Burbank (netted gem) a sport of Burbank. American Journal of Potato Research 91 (6): 594–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Driskill, E.P., L.O. Knowles, and N.R. Knowles. 2007. Temperature-induced changes in potato processing quality during storage are modulated by tuber maturity. American Journal of Potato Research 84 (5): 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Du Pont, M.S., A.R. Kirby, and A.C. Smith. 2007. Instrumental and sensory tests of texture of cooked frozen French fries. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 27 (3): 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fennema, O.R. 1996. Food chemistry. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  5. Golubowska, G. 2005. Changes of polysaccharide content and texture of potato during French fries production. Food Chemistry 90 (4): 847–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jaswal, A.S. 1969. Pectic substances and the texture of French fries potatoes. American Potato Journal 46 (5): 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lisinska, G., and G. Golubowska. 2005. Structural changes of potato tissue during French fries production. Food Chemistry 93 (4): 681–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu, Q., E. Weber, V. Currie, and R. Yada. 2003. Physicochemical properties of starches during potato growth. Carbohydrate Polymers 51 (2): 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McMaster, G., and W. Wilhelm. 1997. Growing degree-days: One equation, two interpretations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 87 (4): 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miranda, M.L., and J.M. Aguilera. 2006. Structure and texture properties of fried potato products. Food Reveiws International 22 (2): 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nadathur, S., and M. Carolan. 2017. Flavors, taste preferences, and the consumer. Sustainable Protein Sources: 377–389.Google Scholar
  12. Narasimhamoorthy, B., L.Q. Zhai, X. Liu, S.Y. Essah, D.G. Holm, and J.A. Greaves. 2013. Effect of harvest date on P12, total protein, TGA content and tuber performance in potato. American Journal of Potato Research 90 (6): 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Noda, T., S. Tsuda, M. Mori, S. Takigawa, C. Matsuura- Endo, K. Saito, and H. Yamauchi. 2004. The effect of harvest dates on the starch properties of various potato cultivars. Food Chemistry 86 (1): 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Novy, R.G., J.L. Whitworth, J.C. Stark, S.L. Love, D.L. Corsini, J.J. Pavek, and N. Olsen. 2010. Clearwater russet: A dual-purpose potato cultivar with cold sweetening resistance, high protein content, and low incidence of external defects and sugar ends. American Journal of Potato Research 87 (5): 458–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paula, A.M., and A.C. Conti-Silva. 2014. Texture profile and correlation between sensory and instrumental analyses on extruded snacks. Journal of Food Engineering 121: 9–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rahimi, J., P. Adewale, M. Ngadi, K. Agyare, and B. Koehler. 2017. Changes in the textural and thermal properties of batter coated fried potato strips during post frying holding. Food and Bioproducts Processing 102: 136–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rossell, J.B. 2001. Regulation in the European Union. In In Frying: Improving quality Boca Raton. FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sahin, S., S. Sastry, and L. Bayindirli. 1999. Heat transfer during frying of potato slices. LWT - Food Science and Technology 32 (1): 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sekuler, R. 2004. Texture and mouthfeel: Making rheology real. 1st ed. Northbrook, IL: Weeks Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Simplot J. R. 2012. Taste panel training and lectures.Google Scholar
  21. Singh, J., and L. Kaur. 2009. Advances in potato chemistry and technology. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Stone, H., R.N. Bleibaum, and H.A. Thomas. 2012. Sensory evaluation practices. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Waxman, A.M., J.C. Stark, M.K. Thornton, N. Olsen, J. Guenthner, and R.G. Novy. 2018. An economic analysis of the effects of harvest timing on yield, quality, and processing contract price for three potato varieties. American Journal of Potato Research 95: 549–563.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-018-9663-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Whitworth, J.L., R.G. Novy, J.C. Stark, J.J. Pavek, D.L. Corsini, S.L. Love, and C.R. Brown. 2011. Alpine russet: A potato cultivar having long tuber dormancy making it suitable for processing from long-term storage. American Journal of Potato Research 88 (3): 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wohleb, C. H., Knowles, N. R., and Pavek, M. J. 2010. Plant growth and development. The potato: botany, production and uses, 64–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Potato Association of America 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.1,4GroupMeridianUSA
  2. 2.Idaho Falls R&E CenterUniversity of IdahoIdaho FallsUSA
  3. 3.Parma Research and Extension CenterUniversity of IdahoParmaUSA
  4. 4.Kimberly Research and Extension CenterUniversity of IdahoKimberlyUSA
  5. 5.Emeritus Professor of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  6. 6.USDA-ARS, Small Grains and Potato Research Germplasm UnitAberdeenUSA

Personalised recommendations