Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of variety and time upon the resistance of potatoes to mechanical damage

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Significant differences existed between certain potato varieties in their response to applied stress or surface pressure. From the standpoint of the stress required to rupture the tuber skin and the tissue immediately beneath the skin, Kennebec was significantly lower in resistance to injury than Russet Burbank, Katahdin, Sebago, and Onaway.

The resistance of the potatoes to injury decreased with time during the pre-harvest tests, and increased with time after harvest. It was suggested that soil moisture may interact with time to cause a decrease in the resistance of the potato to mechanical pressure during the pre-harvest season.

After a one month curing period, the energy the tubers could with-stand increased by 30 to 80%.

No linear correlation was found between spcific gravity and the mechanical loads necessary to rupture the potato tuber.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Finney, Essex E. 1963. The viscoelastic behavior of the potato,Solanum tuberosum, under quasi-static loading. Thesis for the degree of Ph.D., Michigan State University, East Lansing. (unpublished)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Humphrey, Elmer. 1950. Steps that can be taken to reduce mechanical damage to potatoes at harvest time. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 278. 12 p.

  3. Lampe, Klaus. 1960. Die Widerstandsfähigkeit von Kartoffelknollen gegen Beschädigungen. Eur. Potato J. 3: 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Larsen, Fenton E. 1962. External and internal (blackspot) mechanical injury of Washington Russet Burbank potoatoes from field to terminal market. Am. Potato J. 39: 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Le Clegg, E. L. 1957. Mean separation by the functional analysis of variance and multiple comparisons. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Agr. Res. Service, Washington. 33 p.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mohsenin, Nuri N. 1963. A testing machine for determination of mechanical and theological properties of agricultural products. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 701. 26 p.

  7. Mohsenin, Nuri N. and Loren D. Tukey. 1962. Annual Report of Cooperative Regional Project 1397 (NE-44). Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Agr. Eng. Dept. (unpublished)

  8. Nylund, R. E., Perry Hemphill, J. M. Lutz and Harold Sorenson. 1955. Mechanical damage to potatoes durng harvesting and handling operations in the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota. Am. Potato J. 32: 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Agricultural Engineering and Crop Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing

    E. E. Finney, Carl W. Hall & N. R. Thompson

Authors
  1. E. E. Finney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carl W. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. R. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Approved for publication as Journal Article 3302 of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finney, E.E., Hall, C.W. & Thompson, N.R. Influence of variety and time upon the resistance of potatoes to mechanical damage. American Potato Journal 41, 178–186 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02855321

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02855321

Keywords

Search

Navigation