Chapter 5. Russet- Skinned Fresh Market Potato Variety Trial, 2006
Click here to view a PDF version of this document.
Home Search What's New Products Survey Help
Chapter 5. Russet- Skinned Fresh Market Potato Variety Trial, 2006

   

Chapter 5. Russet- Skinned Fresh Market Potato Variety Trial, 20061

C.M. Hutchinson and Doug Gergela2

General Comments: A goal of the Russet-Skinned Fresh Market Potato Variety trial is to identify a short-season russet skinned variety that produces a marketable crop under short-day production. Successful russet varieties could be grown for processing or for the fresh market. There is no current standard for North Florida production.


Planting Information


Planting Site


PSREU - Hastings Farm, Hastings, FL


Planting Date


January 31, 2006


Vine Kill Date


April 28, 2006


Harvest Date


May 30, 2006


Season Length


87 days planting to vine kill; 119 days planting to harvest


Fertilizer Program


preplant, 100-43-86 lb/A; sidedress, 65-0-56 lb/A; (2 appl.)


Irrigation Program


seepage


Experimental Design


Number of Varieties


7 (Standard: Goldrush)


Number of Clones


1


Within Row Spacing


8 in (20 cm)


Between Row Spacing


40 in (102 cm)


Replications


4


Plot Size


16 ft (4.9 m)


Production Statistics


Early Vigor Ratings


41 days after planting


Highest Total Yield


Goldrush (331 cwt/acre or 37.1 MT/ha)


Highest Marketable Yield


Goldrush (223 cwt/acre or 25.0 MT/ha)


Best Appearance Rating


Goldrush, Amey, Belrus and Ranger Russet (7.0, good to excellent)


Tables

Table 2. Production statistics for Russet-Skinned potato selections.


Total

Marketable Yield1

Size

Size Class



Yield


% of

Distribution by Class (%)2

Range (%)

Specific

Clone


(cwt/A)

(cwt/A)

standard

C

B

A1

A2

A3

A4

A1 to A3

A2 to A3

Gravity

Goldrush


331

223

100

1

19

74

6

0

0

80

6

1.066

Amey


221

178

80

1

14

84

1

0

0

85

1

1.074

Belrus


247

153

69

1

18

78

3

0

0

81

3

1.073

Ranger Russet


269

176

79

1

24

74

1

0

0

75

1

1.069

Russet Burbank


300

134

60

3

45

52

0

0

0

52

0

1.066

Russet Norkotah


193

31

14

5

57

38

0

0

0

38

0

1.058

Umatilla Russet


283

146

65

2

40

58

0

0

0

58

0

1.070

B2232-3


220

128

57

2

27

71

0

0

0

71

0

1.073

MSD3


55

80


ns

ns

12

ns

0

0

14

ns

0.003

P Value


0.0004

0.0261


0.0877

0.0666

0.0376

0.0818

-

-

0.0475

0.0818

0.0001

1Marketable Yield: size classes A1 to A3.

2Size classes: C = .5 to 1.5" , B = 1.5 to 1 7/8", A1 = 1 7/8 to 2.5", A2 = 2.5 to 3.25", A3 = 3.25 to 4", A4 = >4"

3Means separated within columns by Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test.


Table 3. Plant growth and tuber characteristics of Russet-Skinned potato selections.


Plant Growth Characteristics1

Tuber Characteristics2



%

Early

Vine

Vine








Clone


Stand

Vigor

Type

Maturity

IFC

SC

ST

TS

ED

APP

Tuber Comments


Goldrush


96

5.5

8.8

8.3

2.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

7.0

sl. skinned


Amey


99

5.8

8.3

7.3

2.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

7.0

7.0

attractive


Belrus


96

4.3

8.8

8.0

1.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

7.0

attractive


Ranger Russet


100

5.3

9.0

7.0

1.0

5.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

7.0

attractive


Russet Burbank


96

4.8

9.0

8.0

1.0

5.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

many shapes


Russet Norkotah


70

2.0

8.0

9.0

2.0

5.0

3.0

3.0

5.0

5.0

many shapes


Umatilla Russet


100

5.3

8.8

7.8

2.0

5.0

3.0

4.0

6.0

5.0

flat and pointy


B2232-3


99

4.3

7.3

7.8

1.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

7.0

6.0

sl. flat


1See rating system outlined in Chapter 1.

2See rating system outlined in Chapter 1.


Table 4. External and internal defects of Russet-Skinned potato selections.


% External Tuber Defects

% Internal Defects2


Growth

Mis-

Sun-

Rotten

Total





Brown Center

Clone


Cracks

shapen

burned

& misc.

Culls1

HH

BR

CRS

IHN

L

M

H

Goldrush


0

2

0

13

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Amey


0

0

0

7

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Belrus


0

1

1

22

23

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Ranger Russet


0

1

0

12

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Russet Burbank


0

2

0

14

16

1

0

0

0

6

6

0

Russet Norkotah


0

1

0

59

60

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Umatilla Russet


0

1

0

12

13

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

B2232-3


0

2

0

17

19

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

MSD3


0

ns

ns

ns

ns

0

0

0

0

ns

0

0

P Value


-

0.0738

0.5493

0.3010

0.3027

-

-

-

-

0.4363

-

-

1Percent of Total Yield. Total culls include the sum of growth cracks, misshapen, sunburned and rotten/misc.

2Percent tubers; HH, hollow heart; BR, brown rot; CRS, corky ring spot; IHN, internal heat necrosis.

Brown Center: L = Light, M = Moderate, H = Heavy

3Means separated within columns by Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test.



Footnotes

1. This document is HS1090, one of a series of the Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date June, 2007. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2. Chad M. Hutchinson, Associate Professor, Doug Gergela, Sr. Biological Scientist, Horticultural Sciences Department, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.


The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information. UF/IFAS does not guarantee or warranty the products named, and references to them in this publication do not signify our approval to the exclusion of other products of suitable composition. All chemicals should be used in accordance with directions on the manufacturer's label. Use pesticides safely. Read and follow directions on the manufacturer's label.


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.



Copyright Information

This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.