American Potato Journal

, Volume 69, Issue 6, pp 385–389 | Cite as

Differences in sugars, chip color, specific gravity and yield of selected potato cultivars grown in michigan

  • N. K. Sinha
  • J. N. Cash
  • R. W. Chase


Six cultivars, Atlantic, Eramosa, Kanona, Norchip, Onaway and Saginaw Gold and four selections, MS 700-70, MS 700-83 (Spartan Pearl), MS 716-15 and W-855 (Snowden), were analyzed for sucrose, glucose, chip color, specific gravity and yield at 98 and 138 days in 1988 and 1989, t evaluate their performance to Michigan growing conditions. The average yield of these cultivars at the two harvests for 1988 and 1989 was 46.9 and 54.7 t/ha and 43.1 and 52.3 t/ha, respectively. Eramosa and Onaway were the earliest maturing varieties with low specific gravity, high glucose content and processed into dark colored chips. The glucose and sucrose contents of the remaining eight cultivars at each harvest date were low and produced acceptable chips. The specific gravity of Atlantic, MS 700-70, MS 716-15 and W-855 was in the range of 1.079–1.088 and for Norchip, Kanona and Saginaw Gold the range was 1.071–1.076. The date of harvest, variety and year of production had significant effect (p > 0.01) on yield. The specific gravity, glucose content and chip color were significantly influenced by variety and year of production. The correlation between chip colorvs glucose (r= -0.842, p = 0.000) and harvest datevs yield (r= -0.572, p = 0.000) was also significant.


Time of harvest glucose sucrose chipping potential analysis of variance and correlation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Burton, W.G. 1969. The sugar balance in some British potato varieties during storage. II. The effect of tuber age, previous storage temperature and intermittent refrigeration upon low temperature sweetening. Eur Potato J 12:81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freed, R., S.P. Eisensmith, S. Goetz, D. Reicosky, V.W. Small and P. Wolberg. 1987. MSTAT: A microprogram for design, management and analysis of agronomic research experiments (version 4.0). Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gould, W. A. and S. Plimton, 1985. Quality evaluation of potato cultivars for processing. Research Bulletin No. 1172:8–10. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mazza, G., J. Hung and M.J. Dench. Processing/nutritional quality changes in potato tubers during growth and long term storage. Can Inst Food Sci Technol J 16:39–44.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santerre, C.R., J.N. Cash and R.W. Chase. 1986. Influence of cultivar, harvest date and soil nitrogen on sucrose, specific gravity and storage stability of potatoes grown in Michigan. Am Potato J 63:99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sowokinos, J.R. 1973. Maturation ofSolanum tuberosum. I. Comparative sucrose and sucrose synthetase levels between several good and poor processing varieties. Am Potato J 50:234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sowokinos, J.R. 1978. Relationship of harvest sucrose content to processing maturity and storage life of potatoes. Am Potato J 55:333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sowokinos, J.R. and D.A. Preston. 1988. Maintenance of potato processing quality by chemical maturity monitoring. Station Bulletin 586–1988 (Item no. Ad-SB-3441) Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. K. Sinha
    • 1
  • J. N. Cash
    • 1
  • R. W. Chase
    • 2
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing

Personalised recommendations