Skip to main content
Log in

Determining potato tuber resistance to impact damage

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Results of potato tuber impact damage tests depend primarily upon velocity and energy of impact. Blackspot and shatter indexes correlated poorly with tuber mass, storage time and each other. However, the shatter index became much less variable with increased storage time. Impact velocity and energy correlated quite well with rebound angle (r = 0.92 for each) and shatter index (r = 0.99 and 0.98 respectively). However, the size of the surface of the impact head correlated poorly with rebound angle and shatter index. The rebound angle: 1) correlated with tuber mass (r = 0.83), 2) was random over storage time, 3) correlated poorly with shatter index (r = 0.40), and 4) had no correlation with blackspot index.

Compendio

El resultado de las pruebas de golpe de los tubérculos de papa depende principalmente de la velocidad y fuerza del impacto. Los índices de mancha negra y de fraccionamiento correlacionaron pobremente con la masa del tubérculo, el tiempo de almacenamiento y entre ellos mismos. Sin embargo, el indice de fraccionamiento result6 mucho menos variable con el mayor tiempo de almacenamiento. La velocidad y fuerza del impacto correlacionaron bastante bien con el ángulo de rebote (r = 0,92 para cada una) y el índice de fraccionamiento (r = 0,99 y 0,98 respectivamente). Sin embargo, el tamaño de la superficie impactada correlaciono pobremente con el ángulo de rebote y el índice de fraccionamiento. El ángulo de rebote: 1) correlacionó con la masa del tuberculo (r = 0,83), 2) no estuvo correlacionado con el periodo de almacenamiento, 3) correlacionó pobremente con el índice de fraccionamiento (r = 0,40) y 4) no tuvo correlatión con el indice de mancha negra.

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

Access this article

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. Aeppli, A., E.R. Keller and F. Schwendimann. 1981. Influence of harvest time on blackspot susceptibility of potato tubers. Z. Acker and Planzenbau 150:372–381.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blight, D.P. and A.J. Hamilton. 1974. Varietal susceptibility to damage of potatoes. Potato Res 17:261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Finney, E.E., C.W. Hall and G.E. Mase. 1964. Theory of linear viscoelasticity applied to the potato. J of Agric Eng Res 9:307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Finney, E.E. Jr. and C.W. Hall. 1967. Elastic properties of potatoes. Trans of ASAE 10:4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gall, H., P. Lamprecht and E. Fechter. 1967. First results with the rebound pendulum in assessing the susceptibility of potato tubers to damage. Potato Res 10:272–285.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Huff, E.R. 1967. Tensile properties of Kennebec potatoes. Trans of ASAE 10:414–419.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hughes, J.C., A. Grant and R.M. Faulks. 1975. Susceptibility of tubers to internal damage (Blackspot). Potato Res 18:338–339.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kunkel, R. and W.H. Gardner. 1959. Black spot of Russet Burbank potatoes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 73:436–444.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lampe, K. 1959. Experiments in measuring the susceptibility of damage of potatoes and similar fruits and vegetables. Landtechnische Forschung 9:50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Martin, M. 1985. Personal communications, USDA-ARS, Prosser, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McGechan, M.B. 1980. An investigation into the damage sustained by different varieties of potatoes during riddling to remove soil. J Agric Eng Res 25:345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McGechan, M.B. 1981. A comparison of some studies of damage susceptibility of different potato varieties. J Agric Eng Res 26:161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McRae, D.C., J. Carruthers and R.L. Porteous. 1976. The effect of drop height on some maincrop potato varieties. Dept. Note SIN/202 Scot Inst Agric Eng, Penicuik, (Unpublished).

  14. O’Leary, A.G. and W.M. Iritani. 1969. Potato bruise detection. Am Potato J 46: 352–354.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parke, D. 1963. The resistance of potatoes to mechanical damage caused by impact loading. J Agric Eng Res 8:173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pavek, J., D. Corsini and F. Nissley. 1985. A rapid method for determining blackspot susceptibility of potato clones. Am Potato J 62:511–517.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schippers, P.A. 1971. Measurement of blackspot susceptibility of potatoes. Am Potato J 48:71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smittle, D.A., R.E. Thornton, C.L. Peterson and B.B. Dean. 1974. Harvesting potatoes with minimum damage. Am Potato J 51:152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Witz, R.L. 1954. Measuring resistance of potatoes to bruising. Agric Eng 35:241–244.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wouters, A., F. Vervaeke and J. DeBaerdemaeker. 1985. Mechanical properties and bruise susceptibility of potatoes. ASAE Paper No. 85-6013.

  21. Volbracht, O. and V. Kuhnke. 1956. Mechanical damage to potatoes. Der Kartoffelbau 4:74–77.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skrobacki, A., Halderson, J.L., Pavek, J.J. et al. Determining potato tuber resistance to impact damage. American Potato Journal 66, 401–415 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853186

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853186

Additional Key Words

Navigation