Advertisement

American Potato Journal

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 200–208 | Cite as

Some factors influencing the culinary quality of Irish potatoes II. Physical characters

  • Earl P. Barrios
  • D. W. Newsom
  • J. C. Miller
Article

Summary

Quality comparisons were made with equal size tubers of the Irish potato varieties Red LaSoda, White Rose, Sebago, and Russet Burbank.

Varietal differences in tuber cell size were found. Russet Burbank tubers contained the largest cells, and Red LaSoda the smallest. White Rose tuber cells were slightly larger than those of Red LaSoda while Sebago tuber cell size was exceeded only by that of Russet Burbank.

There was a significant relationship between specific gravity and cell size of the potato tubers.

Tuber cell size and starch content were highly correlated, indicating that starch content was associated with cell size of tubers. Russet Burbank tubers contained the largest percentage of total starch, while Red LaSoda tubers were of lowest total starch content.

Mealiness scores of tubers were significantly associated with their cell size. Tubers of varieties containing the largest cells were rated highest in mealiness by the taste panel.

Keywords

Starch Amylose Specific Gravity Potato Tuber AMERICAN Potato Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Atwater, W. O. 1895. Methods and results of the investigation of the chemistry and economy of food. U.S.D.A. Expt. Sta. Bull. 21: 88.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barmore, Mark A. 1937. Potato mealiness on cooking. Food Res. 2: 377–784.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrios, Earl P., D. W. Newsom and J. C. Miller. 1960. Some factors influencing the culinary quality of southern- and northern-grown Irish potatoes. I. Chemical composition. Am. Potato J. 38: 182–191.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bettelheim, F. A., and C. Sterling. 1955. Factors associated with potato texture. II. Pectic substances. Food Res. 20: 118–129.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bettelheim, F. A., and C. Sterling. 1955. Factors associated with potato texture. I. Specific gravity and starch content. Food Res. 20: 71–78.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bredemann, G., and W. Schulze. 1931. Uber den Einfluss der Ernahrung auf die Zellgrossen der Kartoffelknolle. Ernahr. Pflanze 27: 293–295.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briant, A. M. 1945. Physical properties of starch from potatoes of different culinary quality. Food Res. 10:437–444.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler, O. 1913. Studies on factors affecting culinary quality of potatoes. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 5:1.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cobb, J. S. 1935. A study of culinary quality in white potatoes. Am. Potato J. 12: 335–347.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coudon, H., and L. Bussard. 1897. Research on potato quality. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 72:514.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Day, E. D. 1909. The effect of cooking on cellulose. J. Home Econ. 1: 177.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    East, E. M. 1908. A study of the factors influencing the improvement of the potato. Ill. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 127:375.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haddock, J. L., and P. T. Blood. 1939. Variations in cooking quality of potatoes as influenced by varieties. Am. Potato J. 16: 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halick, John V., and K. K. Keneaster. 1956. The use of a starch-iodine-blue test as a quality indicator of white milled rice. Cereal Cem. 33:315–319.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hotchkiss, A., et al. 1940. Cooking quality preferences for potatoes. Am. Potato J. 17:253–261.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirkpatrick, M. E. 1951. Cooking quality, specific gravity, and reducing sugar content of early crop potatoes. U.S.D.A. Circ. 872.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langworthy, C. F. 1917. Potatoes, sweet potatoes, and other starchy roots as food. U.S.D.A. Bull. 468.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehmann, Rudolf. 1926. Untersuchungen uber die Anatomie der Kartoffelknolle. Wis. Bio. Abst. 2:87–131.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCready, R. M., and W. Z. Hassid. 1943. The separation and quantitative estimation of amylose and amylopectin in potato starch. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 65:1154–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merchant, Chas. H., and E. E. Gavett. 1957. Consumer acceptance of specific gravity separated potatoes. Maine Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 559.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen, J. P. 1943. Rapid determination of starch. Ind. Eng. Chem. (Anal. Ed.) 15:176–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J. P. 1945. Modifications of the rapid starch determination method. Ind. Eng. Chem. (Anal. Ed.) 17:131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharma, K. N., and N. R. Thompson. 1956. Relationship of starch grain size to specific gravity of potato tubers. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Quar. Bull. 38: 559.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shewfelt, A. L., et al. 1955, The relationship of mealiness in cooked potatoes to certain microscopic observations of the raw and cooked product. Can. J. Agr. Sci. 35:513–517.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sweetman, M. D. 1936. Factors affecting the cooking quality of potatoes. Maine Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 383: 297–378.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Unrau, A. M., and R. E. Nylund. 1957. The relation of physical properties and chemical composition to mealiness in the potato. I. Physical properties. Am. Potato J. 34: 245–254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1963

Authors and Affiliations

  • Earl P. Barrios
    • 1
  • D. W. Newsom
    • 1
  • J. C. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge

Personalised recommendations