Comparative yield suitable, or potentially suitable, commercial production potato varieties were conducted during the 1985 growing season by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Palmer Research Center.  Forty names and numbered varieties were included in the 1985 trial.  Numbered varieties originated in the potato-breeding program of Dr. C. H. Dearborn.Introduction -- Matanuska Valley Yield Trials -- Trial Results -- Other Yield Trial

Carling, D.E.

Rissi, P.

English

ScholarWorks@UA

POTATO VARIETY PERFORMANCE ALASKA1985D.E. Carling and P. RissiAgricultural and Forestry Experiment Station School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management University of Alaska-FairbanksJames V. Drew, Dean and DirectorCircular 54 January 1986l i b r a r yPOTATO VARIETY PERFORMANCE ALASKA  1985byD.E. Carling Assistant Prof. of HorticultureandP. RissiHorticulture Field Supervisor_C.ircu_la.ir- ( lAruverscVvj o f  A l a s F a  iejba_>n b  ,s .Agricultural and Forestry Experim ent Station School o f A griculture and Land Resources M anagem ent University of Alaska-FairbanksJam es V. Drew, Dean and D irectorALA SICAC ircu lar 54 January 1986TABLE OF CONTENTSIn tro d u c tio n ........................................................................................................................... 1M atanuska Valley Yield T ria ls .......................................................................................  2Trial Results ........................................................................................................................  2O ther Yield T ria ls ............................................................................................................... 7LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Clim atic data for M ananuska Farm  during the 1985grow ing season..................................................................................................  2Table 2: N onirrigated yield trial sum m ary, M atanuska F arm ................................  4Table 3. Irrigated yield trial sum m ary, M atanuska F arm ......................................  5Table 4: Com parative sum m ary o f US #1 tuber yields by selected varietiesfrom  1982 through 1985................................................................................  6Table 5: Yield trial sum m ary from  sum m ary fromselected Alaska locations................................................................................ 8Acknowledgment: Thanks to the following people for conducting the off station trials: Gena Delucchi, M aniilaq Assn. (Am bler and Noorvik), Walt Them , Cooperative Extension Service (Soldotna), and Dr. Frank Wooding, UAF (Fairbanks).INTRODUCTIONCom parative yield of suitable, or potentially suitable, com m ercial production potato varieties were conducted during the 1985 growing season by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Palmer Research Center. Forty nam ed and num bered varieties were included in the 1985 trial. Numbered varieties originated in the potato-breeding program of Dr. C.H. Dearborn.1MATANUSKA VALLEY YIELD TRIALSIrrigated and nonirrigated plots were planted in fields located at the M atanuska Research Farm  on Trunk Road in Palmer. Water requirem ents in irrigated plots were determ ined from  tensiometers installed at 6-, 12-, or 18-inch depths at various locations throughout the plot.Four replicates o f each variety, with twenty-two seed pieces per replicate, were planted on May 17, 1985. Plants were spaced 11 inches apart in the row, and rows were spaced 36 inches apart. G ranular fertilizer (8-32-16) was applied in bands at the time o f planting at the rate of 1000 lbs/acre.Plots were harvested on Septem ber 10 and graded in early October. Yield data are sum m arized in Tables 2 and 3.Trial ResultsThe 1985 M atanuska Valley growing season was cold and dry through May and June. Rainfall for both m onths was far below average (table 1), and the daily mean air tem perature was well below average through June. W eather records from  and including 1918 through 1984 reveal that eight Mays and only one June have hadTable 1. Climatic data for Matanuska Farm during the 1985 growing season.May June J u ly __________ August__________ SeptemberTem p. ( CF)AirDaily max. 5 5.2  (5 7 .7 )1 66.8  (64 .9) 6 7 .8  (67 .5 ) 62 .2  (65 .1 ) 55.4  (54 .9)D aily min. 33.7  (35 .8 ) 4 1 .5  (43 .8) 4 9 .2  (47 .6) 4 3 .9  (45 .4 ) 3 7 .0  (37 .2 )D aily mean 44 .5  (46 .8) 5 1.2  (54 .4) 58.5  (57 .6) 53.1 (5 5 .2 ) 4 6 .2  (46 .0 )Soil (4 ” depth)2Fallow 42.3 52 .0 60.7 56 .0 4  / .oSod 36.5 45.3 55.7 55.5 4 8 .7Precip. (in.) 0 .4 6  (0 .75 ) 0 .88  (1 .57) 1.48 (2 .42) 2 .9 9  (2 .50 ) 3 .5 9  (2 .24 )1 Values in parenthesis represent a 40-year average.2 Soil temperatures were recorded at the Palm er Research Center.2daily mean air temperatures lower than those of 1985. The cool temperatures delayed emergence, and the dry soils in nonirrigated plots fiirthur retarded plant development.Temperatures increased to above-average levels in July, but rainfall for the month rem ained well below average. During this period, soil m oisture in the nonirrigated plots was not sufficient for m inim al plant needs, and foliar wilting occurred on warm days.Rainfall was above average in August and September, but water stress in earlier m onths limited the value o f the late-season rainfall for the nonirrigated plots. Septem ber rains interfered to some extent with harvest, and the incidence of soft rot among freshly harvested tubers was higher than in 1983 or 1984.Yields from  the nonirrigated plots averaged 35 per cent less than yields from the irrigated plots (tables 2 and 3). The most popular com m ercial varieties, in­cluding Bakeking, Green M ountain, and Superior, were among the top yielders in both irrigated and nonirrigated plots. Rosa, a white-skinned, red-eyed potato developed in New York yielded well in the nonirrigated trial. However, its specific gravity is somewhat low, and it remains to be seen if Rosa can withstand harvest and storage under Alaskan conditions.Belrus, Butte, N ooksack, and Norgold Russet continue to perform  poorly. Ir­rigation did not improve the relative position of these varieties among the forty varieties tested this year. Russette, a newly developed russet variety o f som e in­terest to local growers, also was near the low end of the yield list in both irrigated and nonirrigated trials.Two varieties that continue to perform  well are Shepody and 3-79-270-81. Both are long, white-skinned varieties that yield competitively. Both are of good eating quality, and Shepody possesses good processing characteristics. Processing characteristics, which indicate potential usefulness in the m anufacture of chips, french fries, etc., have not been determ ined for cultivar 3-79-270-81.US#1 yields by the m ost popular com m ercial varieties over the past four years are sum m arized in Table 4. Also included are several varieties that may be of com ­mercial value in the future. Data summarized in this table permit comparisons among varieties on given years and the consistency of perform ance by varieties over the years.3V ariety2 Rosa3-79-168-81  6-78-139-80  Kennebec 10-71-1-74  3-79-270-81  Shepody Bakeking 18-6Green Mt.13-68-5-72  B 8883-13  3-79-280-81  Superior Alaska Red Denali Lemhi Snowchip  6-5Russet Burbank Red Pontiac A lasclear Highlat Russet Ak. Frostless B7631-3  Allagash  3-79-366-81  N ooksack  Alaska 114 26-68-2-71  Alaska Russet Epicure M inn. Russet Belrus Onoway  Red Norland Norchip  Russette ButteN orgold RussetLSD 5%7______________ ___________________ _ _____________________________________. All figures represent least-square means of 4 replications. > Numbered varieties originated m the breeding program  o f C .H . Dearborn. 3 #1 market grade as defined by the US Department of Agriculture. Tubers less than 1 75 inches in diameter. 5 Includes oversize, shatter or growth crack, second growth green, etc. Average weight of #1 tubers in ounces. 7 LSD: Least significant difference based upon plot-wide variation.Table 2. Nonirrigated yield trial summary, Matanuska Farm.1Per-acre yields in tons Per cent Tuber SpecificUS # v Small4 Other5 Total US #1 W eight6 Gravity10.5 2 .0 0 .6 13.1 80.2 5 .0 1.07710.1 1.5 0.1 11.7 86.3 5.5 1.09110.0 2.3 0.1 12.4 80.7 5.2 1.0819 .8 0 .6 1.5 11.9 82.4 7 .4 1.0839.7 1.2 0 .6 11.5 84.3 5.9 1.0769.4 0 .9 1.2 11.5 81.4 6.1 1.0819 .4 0 .6 0.5 10.5 89.3 6.3 1.0839.3 0 .7 0.1 10.1 9 1.7 5 .6 1.0959.2 1.9 1.1 12.2 75.1 5.1 1.0749.1 1.7 0.5 11.4 80.3 5.3 1.0889.1 1.1 1.5 11.8 7 7.4 6.3 1.0859 .0 1.6 0 .0 10.7 84.6 4 .5 1.0859 .0 1.4 0 .6 10.9 82.2 5 .8 1.0858.6 1.0 1.0 10.6 81.0 5.8 1.0798.5 2.2 0 .5 11.3 76.0 5.3 1.0858.5 1.0 0.3 9.8 86.6 5.5 1.0978.4 1.6 1.3 11.3 74.1 5 .4 1.0938.3 1.7 0 .2 10.3 80.8 4 .8 1.0838.2 1.6 0.5 10.3 79.9 5 .0 1.0828.2 2.1 1.0 11.3 72.9 4 .4 1.0938.2 1.7 2 .0 12.0 68.6 5.5 1.0748.2 0 .8 1.7 10.7 7 6 .6 5.7 1.0888.2 1.4 0.4 10.0 81.9 5.1 1.0877.9 1.5 0 .8 10.2 7 7.4 4 .6 1.0917.7 0.7 1.1 9.5 81.0 6 .0 1.0817.7 1.2 0 .8 9.7 79.4 6 .0 1.0817.7 2.1 0 .5 10.3 7 4.8 5.1 1.0827.5 0.8 1.3 9.5 78.5 6 .0 1.0917.2 2.2 0.1 9.5 75.3 4 .4 1.0807.2 2 .8 1.3 11.3 63 .6 4.5 1.0877 .0 1.5 1.0 9 .4 74.5 4 .9 1.0836.9 1.8 1.0 9 .7 71.3 4 .9 1.0876.7 0 .9 0 .9 8.5 78.8 5.5 1.0806.5 2 .0 0.1 8.5 76.3 4.1 1.0996.3 1.3 2.3 9.8 64.4 5.8 1.0746.2 0 .8 2.5 9.5 65.2 5 .4 1.0746.1 2 .0 0 .4 8.5 7 1.8 4 .4 1.0816.1 1.0 1.3 8.4 72.5 5.4 1.0875.2 0 .2 0 .9 6.3 82.9 7 .9 1.0775 .0 2 .3 0 .9 8.3 60.8 4 .6 1.0812.1 ___ — 1.7 — — .0044Table 3. Irrigated yield trial summary, Matanuska Farm.Variety2Per-acre yields in tons US #13 Small4 Other5 TotalGreen Mountain 10-71-1-74  3-79-270-81  13-68-5-72  3-79-168-81  Superior Bakeking 18-63-79-280-81RosaRed PontiacShepodyEpicureKennebec6 -78-139-8026-68-2-71Alaska 114Alaska RedB 8883-13B7631-3DenaliRed NorlandAllagashAk. Frostless6-5Onoway Lemhi Snowchip  Alaska Russet Alasclear M inn. Russet N orgold Russet 3-79-366-81  Russet Burbank Belrus Norchip  Russette Highlat Russet Butte N ooksack  LSD 5%715.2 15.1 14.814.714.714.714.614.6 14.514.414.414.3 14.013.813.80 .91.01.01.01.20 .40.52.01.02 .31.10.61.90.62.50.81.40 .71.3 0.2 1.2 0 .3  1.0 0.8 0.4  1.7 0 .4  0.82 .4  0.616.917.516.617.116.116.415.417.716.417.017.1 15.316.716.816.913.5 3.4 2.3 19.213.3 1.2 0.7 15.313.3 1.6 0 .6 15.613.2 1.3 0.2 14.713.1 0 .4 1.5 14.913.1 0 .8 0.5 14.513.1 0.8 2.2 16.012.9 0.7 1.1 14.712.9 0 .7 1.5 15.012.6 2 .0 0 .2 14.912.4 1.1 1.8 15.412.3 1.7 1.7 15.812.1 2.4 0 .6 15.112.0 1.3 0.8 14.211.4 0 .6 1.6 13.611.2 0 .6 0 .6 12.311.2 2.1 0.5 13.811.1 2.2 1.6 14.910.3 2.5 1.9 14.710.1 1.8 0.3 12.210.0 1.7 2.2 13.99 .7 1.1 1.7 12.59.5 1.3 2 .4 13.29 .4 0 .7 0.6 10.78.9 0 .6 3.3 12.82 .0 — — 1.7Per cent US # \89.986.389.586.391.589.99 4.982.6  88.8 84.683.893.183.981.981.970.487.2TuberW eight65.56.4  6.15.95 .26.36.55.26.24 .95.47.15.4  6.84 .75.14 .8SpecificGravity1.0881.0801.0881.0871.0951.0771.0961.0781.0871.0771.0781.0851.087  1.0841.0861.088  1.08385.6 4 .8 1.08689.5 5 .0 1.08587.9 6.9 1.0829 0.8 5 .9 1.10081.5 5.9 1.07587.7 6.1 1.08785.6 4 .4 1.09084.9 5.4 1.08880.7 5.5 1.07578.2 6.1 1.09280.2 5.7 1.09184.9 5.2 1.08683.8 5.9 1.0909 0.7 5.7 1.07680.8 4 .8 1.07874.5 4 .5 1.09369.9 4 .2 1.09783.4 4 .6 1.09872.1 4 .8 1.08377.6 5.7 1.0947 2 .0 5.3 1.08687.9 6.8 1.08269.7 5.5 1.090_ __ .003> All figures represent least-square means of 4 replications. 2 Numbered varieties^originatedin the b r^ d m g  nrnciram o f C H Dearborn ’ #1 market grade as defined by the US Department of Agriculture. Tubers less thlm l 75 inches iiuJkm eter. 5 Indudes oversize, shatter or growth crack, second growth green, etc. • Average w e i g h t  of #! t u b e r s  in ounces. ’ LSD: Leas, significant difference based upon plot-w.de vanat.on.5Table 4. Comparative summary of US #1 tuber yields by selected varieties from 1982 through 1985.1Variety 19822 19832 19842 19853 19852 AverageAlaska 114 12.0 16.7 14.2 13.3 7.2 12.7Bakeking 16.5 12.4 12.4 14.6 9.3 13.0Denali 12.6 13.1 12.6 13.1 8.5 12.0Green Mountain 20.0 16.7 15.0 15.2 9.1 15.2Kennebec 19.2 18.4 16.5 13.8 9.8 15.5Lemhi 13.9 14.1 11.6 12.3 8.4 12.1Rosa 17.1 — — 14.4 10.5 14.0Russet Burbank 9.9 15.2 9.2 10.3 8.2 10.6Shepody — — 14.4 14.3 9.4 12.7Superior 13.9 9.8 12.4 14.7 8.6 11.93-79-270-81 — 16.9 13.1 14.8 9.4 13.618-6 19.9 18.0 16.4 14.6 9.2 15.6LSD 5%* 2.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.1 __Average 15.5 15.1 13.4 13.8 9.0 13.41 Yields expressed in tons per acre.(— indicates variety not tested)2 Not irrigated.3 Irrigated.4 Least significant difference.6OTHER YIELD TRIALSReplicated trials also were conducted at four other locations: Ambler, Fairbanks N oorvik, and Soldotna. Three replicates o f seven to ten varieties were planted at each location. Fertilizer application rates and plant and row spacings were sim ilar to those described for the M atanuska Farm  trial. Yield data from trials conducted at these locations are sum m arized in Table 5. Although not as detailed as the M atanuska Farm  trials, these abbreviated studies are intended to be a briet com ­parative look at varietal perform ances in other parts of the state.The growing season at N oorvik and Am bler were much shorter than at Palmer or Soldotna. Planting in Soldotna occurred on June 7 and harvest was com pleted 119 davs later on October 4. Fairbanks plots were planted May 24 and harvested 108 days later on Septem ber 9. This com pares with the 126 day grow ing season at M atanuska Farm  this year. Frost was not a factor at Fairbanks or at either southcentral location. At N oorvik the crop was planted June 17 and harvested 92 days later on Septem ber 19. The first killing frost at N oorvik plots occurred on Septem ber 5. The A m bler plots w ere planted June 5 and harvested after 88 days on Septem ber 3. The first frost occurred in Am bler on August 17. Gradeout was high at all interior locations and was com prised prim arily o f undersized tubers. Scab was present on most tubers harvested at N oorvik. Rainfall was w e l l  below average in Am bler and Noorvik. Some irrigating was done in Am bler, but notin Noorvik.7Variety # l 2 FairbanksTotal3 SoldotnaTotal Noorvik  #1 Total Ambler tt\ TotalGreen Mountain 5.1 '1 12.3 14.5 16.7 4 .7 8.7 7.5 14.5Kennebec 11.9 14.5 14.5 17.9 1.1 2.9 8.9 14.0Alaska 114 5.8 13.1 9 .4 13.8 2 .4 6 .8 5.8 14.7Bakeking 6.9 13.1 10.2 15.5 __ __ 7.3 11.418-6 8.4 13.6 9 .7 16.5 4 .4 7 .0 11.4 15.6Lemhi 4.5 11.0 12.1 15.8 __ __Denali 4 .0 9.1 9.4 10.2 2 .0 5.4 6.8 11.1Highlat Russet 8.3 11.8 11.4 13.6 __ __Shepody 10.6 12.6 16.7 19.6 __ __ _10-1 10.9 14.8 10.2 13.6 4 .2 7.5 6.5 11.8Ak. Frostless — — — — 4.2 7 .6 10.6 15.5All ft 1 yields and total yields are expressed in tons per acre.(— indicates variety not tested)2 #\ market grade as defined by the US Department of Agriculture.3 Total yield =  #1 and gradeout. Gradeout includes undersize, oversize, growth and shatter crack, green, etc.Im8The University o f  Alaska-Fairbanks is an equal-opportunity educational institution and an affirmative-action em ployer.In order to simplify term inology, trade names o f  products or equipment may have been used in this publication. N o endorsement o f  products or firms mentioned is intended, nor is criticism  im ­plied o f  those not mentioned.Material appearing herein may be reprinted provided no endorsement o f  a commercial product is stated or implied. Please credit the researchers involved and the Agricultural Experiment Station, University o f  Alaska-Fairbanks.

Circular 54

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/11122/2549/1/C54.pdf

Circular 54

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UA