Advertisement

American Journal of Potato Research

, Volume 95, Issue 5, pp 549–563 | Cite as

An Economic Analysis of the Effects of Harvest Timing on Yield, Quality, and Processing Contract Price for three Potato Varieties

  • Addie WaxmanEmail author
  • Jeffrey Stark
  • Joseph Guenthner
  • Nora Olsen
  • Michael Thornton
  • Richard Novy
Article

Abstract

Harvesting potatoes at or near physiological maturity increases the likelihood of producing high quality tubers which contributes to producing high quality processed end-product. Some growers harvest earlier than recommended in order to meet contract requirements and supply processors with early potatoes. Early harvest impacts the incentive-adjusted price (IAP) and revenue even after an early harvest incentive is applied. This study utilized a typical frozen processor contract and compared the economic impact of harvest timing (early, normal, and late) on the IAP of three potato varieties: Russet Burbank, Clearwater Russet, and Alpine Russet, grown in field trials at Parma, Idaho during 2014 and 2015. Contract quality incentives included percent of tubers greater than 170 g, percent sugar ends, percent of U.S. No. 1’s, and specific gravity. When compared to normal or late harvest, early harvest resulted in a decrease in the IAP and overall profit due to a significant reduction in specific gravity. Early harvest incentive did not offset the loss of revenue with Russet Burbank, but did offset revenue loss with Clearwater Russet and Alpine Russet. Clearwater Russet and Alpine Russet had significantly lower sugar end scores than Russet Burbank. Clearwater Russet consistently produced higher specific gravities and Alpine Russet produced larger tubers compared to Russet Burbank. Clearwater Russet and Alpine Russet have agronomic characteristics that can provide an increase in IAP over Russet Burbank.

Keywords

Harvest timing Processing potatoes Incentive adjusted price Early harvest incentives Russet Burbank, Clearwater Russet, Alpine Russet 

Resumen

La cosecha de las papas durante o cerca de la maduración fisiológica maximiza la producción de tubérculos de alta calidad y genera un producto final procesado de la más alta calidad. Algunos agricultores cosechan más temprano de lo recomendado a fin de cumplir con los requerimientos del contrato y de suministrar a los procesadores con papas tempranas. La cosecha temprana impacta al precio ajustado al incentivo (IAP) y a los ingresos aún después de que se aplica un incentivo por cosecha temprana. Este estudio utilizó un contrato típico de procesamiento congelado y comparó el impacto económico del tiempo de cosecha (temprano, normal y tarde) del IAP de tres variedades de papa: Russet Burbank, Clearwater Russet, y Alpine Russet, cultivadas en ensayos de campo en Parma, Idaho, durante 2014 y 2015. Los incentivos del contrato a la calidad incluyeron el porcentaje de tubérculos más grandes que de 170 gramos, porcentaje de azúcares de los extremos, porcentaje de U. S. 1’s, y gravedad específica. La cosecha temprana resultó en una disminución en el IAP y en la ganancia general debido a una reducción significativa en gravedad específica. El incentivo por cosecha temprana no compensó la pérdida de ingresos con Russet Burbank, pero si lo hizo con Clearwater Russet y Alpine Russet. Estas dos variedades tuvieron significativamente más bajos niveles de azúcares de los extremos que Russet Burbank. Clearwater Russet produjo consistentemente más altas gravedades específicas y Alpine Russet produjo tubérculos más grandes en comparación a Russet Burbank. Clearwater Russet y Alpine Russet tienen características agronómicas que pueden suministrar un aumento en IAP sobre Russet Burbank.

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. Alamar, M.C., R. Tosetti, S. Landahl, A. Bermejo, and L.A. Terry. 2017. Assuring potato tuber quality during storage: A future perspective. Frontiers in Plant Science 8.Google Scholar
  2. Bethke, P.C., and J.S. Busse. 2010. Vine-kill treatment and harvest date have persistent effects on tuber physiology. American Journal of Potato Research 87 (3): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bolotova, Y., C.S. McIntosh, P.E. Patterson, and K. Muthusamy. 2010. Is stabilization of potato price effective? Empirical evidence from the Idaho Russet Burbank potato market. Agribusiness 26 (2): 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtis, K. R. 2003. Contract incentives in the processed potato industry (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University).Google Scholar
  6. DeBuchananne, D.A., and V.F. Lawson. 1991. Effect of plant population and harvest timing on yield and chipping quality of Atlantic and Norchip potatoes at two Iowa locations. American Potato Journal 68 (5): 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehdar, B., A. Asadi, Y. Jahani, and K. Ghasemi. 2012. The effect of planting and harvesting dates on yield and vegetative growth of two potato cultivars in Ardabil region. International Journal of Agronomic Plant Production. 3: 675–678.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Eaton, C., A. Shepherd, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001. Contract farming: Partnerships for growth. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  10. Eldredge, E.P., Z.A. Holmes, A.R. Mosley, C.C. Shock, and T.D. Stieber. 1996. Effects of transitory water stress on potato tuber stem-end reducing sugar and fry color. American Potato Journal 73 (11): 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould, W.A. 1999. Potato production, processing & technology. Timonim: CTI Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groves, S., J. Wiltshire, A. Briddon, and A. Cunnington. 2005. Managing maturity to improve crop processing quality and storage. AHDB Potato Council Report 807/236, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL, GB.Google Scholar
  13. Handayati, Y., T.M. Simatupang, T. Perdana, and M. Siallagan. 2016. A simulation of contract farming using agent based modeling. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management. 9 (2): 26–32.Google Scholar
  14. Kleinschmidt, G.D. 1987. Specific gravity of potatoes. American Journal of Potato Research 64 (11): 579–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knowles, R.N., E.P. Driskill, and L.O. Knowles. 2009. Sweetening responses of potato tubers of different maturity to conventional and non-conventional storage temperature regimes. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 52 (1): 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavoie, N. 2005. Price behavior in a dynamic oligopsony: Washington processing potatoes-A comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (3): 796–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackerron, D.K., and H.V. Davies. 1986. Markers for maturity and senescence in the potato crop. Potato Research 29 (4): 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McMaster, G., and W. Wilhelm. 1997. Growing degree-days: One equation, two interpretations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 87 (4): 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Narasimhamoorthy, B., L.Q. Zhao, X. Liu, S.Y. Essah, D.G. Holm, and J.A. Greaves. 2013. Effect of harvest date on PI2, total protein, TGA content and tuber performance in potato. American Journal of Potato Research 90 (6): 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Penson, J.B., Jr., and O. Capps Jr. 2014. Introduction to agricultural economics. 6th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Richards, T.J., P.M. Patterson, and R. Acharya. 2005. Price behavior in a dynamic Oligopsony: Washington processing potatoes-a reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (3): 802–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rossell, J.B. 2001. Regulation in the European Union. In Frying: Improving quality (p. 22). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sabba, R.P., A.J. Bussan, B.A. Michaelis, R. Hughes, M.J. Drilias, and M.T. Glynn. 2007. Effect of planting and vine-kill timing on sugars, specific gravity and skin set in processing potato cultivars. American Journal of Potato Research 84 (3): 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Si, Y., S. Sankaran, N.R. Knowles, and N. Pavek. 2016. Potato tuber length-width ratio assessment using image analysis. American Journal of Potato Research: 1–6.Google Scholar
  26. Singh, J., and L. Kaur. 2009. Advances in potato chemistry and technology. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Solaiman, A.H.M., T. Nishizawa, T.S. Roy, M. Rahman, R. Chakraborty, J. Choudhury, M. Sarkar, and M. Hasanuzzama. 2015. Yield, dry matter, specific gravity, and color of three Bangladeshi local potato cultivars as influenced by stage and maturity. Journal of Plant Sciences 10 (3): 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Somsen, D., A. Capelle, and J. Tramper. 2004. Production yield analysis—a new systematic method for improvement of raw material yield. Trends in Food Science & Technology 15 (5): 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stark, J.C., and S.L. Love. 2003. Potato production systems. Moscow: University of Idaho Agricultural Communications.Google Scholar
  30. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2013. Potato grades and standards.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Wilson, J. 1986. The political economy of contract farming. Review of Radical Political Economics 18 (4): 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wohleb, C.H., N.R. Knowles, and M.J. Pavek. 2010. Plant growth and development. The Potato: Botany, Production and Uses: 64–82.Google Scholar
  34. Wu, S.Y., and B. Roe. 2007. Contract enforcement, social efficiency, and distribution: Some experimental evidence. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (2): 243–258.CrossRefGoogle 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.Emeritus Professor of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  4. 4.Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Kimberly Research and Extension CenterUniversity of IdahoKimberlyUSA
  5. 5.Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, Parma Research and Extension CenterUniversity of IdahoParmaUSA

Personalised recommendations