keystone potato producers association mccain foods …€¦ · keystone potato producers...

Keystone Potato Producers Association

McCain Foods (Canada)

Simplot Canada (II) Ltd.

2012 Potato Research Report

Prepared by Gaia Consulting Ltd.

Introduction

This is the 23rd annual report on potato research funded by Keystone Potato Producers

Association (KPPA), McCain Foods Limited and Simplot Canada (II) Ltd. Other contributors are

listed under the “Funding or In-Kind Support” headings at the beginning of each project report.

On behalf of above sponsors I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the success of

the 2012 potato research program.

Copies of the this report can be downloaded from www.gaiaconsulting.mb.ca

Anyone wanting additional information regarding the research trials can contact:

Gaia Consulting Ltd.

Box 314

Portage la Prairie, Manitoba

R1N 3B5

Phone: (204) 267-2665

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Contents

Potassium Management for Irrigated Russet Burbank Potato Production in Manitoba ............... 1

Manitoba Potato Variety Adaptation Trial – Umatilla .................................................................... 8

Manitoba Potato Variety Adaptation Trial – Bannock Russet ...................................................... 14

Manitoba Potato Variety Adaptation Trial – Blazer Russet .......................................................... 20

Confine Injury to Seed Potato ....................................................................................................... 26

Evaluation of Conventional Ridged-row (CRR) and 5-row Bed (BED) Planting Methods ............. 29

In-Field Bed Planting Evaluation ................................................................................................... 39

Evaluation of Late Blight Fungicide Programs .............................................................................. 43

Starch Variety Evaluation for the Manitoba Potato Industry ....................................................... 48

Effect of Fall Soil Preparation on Potato Yield and Grade 2010 - 2012 ........................................ 52

Effect of Reservoir Tillage on Potato Yield and Grade .................................................................. 60

1

Potassium Management for Irrigated Russet Burbank Potato Production

in Manitoba

Funding: ARDI 50%

Keystone Vegetable Producers 16.6%

Simplot Canada 16.6%

McCain Foods 16.7%

In Kind Delta Ag Services

Beaver Creek Farms

WF Farms

North Port

Riverbend Colony

Almasippi Irrigation Farms

Progress: Third and final year

Principal Investigators: Blair Geisel, Darin Gibson and Donovan Fehr, Gaia Consulting Ltd.

Summary:

In the past 6 years, fertility studies conducted by Keystone Potato Producers, McCain and

Simplot have concentrated mainly on nitrogen and phosphorus. In 2010 the focus on

nutrient studies shifted to potassium for two reasons. Since 2004, potato yields have

increased by 30% and the price of potash (potassium) has increased by over 400%

accounting for 4-6% of the total cost of production. Because of these changes, potassium

management must be fine-tuned to optimize yield, quality and profit. AgVise Laboratories

and MAFRI indicate that a response in potato yield to potassium fertilizer would likely occur

in soils with less than 150 and 200 ppm soil test K in 0- 6 inches of soil respectively. If these

recommendations are no longer valid then producers may not be maximizing net return.

Under-application of potassium might limit yields whereas over application will increase

costs. Either situation will reduce net profit.

Maximum marketable yield was achieved when 300, 200 and 100 lbs K20/acre were applied

to soils when the residual concentration of potassium was <100, >100-200 or > 200 ppm

respectively. These results are consistent with AgVise recommendations to produce a yield

of 350 cwt/acre. Approximately 0.6 lbs K20 are removed from the soil for each cwt of

potatoes produced or 200 lbs K20 is removed to produce 350 cwt/ac yield.

2

The addition of potassium fertilizer reduced specific gravity, incidence of hollow heart and

lightened French fry colour. Specific gravity was reduced by an average of 0.0015 to 0.0017

points for every additional 100 lbs of applied K20 at plant or in split applications respectively.

Potassium had no effect in the incidence of sugar end defect. There was no difference in

crop response to at-plant or split applications of fertilizer or KCl or KMAG sources of

potassium.

Objectives:

1. Determine the effect of potassium rate and application timing on Russet

Burbank yield and quality.

2. Determine critical soil and tissue levels at which a response to potassium

can be expected.

3. Determine the effect of potassium source as well as the addition of sulfur

and magnesium (present in KMAG or potassium magnesium sulfate) on

Russet Burbank yield and quality.

Procedure:

Plot size: 4 rows by 12 m (Assessments conducted on 2 centre rows)

Trial design: RCB 4 replicates

Crop/Variety: Potatoes/ Russet Burbank

Row spacing: 1 metre

Site Description: Table 1 – The data from the Rosendale location was discarded because

the field suffered severe moisture and heat stress

Planting Date: Table 2

Treatments: Table 3

Table 1 Site descriptions

Year Location Soil type

NO3-N

(0-24")

(lbs/ac)

P

(ppm)

K

(ppm)

Mg

(ppm)

S

(0-24")

(ppm) pH

CEC

(meq)

CCE

%

2010 Melbourne Hochfeld - fine sandy loam 39 15 144 200 24 7.2 13.4 0.8

2010 MacDonald Nuenberg Loam 251 26 263 833 344 7.8 25.1 0.2

2011 Bagot Willowcrest - loamy fine sand 32 32 174 372 48 8.2 21.6 1.4

2011 Beaver Willowcrest/Almasippi - sandy loam 31 21 83 307 76 8.0 20.7 1.3

2012 Long Plain Willowcrest/Almasippi - sandy loam 28 8 89 293 122 8.0 23.1 1.6

2012 Rossendale Willowcrest/Long Plain - sand 29 16 85 158 64 8.1 21.7 2.5

Residual Soil Nutrients

3

Table 2 Planting and potassium split application dates

Year Location

Planting

Date Date

Days After

Plant

2010 Melbourne 7-May 21-Jun 45

2010 MacDonald 27-Apr 14-Jun 48

2011 Bagot 14-May 20-Jun 37

2011 Beaver 17-May 20-Jun 34

2012 Long Plain 27-Apr 13-Jun 47

Split Applciation of

Potassium

Table 3 List of fertilizer treatments

KCl (NH4)2SO4 KMAG

0-0-60 21-0-0-24 0-0-22-22-11 K2O SO4 Mg

1 Zero K 0.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0

2 0-0-60 100 lb at Plant 166.7 67.0 0.0 100.0 16.1 0.0

3 0-0-60 200 lb at Plant 333.3 67.0 0.0 200.0 16.1 0.0

4 0-0-60 300 lb at Plant 500.0 67.0 0.0 300.0 16.1 0.0

5 0-0-60 400 lb at Plant 666.7 67.0 0.0 400.0 16.1 0.0

6 0-0-60 100 lb split 166.7 67.0 0.0 100.0 16.1 0.0

7 0-0-60 200 lb split 333.3 67.0 0.0 200.0 16.1 0.0

8 0-0-60 300 lb split 500.0 67.0 0.0 300.0 16.1 0.0

9 0-0-60 400 lb split 666.7 67.0 0.0 400.0 16.1 0.0

10 KMAG/0-0-60 300 lb split 333.3 0.0 454.6 300.0 100.0 50.0

*

* All Ammonium Sulfate (NH4)2SO4 was broadcast at plant

* Treatments 2-5 receive all potash broadcast at plant.

*

product applied (lbs/acre)

Nutrients Provided (lbs/acre)

Treatment

Applications of NO3 and P2O5 were made based on soil test results. Actual rates varied by

location.

Treatments 6-10 receive 50% potash or KMAG broadcast at plant, 50% broadcast at tuber

initiation.

Results – Petiole Concentration of Potassium (Table 4)

Petiole samples were collected between 70 and 77 days after emergence (DAE). The

optimum (sufficient) concentration of potassium in a Russet Burbank petiole changes as the

plant ages:

4

0-40 days after emergence 8.0-11.0%

41-60 days after emergence 7.0-10%

60- 120 days after emergence 7.0-9.0%

Concentration of potassium in the petiole was sufficient (7.0-9.0%) to maximize yield at the

100 lb K20 rate/ac in Macdonald and Bagot, 200 lb K20 rate/ac at Melbourne and Beaver, and

300 lb K20 rate/ac at Long Plain. These differences are due to variations in the concentration

of residual potassium in the soil prior to planting. Macdonald and Bagot had the highest and

Long Plains had the lowest concentration of residual soil potassium (Table 1).

Analysis of the combined data from 5 sites (Table 4) indicated that all potassium treatments

(#s 2-10) had higher petiole potassium concentrations than the unfertilized check (#1).

Petiole potassium increased with increasing rates of potassium fertilizer. Application timing

had no effect on the concentration of potassium in the petiole with the exception of the 400

lb/ac treatments (#’s 5 and 9). The 300 lb K20/acre split application of KMAG (#10) had

similar petiole potassium concentration as the 300 lb K20/ac split application of KCL (#8).

Table 4 Effect of fertilizer treatment on petiole potassium concentration

1 Zero K 5.595 g

2 0-0-60 100 lb at Plant 6.685 f

3 0-0-60 200 lb at Plant 7.459 e

4 0-0-60 300 lb at Plant 7.915 cd

5 0-0-60 400 lb at Plant 8.398 b

6 0-0-60 100 lb split 6.621 f

7 0-0-60 200 lb split 7.545 de

8 0-0-60 300 lb split 8.239 bc

9 0-0-60 400 lb split 8.967 a

10 KMAG/0-0-60 300 lb split 8.258 bc

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001

Treatment Petiole Conc.

LSD (P=.05) 0.4

CV 1.08

Results – Yield (Table 5)

Analysis of individual sites indicated that there were no differences in the yield of undersized

potatoes between treatments. Analysis of the combined data from 5 sites indicated that the

addition of potassium fertilizer reduced the yield of undersize potatoes and split applications

of potassium yielded fewer undersized potatoes than applying all potassium at-plant.

5

Analysis of the data from individual sites indicates that there was a marketable yield

response to applied potassium at the Beaver Creek and Long Plain sites. These two sites had

the lowest concentration of residual soil potassium (89 and 83 ppm respectively) of the five

sites (Table 1). At these two sites, maximum marketable yield was achieved by the addition

of 300 lbs K20/ac applied at-plant or as a split. At the other 3 sites, where the concentration

of residual soil potassium was higher (144-263 ppm), maximum yields were obtained

without the addition of potassium fertilizer; however there was a numerical trend of higher

yields with increasing rates of potassium up to 300 lb K20/ac.

Analysis of combined data over five station years indicates that the maximum marketable

yield was obtained with the addition of 200 lb/ac of potassium (Table 5). At-plant

application of 400 lb K20 /ac treatment (#5) produced a numerically lower yield than the 300

lb/ac treatment (#4) in four out of five years. This may indicate that that there was some

chloride toxicity; however the effect was not statistically significant.

Three hundred (300) lb K20 /ac applied as KMAG (#10) or KCl (#8) resulted in the same

marketable yield.

Table 5 Effect of potassium rate and timing on yield

1 Zero K 64.0 a 342.1 c 406.1 a 27.9 a 223.3

2 0-0-60 100 lb at Plant 59.7 ab 359.6 b 419.3 a 30.1 a 230.6

3 0-0-60 200 lb at Plant 50.6 cde 374.6 a 425.3 a 32.1 a 233.9

4 0-0-60 300 lb at Plant 55.0 bc 375.7 a 430.7 a 33.0 a 236.9

5 0-0-60 400 lb at Plant 52.8 cd 369.6 ab 422.4 a 33.8 a 232.3

6 0-0-60 100 lb split 52.7 cd 358.7 b 411.4 a 29.2 a 226.3

7 0-0-60 200 lb split 43.9 f 371.7 a 415.6 a 34.9 a 228.6

8 0-0-60 300 lb split 45.2 ef 376.3 a 421.5 a 33.0 a 231.8

9 0-0-60 400 lb split 44.5 ef 372.9 a 417.5 a 32.2 a 229.6

10 KMAG/0-0-60 300 lb split 48.3 def 372.9 a 421.2 a 31.0 a 231.7

Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD)

lbs K

RemovedTreatment Undersize Marketable Total Bonus %

CV 2.41 0.63 0.53 1.69

LSD (P=.05) 6.2 11.5 NSD NSD

Yield (cwt)

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0027 0.0189 0.4357 0.0967

Results – Quality (Table 6 and Table 7)

At four out of five sites, the addition of potassium fertilizer reduced specific gravity. The

exception was the Macdonald site, which had the highest concentration of residual soil

potassium (Table 1). An analysis of combined data from 5 sites indicates that specific gravity

6

was reduced by an average of 0.0015 to 0.0017 points for every additional 100 lbs of applied

K20 at plant or in split applications respectively. Three hundred (300) lb K20/ac applied as

KMAG (#10) or as KCl (#8) produced similar specific gravity.

Analysis of the data from individual sites indicates that there was no difference in hollow

heart between treatments. Analysis of the combined data from 5 sites indicates that

increasing rates of potassium tended to decrease the incidence of hollow heart (Table 6).

Analysis of the data from individual sites or the combined sites indicates that there was no

difference in sugar end defect between treatments.

Analysis of the data from individual sites indicates that the addition of potassium fertilizer

lightened French fry colour in 3 of the 5 sites. Analysis of the combined data from 5 sites

indicates that fry colour was lightened with increasing rates of potassium up to 200 lb/ac K2O

(Table 7). There was no difference in French fry colour between at-plant (#2-5) and split

applications of potassium (#6-10).

Table 6 Effect of potassium rate and timing on tuber quality.

1 Zero K 1.086 a 8.2 a 12.7 a

2 0-0-60 100 lb at Plant 1.085 b 6.5 ab 11.6 a

3 0-0-60 200 lb at Plant 1.082 d 4.5 bc 7.4 bc

4 0-0-60 300 lb at Plant 1.082 d 6.5 ab 10.3 ab

5 0-0-60 400 lb at Plant 1.080 e 4.3 c 7.8 bc

6 0-0-60 100 lb split 1.084 c 7.3 a 13.2 a

7 0-0-60 200 lb split 1.082 d 4.5 bc 8.2 bc

8 0-0-60 300 lb split 1.080 e 4.4 c 7.8 bc

9 0-0-60 400 lb split 1.079 f 1.5 d 3.1 d

10 KMAG/0-0-60 300 lb split 1.080 e 3.9 c 5.8 cd

Treatment

Specific

Gravity

Hollow Heart

% by tuber no.

Hollow Heart

% by wt

LSD (P=.05) 0 2 3.4

CV 0.02 7.94 7.74

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001 0.0152 0.0210

7

Table 7 Effect of potassium rate and timing on French fry colour and sugar end defect

1 Zero K 0.50 a 15.3 a 0.51 a 18.5 a

2 0-0-60 100 lb at Plant 0.36 b 12.5 a 0.31 b 17.4 a

3 0-0-60 200 lb at Plant 0.26 cd 10.5 a 0.24 bcd 17.3 a

4 0-0-60 300 lb at Plant 0.24 d 23.8 a 0.20 cde 19.8 a

5 0-0-60 400 lb at Plant 0.25 d 9.5 a 0.26 bc 14.2 a

6 0-0-60 100 lb split 0.35 bc 15.0 a 0.19 cde 18.5 a

7 0-0-60 200 lb split 0.34 bc 13.0 a 0.20 cde 15.4 a

8 0-0-60 300 lb split 0.21 d 13.0 a 0.15 de 15.4 a

9 0-0-60 400 lb split 0.17 d 12.0 a 0.12 e 17.2 a

10 KMAG/0-0-60 300 lb split 0.20 d 14.0 a 0.22 cd 23.3 a

At Harvest 3 Months After Harvest

Fry Colour

Sugar End

% Fry Colour

Sugar End

%Treatment

LSD (P=.05) 0.1 NSD 0.1

CV 6.62 8.44 7.64 6.02

NSD

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0031 0.3204 0.0003 0.7978

8

Manitoba Potato Variety Adaptation Trial – Umatilla

Funding: ARDI Agricultural Research and Development Initiative


Simplot Canada Limited

McCain Foods Limited


Progress: Year 4

Summary: Optimizing Nitrogen (N) management for each potato variety is critically

important to tuber yield and quality. Seed spacing can greatly influence

size distribution and yield. Information has been developed regarding the

effects of N fertilization and seed spacing on Russet Burbank, but little is

known of how recently released varieties respond to various N rates and

seed spacing in Manitoba. Understanding the interactions amongst N rate,

variety and seed spacing could lead to the development of management

strategies for each variety under Manitoba conditions.

Umatilla has been included in the adaptation trail for 4 years (2009 - 2012).

The site received excessive precipitation in 2011 and no data was collected.

In 2009 and 2010, increasing rates of nitrogen and wider seed spacing

reduced specific gravity. Seed spacing did not affect total or marketable

yield, however a narrow spacing produced a smaller tuber profile.

Increasing rates of N tended to produce darker French fry colour. In 2012,

the plot was located on a fine sandy loam (drought susceptible soil) which

was irrigated from an off-stream reservoir. There was less than average

snowfall in the winter of 2011 - 2012, so the irrigation reservoir was only

75% full at the beginning of the irrigation season. The summer of 2012 was

one of the hottest and driest on record resulting in unprecedented demand

for irrigation water. The crop required 12 inches, but only received 5

inches of irrigation and suffered significant drought stress. In the Umatilla

plot, nearly in one-third of the trial area was affected by unproductive soils,

which produced very low yields. The soil problem was not evident when

the site was chosen in the fall of 2011.

9

Objectives:

1. To test potato varieties to determine their potential as replacement

varieties for those presently grown in Manitoba for French fry

processing.

2. To determine yield, grade and quality response of Umatilla to three

levels of N fertility and three in-row seed spacings.

3. To evaluate the interaction between seed piece spacing and N fertility.

4. To develop management strategies for Umatilla under Manitoba

conditions.

Procedure:


Trial design: factorial (nitrogen by spacing), 4 replicates

Plot locations: Winkler, MB

Variety: Umatilla Russet.


Soil type: Fine sandy loam

Site Description: Table 8

Treatments: Table 9 and Table 10

Table 8 Site description

Description Residual Units Applied Units Application Method

N * 47 lbs/acre See Table 2

P2O5 ** 17 ppm 62 lbs/acre Side-banded

K ** 161 ppm 123 lbs/acre Side-banded

S * 164 lbs/acre 0 lbs/acre

Ph 7.2

CEC 13.1 meq

Salinity * 0.29 mmho/cm

Salinity * * 0.3 mmho/cm

V. Dahlia 23 vppg

* 0-24 inch

** 0 - 6 inch

10

Table 9 List of treatments

Trt #

Actual N

(lbs/ac)

Seed

Spacing (in)

1 Low 12

2 Low 14

3 Low 16

4 Med 12

5 Med 14

6 Med 16

7 High 12

8 High 14

9 High 16

Table 10 Description of nitrogen applications

Soil NO3

lbs/ac

Tissue

NO3 PPM

Nitrogen

Treatment

Target

Rate

lbs/acre

Pre-

plant

At-

Plant 19-Jun 09-Jul

Total

Applied 26-Jul 26-Jul

Low 125 52.9 10.4 24.0 18.7 106.0 145 11828

Medium 175 77.5 10.4 35.1 26.4 149.4 146 13519

High 225 105.4 10.4 42.4 35.1 193.3 153 17107

lbs of Nitrogen applied

Planting Date: May 14th

Harvest Date: October 3rd

Results Quality:

In 2012, the plot was located on a fine sandy loam (drought susceptible soil) which was

irrigated from an off-stream reservoir. There was less than average snowfall in the winter of

2011 - 2012, so the irrigation reservoir was only 75% full at the beginning of the irrigation

season. The summer of 2012 was one of the hottest and driest on record resulting in

unprecedented demand for irrigation water. The crop required 12 inches, but only received 5

inches of irrigation and suffered significant drought stress. In the Umatilla plot, nearly in one-

third of the trial area (plot lines 1, 2, and 3 of replicates 1, 2, and 3) was affected by

unproductive soils, which produced very low yields (Figure 1). The soil problem was not evident

when the site was chosen in the fall of 2011. As a result of the above factors, no useable data

was retrieved from this trial.

11

Figure 1 Spatial representation of marketable yield within the plot area.

Rep 1

Rep 2

Rep 3

Rep 40.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

12

34

56

78

9

Rep 1

Rep 2

Rep 3

Rep 4

12

Table 11 Effect of seed spacing and nitrogen rate on tuber quality

HH % by weight

12 14 16 Probability LSD(.05)

Low 2.1 1.6 3.7 2.4 Nitrogen 0.2363 NSD

Med 1.1 0.0 2.6 1.2 Spacing 0.6484 NSD

High 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N x Spacing 0.9643 NSD

1.0 0.5 2.1

Specific Gravity


Low 1.0789 1.0800 1.0793 1.0794 Nitrogen 0.9427 NSD

Med 1.0774 1.0791 1.0798 1.0787 Spacing 0.2801 NSD


1.0782 1.0798 1.0790

Mean Fry Colour - Oct 9


Low 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 Nitrogen 0.0365 0.063

Med 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.04 Spacing 0.5774 NSD


0.07 0.04 0.08

% Sugar Ends - Oct 9


Low 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Nitrogen 0.0601 NSD

Med 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spacing 0.8942 NSD


0.8 1.6 0.8

Mean Fry Colour - Jan 14


Low 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.04 Nitrogen 0.3083 NSD

Med 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.10 Spacing 0.2570 NSD


0.04 0.09 0.05

% Sugar Ends - Jan 14


Low 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 Nitrogen 0.4219 NSD

Med 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spacing 0.4219 NSD


0.8 0.0 0.0

13

Table 12 Effect of seed spacing and nitrogen rate on yield

Undersize


Low 56.3 50.5 51.0 52.6 Nitrogen 0.4770 NSD

Med 43.7 46.1 39.8 43.2 Spacing 0.9942 NSD


48.4 49.1 48.5

Marketable


Low 187.4 225.5 193.0 202.0 Nitrogen 0.5649 NSD

Med 265.2 222.0 252.1 246.4 Spacing 0.9907 NSD


227.4 227.2 230.8

Total


Low 243.7 276.2 244.1 254.6 Nitrogen 0.6068 NSD

Med 308.8 268.1 291.9 289.6 Spacing 0.9887 NSD


275.8 276.4 279.3

Bonus %


Low 20.2 21.8 23.5 21.8 Nitrogen 0.8543 NSD

Med 25.9 22.7 27.4 25.3 Spacing 0.7358 NSD


22.4 21.7 25.2

14

Manitoba Potato Variety Adaptation Trial – Bannock Russet






Progress: Year 4








strategies for each variety under Manitoba conditions. Bannock Russet has

been included in the adaptation trail for 4 years (2009 - 2012). The site

received excessive precipitation in 2011 and no data was collected. In

2009 and 2010, increasing rates of nitrogen reduced specific gravity. Total

and marketable yield was maximized at the medium rate of nitrogen

application. Marketable yield increased with narrower seed spacing.

Decreasing seed spacing produced a smaller tuber size profile.

In 2012, the plot was located on a fine sandy loam (drought susceptible

soil) which was irrigated from an off-stream reservoir. There was less than

average snowfall in the winter of 2011 - 2012, so the irrigation reservoir

was only 75% full at the beginning of the irrigation season. The summer of

2012 was one of the hottest and driest on record resulting in

unprecedented demand for irrigation water. The crop required 12 inches,

but only received 5 inches of irrigation and suffered significant drought

stress. In the Bannock plot, nearly in one-third of the trial area was

affected by unproductive soils, which produced very low yields. The soil

15

problem was not evident when the site was chosen in the fall of 2011. In

addition, the Bannock seed was not properly conditioned (warmed) before

planting, which might result in poor performance. There was only one

Bannock seed source in Canada and they stored the seed at the back of

their storage, so it was not available for pick-up until May 15th. The seed

was only warmed for 3 days before it was planted on May 16th.

Objectives:



processing.

2. To determine yield, grade and quality response of Bannock to three

levels of N fertility and three in-row seed spacings.


4. To develop management strategies for Bannock under Manitoba

conditions.

Procedure:




Variety: Bannock Russet





16







Ph 7.2

CEC 13.1 meq



V. Dahlia 23 vppg

* 0-24 inch

** 0 - 6 inch


Trt #

Actual N

(lbs/ac)

Seed

Spacing (in)

1 Low 8

2 Low 10

3 Low 12

4 Med 8

5 Med 10

6 Med 12

7 High 8

8 High 10

9 High 12


Soil

NO3

lbs/ac

Tissue

NO3

PPM

Nitrogen

Treatment

Target Rate

lbs/acre

Pre-

plant

At-

Plant 09-Jul

Total


Low 75 26.4 10.4 18.7 55.5 92 12241

Medium 125 52.9 10.4 31.9 95.2 120 13608

High 175 77.5 10.4 42.4 130.3 133 15953




17

Results Yield and Quality:





unprecedented demand for irrigation water. The crop required 12 inches, but only received

5 inches of irrigation and suffered significant drought stress. In the Bannock plot, nearly

one-third of the trial area (all of the first replicate and plot lines 1, 2 & 3 of replicates 2, 3

and 4) was affected by unproductive soils, which produced very low yields (Figure 2). The

soil problem was not evident when the site was chosen in the fall of 2011. As a result of the

above factors, no useable data was retrieved from this trial.

Figure 2 Spatial representation of marketable yield within the plot

Rep 1

Rep 2

Rep 3

Rep 40.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

12

34

56

78

9

Rep 1

Rep 2

Rep 3

Rep 4

18

Table 16 Effect of seed spacing and rate of nitrogen on tuber quality.

HH % by weight


Low 23.9 16.9 26.0 22.3 Nitrogen 0.4284 NSD

Med 14.9 14.5 14.3 14.5 Spacing 0.9972 NSD


19.1 19.0 19.4

Specific Gravity


Low 1.0765 1.0757 1.0772 1.0765 Nitrogen 0.2375 NSD

Med 1.0752 1.0766 1.0767 1.0761 Spacing 0.7333 NSD


1.0759 1.0752 1.0758



Low 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.10 Nitrogen 0.7098 NSD

Med 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.06 Spacing 0.3812 NSD


0.04 0.13 0.08



Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nitrogen 1.0000 NSD

Med 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spacing 1.0000 NSD


0.0 0.0 0.0

Mean Fry Colour - Dec 20


Low 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 Nitrogen 0.1520 NSD

Med 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 Spacing 0.1947 NSD


0.02 0.05 0.08

19

Table 17 Effect of seed spacing and rate of nitrogen on yield

Undersize


Low 54.5 45.1 30.1 43.2 Nitrogen 0.3745 NSD

Med 41.6 40.1 40.3 40.7 Spacing 0.0028 5.1


49.3 46.0 37.0

Marketable


Low 184.0 207.3 234.3 208.5 Nitrogen 0.6882 NSD

Med 205.9 191.2 167.4 188.2 Spacing 0.9352 NSD


198.5 193.6 200.5

Total


Low 238.6 252.3 264.4 251.7 Nitrogen 0.4939 NSD

Med 247.5 231.3 207.7 228.8 Spacing 0.8464 NSD


247.8 239.5 237.5

Bonus %


Low 11.6 16.9 26.5 18.3 Nitrogen 0.5010 NSD

Med 17.2 15.1 16.4 16.2 Spacing 0.1269 NSD


13.9 14.7 20.0

20

Manitoba Potato Variety Adaptation Trial – Blazer Russet






Progress: Year 1








strategies for each variety under Manitoba conditions.

In 2012, the plot was located on a fine sandy loam (drought susceptible

soil) which was irrigated from an off-stream reservoir. There was less than

average snowfall in the winter of 2011 - 2012, so the irrigation reservoir

was only 75% full at the beginning of the irrigation season. The summer of

2012 was one of the hottest and driest on record resulting in

unprecedented demand for irrigation water. The crop required 12 inches,

but only received 5 inches of irrigation and suffered significant drought

stress.

Objectives:



processing.

2. To determine yield, grade and quality response of Blazer to three levels

of N fertility and three in-row seed spacings.


21

4. To develop management strategies for Blazer under Manitoba

conditions.

Procedure:




Variety: Blazer Russet











Ph 7.2

CEC 13.1 meq



V. Dahlia 23 vppg

* 0-24 inch

** 0 - 6 inch


Trt #

Actual N

(lbs/ac)

Seed

Spacing (in)

1 Low 10

2 Low 12

3 Low 14

4 Med 10

5 Med 12

6 Med 14

7 High 10

8 High 12

9 High 14

22


Soil

NO3

lbs/ac

Tissue

NO3

PPM

Nitrogen

Treatment

Target Rate

lbs/acre

Pre-

plant

At-

Plant 19-Jun 09-Jul 31-Jul

Total


Low 125 52.9 10.4 24.0 18.7 37.5 143.5 15 6555

Medium 175 77.5 10.4 35.1 26.4 52.5 201.9 20 9006

High 225 105.4 10.4 42.4 35.1 67.5 260.8 41 10967




Results Yield and Quality (Table 21 and Table 22):

• Yield of undersize tubers increased with decreasing seed spacing and amount of

applied nitrogen.

• Marketable and total yield increased with decreasing seed spacing and amount of

applied nitrogen.

• Percentage of bonus tubers increased with increasing seed spacing.

• Overall tuber size profile decreased with decreasing seed spacing as evidence by

higher yield of undersize tubers and lower percentage of bonus tubers.

23

Table 21 Effect of seed spacing and rate of nitrogen on tuber quality.

HH % by weight


Low 9.1 11.3 22.0 14.1 Nitrogen 0.0293 5.8

Med 0.9 9.6 5.8 5.4 Spacing 0.5452 NSD


7.9 7.9 12.7

Specific Gravity


Low 1.0801 1.0764 1.0788 1.0784 Nitrogen 0.1889 NSD

Med 1.0782 1.0779 1.0776 1.0779 Spacing 0.2709 NSD


1.0785 1.0775 1.0769



Low 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.10 Nitrogen 0.0289 0.1

Med 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.06 Spacing 0.0039 0.0


0.02 0.08 0.08



Low 2.5 5.0 2.5 3.3 Nitrogen 0.1780 NSD

Med 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 Spacing 0.8240 NSD


1.7 2.5 1.7

Mean Fry Colour - Jan 7


Low 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.08 Nitrogen 0.0062 0.03

Med 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.04 Spacing 0.1529 NSD


0.03 0.11 0.09

% Sugar Ends - Jan 7


Low 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.8 Nitrogen 0.6699 NSD

Med 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 Spacing 0.6699 NSD


0.0 0.8 0.8

24

Table 22 Effect of seed spacing and rate of nitrogen on yield

Undersize


Low 57.6 49.4 42.2 49.8 Nitrogen 0.0354 8.9

Med 51.3 31.3 34.3 39.0 Spacing 0.0100 9.4


52.8 38.3 36.2

Marketable


Low 391.0 379.1 382.5 384.2 a Nitrogen 0.0202 40.0

Med 387.2 377.5 326.4 363.7 a Spacing 0.0257 25.2

High 334.9 332.6 292.9 320.2 c N x Spacing 0.4806 NSD

371.0 a 363.1 a 333.9 b

Total


Low 448.6 428.6 424.8 434.0 Nitrogen 0.0037 32.4

Med 438.5 408.9 360.7 402.7 Spacing 0.0072 26.3


423.8 401.4 370.1

Bonus %


Low 21.6 26.8 38.5 29.0 Nitrogen 0.9389 NSD

Med 17.0 36.3 33.5 28.9 Spacing 0.0442 9.2


22.3 31.0 34.3

Discussion:





unprecedented demand for irrigation water. The crop required 12 inches, but only received

5 inches of irrigation and suffered significant drought stress.

The unusual yield results can only be explained if there were excessive amounts of residual

nitrogen in the soil, which would cause reduced yield at higher rates of applied nitrogen.

25

Soil analysis in the fall of 2012 did not indicate that there was excessive residual N. Both the

grower’s and Gaia Consulting’s soil analysis indicated that there was less than 50 lbs of

residual nitrogen. Two other variety adaptation trials were located at this site and spatial

differences in the soil were identified as confounding factors. These differences may also be

influencing the results in the Blazer evaluation.

26

Confine Injury to Seed Potato

Funding: This project was supported by the Manitoba Horticulture Productivity

Enhancement Centre with funding from the Governments of Manitoba

and Canada through the Growing Forward, Strategic Innovation Fund-

Advancing Agri-Innovation Program

Principal Investigators: Blair Geisel, Darin Gibson and Don Fehr, Gaia Consulting Ltd.

Objective: To determine if the application of Confine (phosphorous acid) to the

foliage of seed potato plants or as a post harvest treatment to seed

potatoes will affect the performance of the tubers the following year.

Procedure:

Plot size: 4 rows by 10.625 m (Assessments conducted on 2 centre rows)


Plot location: Portage CMCDC (irrigated)

Crop/Variety Potato/Ranger Russet


Treatments: See Table 23. Tubers from untreated check and plots receiving foliar

fungicide treatments applied in 2011 were harvested and stored at the U

of M potato storage facility. This seed was planted in 2012.

Planting date: May 15 2012

Harvest date: September 7 2012

Table 23. List of treatments

Trt No.

1

2

3

4 2 app. Confine applied in a tank-mix (manzate)

Fungicide applications in 2011

Check (no fungicides applied to control late blight)

Check treated post-harvest with labelled rate of Confine

3 app. Confine applied in a tank-mix (manzate)

Results – Emergence (Table 24)

Foliar application of Confine in 2011 did not affect emergence or the number of stems per

plant in 2012 (treatments 3 and 4). Seed potatoes treated with Confine into storage in 2011

had delayed emergence with fewer plants emerged on June 7 2012 (treatment 2). By June

10 there was no difference in emergence between treatment 2 and the check treatment 1.

27

Table 24. Effect of Confine treatment on stand and stem counts

1 Check 5.8 a 27.5 a 31.8 a 94.5 a 3.0 a

2 Confine treated into storage 1.5 b 23.5 a 31.5 a 88.8 a 2.8 a

3 3 App Foliar Confine 5.8 a 28.3 a 31.5 a 87.0 a 2.8 a

4 2 App Foliar Confine 5.0 a 28.5 a 31.5 a 102.0 a 3.2 a

Treatment 7-Jun 10-Jun 19-Jun

33.5 9.7 2.0

Stand (plants / 6 m row)

8.1

NSD

(6 m) Stems/Plant

Stems

0.0739

LSD (P=.05) 2.4 NSD NSD NSD

CV

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0090 0.0777 0.9219 0.0586

7.7

Results – Yield (Table 25)

There was no difference in yield between treatments.

Table 25 Effect of Confine treatment on yield in the year following application

1 Check 39.5 a 227.0 a 266.5 a 22.1 a

2 Confine treated into storage 22.9 a 246.9 a 269.8 a 24.7 a

3 3 App Foliar Confine 30.8 a 242.0 a 272.9 a 26.7 a

4 2 App Foliar Confine 41.9 a 241.3 a 283.2 a 19.7 a

>10 oz

(%)

Yield (cwt)

Treatment Undersize Marketable Total

CV 31.5 11.1 8.0 36.2

LSD (P=.05) NSD NSD NSD NSD

Treatment Prob(F) 0.1130 0.7456 0.7298 0.6781

Results – Quality (Table 26)

Application of Confine did not affect specific gravity, mean fry colour, or the incidence of

sugar end defect.

28

Table 26. Effect of Confine treatment on quality

1 Check 1.0910 a 0.08 a 7.5 a

2 Confine treated into storage 1.0893 a 0.03 a 7.5 a

3 3 App Foliar Confine 1.0920 a 0.15 a 10.0 a

4 2 App Foliar Confine 1.0905 a 0.00 a 7.5 a

Treatment Prob(F) 0.3678 0.2355 0.9661

Specific

Gravity

Mean Fry

Colour

% Sugar

End

LSD (P=.05) NSD NSD NSD

CV 0.19 162.2 105.1

Treatment

Conclusion:

Two and three foliar applications of Confine did not affect the emergence, yield, or French

fry quality the following year. Post harvest application of Confine delayed emergence but did

not affect yield or French fry quality.

29

Evaluation of Conventional Ridged-row (CRR) and 5-row Bed (BED)

Planting Methods


Enhancement Centre with funding from the Governments of Manitoba and

Canada through the Growing Forward, Strategic Innovation Fund-Advancing

Agri-Innovation Program MHPEC (Advancing Agri-Innovation Program)

In Kind: Under the Hill- Chad Berry – Planted bed treatments

Hood Farms - Kevin Hood – Planted and hilled CRR treatments

KPPA – Andrew Ronald – Assisted in writing protocol and establishing plots

CMCDC –Brian Baron – site management and irrigation

Progress: Second year

Principal Investigators: Blair Geisel, Darin Gibson and Donovan Fehr of Gaia Consulting

Ltd.

Summary:

Bed planting, an alternative to the conventional ridged-row (CRR) planting system, has been

studied in North America and Europe since the 1940s. It is speculated that the benefits of

bed planting system come from producing a more level soil profile and improving the spatial

distribution of plants in the field (Figure 3).

In a conventional ridged-row configuration with 36 or 38 inches between rows, more than

50% of the land area is occupied by ridges and furrow space. In 5-row beds with 26 inches

between rows, the space occupied by ridges and furrows is reduced to less than 30%.

Reducing the amount of furrow creates a flatter bed allowing roots to grow more

horizontally, resulting in increased nitrogen and water use efficiency.

Improving the spatial distribution increases a plant’s ability to intercept sunlight and

influences tuber size profile. Sunlight is an important factor in tuber growth and yield

development. Better spatial distribution of plants produces a more uniform tuber size

profile, which is important in processing markets. Higher plant populations can be achieved

in beds than conventional ridge row resulting in a smaller tuber size profile, which is

desirable in table and seed markets.

30

Ultimately, bed planting is speculated to reduce the cost of production by increasing

nitrogen and water use efficiency, marketable yield and producing a more desirable tuber

profile for specific markets.

Two trials were conducted in Manitoba to compare the bed and conventional ridge-row

planting systems on processing Russet Burbank (2011) and Ranger Russet (2012). Early in the

2011 season (May and June) excessive precipitation caused seed rot and stressed plants.

There may have been more seed injury in the BED than in the CRR treatments. The BED

treatment has a flatter soil profile, which would have remained wetter for a longer period of

time than the CRR treatment. The CRR has deeper furrows and higher ridges, which increase

the surface area exposed to air and facilitates drying of the soil. In 2011 the CRR produced a

high yield of larger tubers than the BED planting method. Plant spacing had less effect on

yield and grade factors than planting method. In addition the 2011 study showed that the

wider guess rows in the BED configuration (Figure 4) produce a greater yield of larger tubers

than the narrower rows inside the bed because of access to more space, light, moisture and

nutrients. Planting a higher density of seed in the guess row might produce a more even

tuber profile across the bed.

In 2012, David Tarkalson, USDA Agricultural Research Service suggested that Russet Burbank

may not be the most suitable variety for bed planting because it produces long vines that

will intercept sufficient light to maximize yield under the Conventional Ridge Row spatial

arrangement. David indicated that varieties with less vegetative biomass would benefit

more from the spatial arrangement in Bed planting. Based on this information it was

decided in 2012 to compare the bed and conventional ridge-row planting systems on

processing Ranger Russet.

Irrigation management early in the growing season was inadequate and the plants exhibited

severe symptoms of drought stress. This would have limited yield potential and the possible

separation between treatments. The guess rows produce a greater yield of larger tubers

than the rows inside the bed. Planting a higher density of seed in the guess row might

produce a more even tuber profile across the bed. BED planting produced a higher

marketable with a smaller tuber profile than the CRR planting method. Plant spacing or

population affected tuber size profile, but had no affect on marketable yield.

31

Figure 3 Illustration of conventional ridge-row and bed planting formats.

Figure 4 Dimensions of a 5-row bed.

32

Objective:

• To determine the effect of different plant populations arranged in conventional

ridged-row (CRR) and a 5-row bed (BED) configurations on yield, tuber profile and

quality for French fry processing.

• To determine the effect of row position within the BED treatment on yield and

quality.

Procedure:

Plot size: 24 by 60 feet. CRR - 8 rows X 3 feet/row. BED - 10 rows (2-5 row beds with 26

inches between rows and 40 inch guess rows between beds) See Figure 4.

Trial design: 2 factor split plot (main plot planter configuration, subplot plant spacing), 4

replicates

Plot location: CMCDC Carberry off-station site

Variety: Ranger Russet

Planting Date: May 16

Fertility: Table 27

Table 27 Description of residual and applied nutrients.

Description Residual Applied 1

Nitrogen lbs/ac 28 160

Phosphorus ppm 29 55

Potassium ppm 207 130

Sulfur lbs/ac 15 21

pH 5.3

OM % 2.7

1 All nutrients were broadcast at plant.

Nitrogen was a 50:50 mixture of urea

and ESN.

Hilling Date: CRR treatments were hilled on June 21st and 29th. BED treatments were not

hilled.

Weed Control: Both treatments received Gramoxone on June 4th. A Prism Sencor tank mix

was applied on June 22nd and July 6th on the BED and CRR treatments

respectively.

Treatments (Table 28): CRR - 8 rows 3 feet apart. BED - 10 rows (2-5 row beds with 26

inches between rows and 40 inch guess rows between beds). See Figure 4.

Seed spacing in the CRR planting method was chosen based on the results of

studies conducted in Manitoba. Seed spacing for the BED planting method

33

was based on data from an Idaho study, which recommends planting a normal

population up to an additional four cwt more seed per acre for markets

requiring a larger sized tuber profile, such as French fry processing.

Table 28 Treatments

Trt No.

Planting

Method Seed Spacing

Target

Spacing

inches

Target

Population/

acre

Actual

Spacing

inches

Actual

Population

/acre

1 A=1 CRR B=1 (Narrow) 10.0 17424 10.6 16438

2 A=1 CRR B=2 (Medium) 13.0 13403 13.4 12984

3 A=1 CRR B=3 (Wide) 16.0 10890 18.0 9680

4 A=2 BED B=1 (Narrow) 10.5 20743 10.1 21564

5 A=2 BED B=2 (Medium) 13.5 16133 14.1 15447

6 A=2 BED B=3 (Wide) 16.5 13200 15.1 14424

Harvest:

CRR - Harvested 2 inside rows by 12 m (total 24 m) from each plot. Potatoes from each

row were composited to determine yield and grade.

BED - Harvested 2 rows (one guess row and 1 inside row) by 12 m (total 24 m) from

each plot. Potatoes from the guess and inside rows were graded separately to

determine yield and quality.

Statistics:

A complete factorial analysis of variance was carried out on the BED treatment data to

determine the effect of row position on yield and quality factors. A complete split plot

factorial analysis of variance was carried out to determine the effect of BED and CRR

planting formats and seed spacing on yield and quality. The BED data, used in the

analysis comparing the BED and CRR formats, was a weighted mean of the grading

data from the guess row and one row inside the bed. Guess rows represent 2 and the

inside rows represent 3 of the 5 row bed. Mean separation for both of the above

comparisons was determined using the least significant difference (LSD) test.

Results: Effect of row position in BED planting format (Table 29 and Table 30)

The growing environment is different between inside and guess rows in the bed. The guess

rows (rows between beds) have 33 inches of growing space whereas the rows between the

guess rows have only 26 inches of growing space. In the BED treatments, guess and inside

34

rows were harvested and graded separately. These data were analyzed to determine the

effect of row position on yield, grade and quality.

The average tuber weight was higher in the guess rows than the inside rows. This indicates

that the guess rows produced a larger tuber profile, which is evidenced by a greater yield of

tubers in the 6-12 oz and >12 oz size categories. The guess rows produced a greater

marketable yield than the inside rows. Row position had no effect on specific gravity, fry

colour, sugar end defect, tuber roughness or greening. Tuber samples from all plots were

assessed for greening, but none was detected. Since there was no variation in the data for

this parameter, no statistical analysis was conducted and no data is reported in Table 30.

Table 29 Effect of row position on yield and tuber profile.

1 Guess 27.4 a 144.9 a 196.3 a 21.6 a 362.9 a 390.0 a

2 Inner 31.0 a 155.6 a 135.6 b 10.7 b 301.9 b 332.7 b

Yield cwt/acre

Treatment <3 oz. 3-6 oz 6-12 oz >12 oz Marketable Total

34.4 30.0

Prob(F) 0.1479 0.1159 0.0101 0.0194 0.0111 0.0089

LSD (P=.05) NSD NSD 33.1 7.6

Table 30. Effect of row position on tuber quality.

1 Guess 1.0917 a 3.5 a 5.5 a 0.06 a 6.9 a

2 Inner 1.0920 a 3.4 a 5.1 b 0.06 a 4.2 a

25-Oct

Treatment

Specific

Gravity

% Rough

Tubers

Avg. tuber

size oz.

Mean fry

colour

% sugar

ends

NSD

Prob(F) 0.7925 0.8286 0.0392 0.8979 0.2255

LSD (P=.05) NSD NSD 0.4 NSD

Results: Comparison of CRR and BED planting formats (Table 31 and Table 32)

The CRR treatment produced a larger average tuber weight resulting in a larger tuber profile

than the BED treatment. The CRR treatment produced a lower yield of tubers <6 oz and a

greater yield of tubers >12oz. The BED treatment produced a greater marketable yield than

the CRR (P=0.0754). The BED treatment produced a lighter fry colour than the CRR

(P=0.0720). There was no difference in specific gravity, hollow heart, sugar end defect and

greening. Tuber samples from all plots were assessed for greening, but none was detected.

Since there was no variation in the data for this parameter, no statistical analysis was

conducted and no data is reported in Table 32.

35

Table 31 Effect of CRR and BED planting formats on yield and tuber profile.

Yield <3 oz. Cwt/ac

Narrow Medium Wide Mean Probability LSD(.05)

CRR 16.0 10.9 12.3 13.0 Planting Method 0.0011 4.16

BED 33.5 34.2 20.9 29.5 Spacing 0.0661 NSD

Mean 24.7 22.5 16.6 Method X Spacing 0.1101 9.89

Yield 3-6 oz. Cwt/ac



BED 170.4 157.3 126.1 151.2 Spacing 0.0025 22.43

Mean 136.1 119.6 90.0 Method X Spacing 0.9486 NSD

Yield 6-12 oz. Cwt/ac


CRR 158.1 152.7 172.8 161.2 Planting Method 0.8941 NSD

BED 155.3 141.5 182.6 159.8 Spacing 0.0084 17.83


Yield >12 oz. Cwt/ac



BED 6.0 13.1 26.1 15.0 Spacing 0.0682 NSD


Marketable Yield >3 oz Cwt/ac



BED 331.6 311.8 334.8 326.1 Spacing 0.4876 NSD


36

Table 32 Effect of CRR and BED planting formats on tuber quality and tuber number

Average Tuber Size oz.



BED 4.9 5.2 5.8 5.3 Spacing 0.0157 0.63


% Rough Tubers



BED 2.2 3.5 4.6 3.5 Spacing 0.8031 NSD


Specific Gravity



BED 1.0912 1.0936 1.0910 1.0919 Spacing 0.4453 NSD


Mean fry colour - Oct 25



BED 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 Spacing 0.5371 NSD


% Sugar End - Oct 25



BED 7.0 4.5 4.3 5.3 Spacing 0.0901 NSD


Results: Analysis of optimum seed spacing for each planting method.

In the conventional ridge-row planting, seed spacing did not affect total marketable yield,

specific gravity, hollow heart, fry colour or sugar end defect (Table 33 and Table 34).

Increasing seed spacing produced a larger tuber profile which is evidenced by a lower yield

of <6 oz. and a greater yield of >6 oz. potatoes.

37

Table 33 Effect of seed spacing on yield in CRR planting format

1 Narrow 16.0 a 101.8 a 158.1 a 44.0 a 303.9 a 319.9 a

2 Medium 10.9 a 81.9 a 152.7 a 62.1 a 296.6 a 307.4 a

3 Wide 12.3 a 53.9 a 172.8 a 73.0 a 299.7 a 311.9 a


Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is

Prob(F) 0.3698 0.0519 0.2822 0.3398 0.9231

CV 37.6 27.0 10.3 43.0 8.6

LSD (P=.05) NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD

Treatment <3 oz. 3-6 oz 6-12 oz >12 oz

Marketable

>3 oz Total

Yield cwt/acre

7.7

0.7679

Table 34 Effect of seed spacing on tuber quality in CRR planting format

1 Narrow 1.0893 a 5.7 a 6.3 a 0.2 a 18.0 a

2 Medium 1.0901 a 4.8 a 6.9 a 0.5 a 7.5 a

3 Wide 1.0924 a 4.5 a 7.3 a 0.3 a 5.0 a


0.4868 0.1322

Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment

Prob(F) 0.4152 0.7722 0.2560

CV 0.3

NSD NSDLSD (P=.05) NSD NSD NSD

69.2 79.846.2 11.5

Treatment

Specific

Gravity

25-Oct

% sugar

ends

Avg. tuber

size oz.

% Rough

Tubers

Mean fry

colour

In bed planting, decreasing the population produced a larger tuber profile, which is

evidenced by lower yield of <6 oz. and a greater yield of >6 oz. potatoes (Table 35).

Changing plant population did not affect marketable or total yield. There was no difference

in total and marketable yield, specific gravity, tuber roughness, fry colour and sugar end

defect between plant populations.

38

Table 35 Effect of seed spacing on yield in BED planting format

1 Narrow 33.5 a 170.4 a 155.3 ab 6.0 b 331.6 a 365.1 a

2 Medium 34.2 a 157.3 ab 141.5 b 13.1 b 311.8 a 346.1 a

3 Wide 20.9 a 126.1 b 182.6 a 26.1 a 334.8 a 355.8 a


Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is

0.6117Prob(F) 0.0851 0.0470 0.0294 0.0219 0.3951

7.3 7.3CV 25.9 13.1 10.1 49.0

12.7 NSD NSD

Treatment <3 oz. 3-6 oz 6-12 oz >12 oz

Marketable

>3 oz Total

Yield cwt/acre

LSD (P=.05) NSD 34.1 27.9

Table 36 Effect of seed spacing on tuber quality in BED planting format

1 Narrow 1.0912 a 2.2 a 4.9 b 0.06 a 7.0 a

2 Medium 1.0936 a 3.5 a 5.2 b 0.05 a 4.5 a

3 Wide 1.0910 a 4.6 a 5.8 a 0.068 a 4.3 a


0.0040 0.9528 0.7435

Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment

42.5

0.1421Prob(F) 0.3095

4.8 134.5 103.8CV 0.2

0.434NSD NSD NSDLSD (P=.05) NSD

Specific

Gravity

% Rough

Tubers

Avg. tuber

size oz.

Mean fry

colour

% sugar

ends

25-Oct

Treatment

Conclusions:

Irrigation management early in the growing season was inadequate and the plants exhibited

severe symptoms of drought stress. This would have limited yield potential and the possible

separation between treatments. In bed planting, the guess rows have more space, light,

moisture and nutrients. The guess rows produce a greater yield of larger tubers than the

rows inside the bed. Planting a higher density of seed in the guess row might produce a

more even tuber profile across the bed. BED planting produced a higher marketable yield

with a smaller tuber profile than the CRR planting method. Plant spacing or population

affected tuber size profile, but had no affect on marketable yield.

39

In-Field Bed Planting Evaluation


Enhancement Centre with funding from the Governments of Manitoba and

Canada through the Growing Forward, Strategic Innovation Fund-Advancing

Agri-Innovation Program MHPEC (Advancing Agri-Innovation Program)

Grower Co-operator: Chad Berry, Under the Hill Farms, Glenboro MB


Summary:

A field trial was established to investigate the difference in yield and grade between two

plant populations in three French fry processing potato varieties planted with a commercial

5-row bed planter. An error occurred in the establishment of the Innovator trial, so the data

is not reported. The Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet trials were successfully established

with two plant populations that were different by 25%. Despite the difference in plant

populations there were no differences in yield and grade between treatments in either the

Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet varieties. Typically in plant population studies there is a

40-50% difference between treatments. Even with this magnitude of difference there is

little difference in yield, but there are differences in tuber size profile between treatments.

In this case, the difference between treatments may not have been large enough to affect

tuber size profile.

Objective:

Compare the effect of different plant populations in 5-row bed (BED) configurations on total

tuber yield, marketable yield, tuber profile and quality for the production of Ranger Russet,

Innovator and Russet Burbank.

Procedure:

Plot size: 50 ft by 24 feet (10 rows) or 15 m by 7.3 m

Trial design: RCBD 4 replicates

Trial location: Glenboro, MB

40

Varieties: Ranger Russet, Innovator, Russet Burbank

Planting date: Ranger Russet – April 26, 2012

Innovator – April 27, 2012

Russet Burbank – May 5, 2012

Harvest date: Ranger Russet – August 20, 2012

Innovator – September 6, 2012

Russet Burbank – September 11, 2012

Treatments: Table 37

Table 37 List of Treatments

Trt

Spacing

(in)

Population

(ac)

Spacing

(in)

Population

(ac)

Spacing

(in)

Population

(ac)

100% 17.5 12,446 12.5 17,424 18.5 11,773

120% 14.5 15,021 10.5 20,743 15.5 14,052

Ranger Innovator Russet Burbank

.

Results – Stand and Stem (Table 38 and Table 39)

Table 38 Effect of Russet Burbank plant population on stand and stem counts

1 100% 20.0 a 142.5 a 4.50 a

2 120% 15.7 a 166.3 a 3.75 a

Treatment

Spacing

(in) Stem Stems/Plant

CV 15.5 9.5 16.4


Prob(F) 0.1176 0.1068 0.2152

Table 39 Effect of Ranger Russet plant population on stand and stem counts

1 100% 18.7 b 104.8 a 3.3 a

2 120% 14.8 a 124.5 a 3.1 b

0.21

2.87

0.0483

Stems/Plant

LSD (P=.05) 8.47 NSD

Treatment

Spacing

(in) Stem

Prob(F) 0.0496 0.0864

CV 10.53 9.68

41

Results – Yield (Table 40 and Table 41)

The Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet trials were successfully established with two plant

populations that were different by 25%. Despite the difference in plant populations there

were no differences in yield and grade between treatments in either the Russet Burbank and

Ranger Russet varieties. Typically in plant population studies there is a 40-50% difference

between treatments. Even with this magnitude of difference there is little difference in

yield, but there are differences in tuber size profile between treatments. In this case, the

difference between treatments may not have been large enough to affect tuber size profile.

Table 40 Effect of Russet Burbank plant population on yield

1 100% 73.5 a 171.1 a 116.1 a 17.8 a 305.0 a 378.4 a

2 120% 88.7 a 181.4 a 91.9 a 10.7 a 284.1 a 372.8 a

Total Treatment

Yield cwt/acre

<3 oz. 3-6 oz 6-12 oz >12 oz

Marketable

>3 oz

NSDLSD (P=.05) NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD

20.9 78.5 9.4 11.6CV 39.1 16.4

0.8669Prob(F) 0.5448 0.6497 0.2138 0.4410 0.3639

Table 41 Effect of Ranger Russet plant population on yield

1 100% 41.1 a 151.1 a 138.8 a 29.7 a 319.6 a 360.6 a

2 120% 41.9 a 147.2 a 143.6 a 22.8 a 313.6 a 355.5 a

Yield cwt/acre

6-12 oz >12 oz

Marketable

>3 oz Total Treatment <3 oz. 3-6 oz

11.66CV

NSD NSD NSD NSD NDSLSD (P=.05) NSD

0.8733Prob(F) 0.9137

24.39 5.08 30.95 60.87 15.96

0.5150 0.8863 0.5882 0.8778

Results – Grade (Table 42, Table 43, Table 44, and Table 45)

There was no difference in grade between treatments.

Table 42 Effect of Russet Burbank plant population on tuber grade

1 100% 1.39 a 4.52 a 6.2 a 10.4 a

2 120% 0.76 a 4.08 a 8.3 a 10.3 a

Hollowheart

by #

Hollowheart

by wtTreatment

Average Tuber

Size (oz)% Rough

NSD NSD NSDLSD (P=.05) NSD

55.7CV 8.64113.73 95.4

0.5200 0.7023 0.9798Prob(F) 0.1887

42

Table 43 Effect of Russet Burbank plant population on tuber quality

1 100% 1.0915 a 0.03 a 10.0 a

2 120% 1.0901 a 0.03 a 12.5 a

Specific

Gravity

Mean fry

colour

% sugar

ends

15-Oct

Treatment

230.94 60.2CV 0.18

NSD NSD NSDLSD (P=.05)

0.3951 1.0000 0.6376Prob(F)

Table 44 Effect of Ranger Russet plant population on tuber grade

1 100% 2.65 a 4.98 a 0.0 a 0.0 a

2 120% 3.55 a 4.76 a 0.0 a 0.0 a

NSDLSD (P=.05) NSD

% Hollowheart

by #

%

Hollowheart Treatment

Average

Tuber Size % Rough

NSD NSD

0.0 0.0

1.0000 1.00000.4892Prob(F) 0.6547

12.4852.11CV

Table 45 Effect of Ranger Russet plant population on tuber quality

1 100% 1.0870 a 0.03 a 0.0 a

2 120% 1.0862 a 0.00 a 2.5 a

Specific

Gravity

Mean fry

colour % sugar ends

05-Oct

Treatment

0.22 282.8 282.8CV

NSD NSD NSDLSD (P=.05)

1.0000 0.3910 0.3910Prob(F)

43

Evaluation of Late Blight Fungicide Programs

Funding:

• This project was supported by the Manitoba Horticulture Productivity Enhancement

Centre with funding from the Governments of Manitoba and Canada through the

Growing Forward, Strategic Innovation Fund-Advancing Agri-Innovation Program

MHPEC (Advancing Agri-Innovation Program) $21,510

• Syngenta - $6,000

• Bayer - $4,000

• Dupont - $4,000

• Engage - $4,000

• Agromart - $4,000

• BASF - $4,000


Summary:

2013 was one of the hottest and driest growing seasons on record. Environmental

conditions were not conducive to the development of late blight. The site was inoculated

with late blight (US24) in mid-July and some late blight did develop in the untreated checks.

No late blight developed in the fungicide treatments. Differences in the severity of late

blight symptoms between the check and the fungicide treatments did not result in a

difference in yield or grade.

Objective To assess the efficacy of various late blight foliar programs against late

blight of potato both preventatively and curatively.

Procedure:


Trial design: RCB, 4 replicates

Plot Location: Langruth, MB

Soil Type: Clay Loam

Variety: Ranger Russet


Foliar Application Method:

Equipment: Tractor mounted pneumatic sprayer

Nozzle Type: TurboDrop TD 015 venturi and a 110-04 nozzle

Nozzle Spacing: 50 cm

Nozzle Height: 45 cm

Pressure: 80 psi (550 kPa)

Volume: 225 L/ha

Inoculation: On July 15th

, the plots were inoculated with late blight (US 24).

44

Table 46 List of Fungicide Treatments

#1 / June 27 #2 / July 6 #3 / July 12 #4 / July 17 #5 / July 27 #6 / August 1 #7 / August 8 #8 / August 17 #9 August 22 #10 August 28 #11 / September 13

1 Check X X X X X X X X X X X

2 Mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

3 Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn

4 Revus/Protectant Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Revus Bravo Zn Revus Bravo Zn Revus Bravo Zn Revus Bravo Zn Bravo

5 Allegro/Protectant Bravo Zn Allegro Bravo Zn Allegro Bravo Zn Allegro Bravo Zn Allegro Allegro Allegro Allegro

6 Syngenta Program Bravo Zn + Quadris Bravo Zn Quadris + Revus Bravo Zn Revus Top Bravo Zn Revus Top Allegro Allegro Allegro Revus Tops

7 Curzate/Protectant mancozeb mancozeb Curzate + Manzate mancozeb Curzate + Manzate mancozeb Curzate + Manzate mancozeb Curzate + Manzate mancozeb Curzate + Manzate

8 Tanos/Protectant mancozeb mancozeb Tanos + Manzate mancozeb Tanos + Manzate mancozeb Tanos + Manzate mancozeb Tanos + Manzate mancozeb Tanos + Manzate

9 4 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

10 3 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

11 2 app. Confine @5.8L/Ha mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb Confine + mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

12 Phostrol @ 5.8L/Ha (3 app) mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

13 Phostrol @ 2.9L/Ha (4 app) mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb Phostrol + mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

14 Reason/Protectant Reason + Bravo Bravo Zn Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb Reason + mancozeb mancozeb + Reason

15 Tattoo/Protectant mancozeb Mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb Tattoo mancozeb Tattoo mancozeb Tattoo mancozeb

16 Zampro/Protectant mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb Zampro mancozeb Zampro mancozeb Zampro mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

17 Cabrio Plus/protectant mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb Cabrio Plus mancozeb Cabrio Plus mancozeb Cabrio Plus mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb

18 Gavel/Protectant mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb Gavel mancozeb Gavel mancozeb Gavel mancozeb

19 Ranman/Protectant Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Ranman Bravo Zn Ranman Bravo Zn Ranman Bravo

20 Grower Program #1 Bravo Zn Bravo Zn Revus Bravo Zn Revus Bravo Zn Curzate + Manzate Ranman Bravo Zn Ranman Bravo

21 Grower Program #2 Curzate + Manzate Mancozeb Curzate + Manzate Bravo Zn Revus Gavel mancozeb Gavel Bravo Zn Gavel Bravo

22 Grower Program #3 Bravo Zn mancozeb Bravo Zn Revus mancozeb Revus Bravo Zn Allegro Allegro Allegro Bravo

23 Grower Program #4 mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb mancozeb Curzate + Manzate mancozeb Revus mancozeb Allegro Revus

Treatment/ProgramTrt.

No.

Application Number/ Date

45

Results: Disease Assessment (Table 47)

Disease symptoms were first observed on July 27th. Late blight developed after precipitation

events, but became inactive and senesced during hot, dry spells. The senesced or necrotic

lesions could no longer be identified as late blight, so senescence rather than a late blight

assessment was conducted. There was no late blight lesions observed in the fungicide

treatment (#s 2-23). Any senescence in these treatments was caused by drought stress,

insect damage, etc. All treatments (#s 2-23) had less senescent tissue than the untreated

check (#1). The difference in senescent ratings between the check (#1) and fungicide

treatments (#s 2-23) would be due to late blight. There was no difference in the amount of

senescent tissue between fungicide treatments (#s 2-23).

Table 47 Assessment of percent senescence

1 Check 7.3 a 10.3 a 20.0 a 46.3 a

2 Mancozeb 4.3 bcd 6.0 bcd 11.0 bc 23.8 bc

3 Bravo Zn 3.5 cde 5.0 cd 11.0 bc 23.8 bc

4 Revus/Protectant 4.0 b-e 6.2 bc 12.0 bc 26.3 bc

5 Allegro/Protectant 3.8 b-e 5.0 cd 11.5 bc 25.0 bc

6 Syngenta Program 4.5 bc 5.5 bcd 12.8 bc 21.3 c

7 Curzate/Protectant 4.3 bcd 6.5 b 12.8 bc 25.0 bc

8 Tanos/Protectant 3.3 de 5.5 bcd 11.8 bc 25.0 bc

9 4 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha 3.3 de 5.2 bcd 10.8 bc 23.8 bc

10 3 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha 3.5 cde 5.5 bcd 12.0 bc 25.0 bc

11 2 app. Confine @5.8L/Ha 3.8 b-e 5.7 bcd 13.5 b 26.3 bc

12 Phostrol @ 5.8L/Ha (3 app) 3.3 de 5.0 d 11.8 bc 26.3 bc

13 Phostrol @ 2.9L/Ha (4 app) 3.8 b-e 5.0 d 10.5 c 23.8 bc

14 Reason/Protectant 4.8 b 6.0 bcd 12.8 bc 27.5 bc

15 Tattoo/Protectant 3.8 b-e 5.2 bcd 11.5 bc 25.0 bc

16 Zampro/Protectant 3.3 de 5.0 cd 11.0 bc 23.8 bc

17 Cabrio Plus/protectant 3.3 de 5.5 bcd 11.5 bc 26.3 bc

18 Gavel/Protectant 4.0 b-e 5.7 bcd 13.0 bc 28.8 b

19 Ranman/Protectant 3.5 cde 5.0 cd 11.5 bc 26.3 bc

20 Grower Program #1 3.8 b-e 5.2 bcd 11.0 bc 23.8 bc



23 Grower Program #4 3.0 e 5.2 bcd 11.3 bc 23.8 bc

16.7

Treatment 30-Aug 07-Sep 14-Sep


17.6

6.5

% Senescence

21-Sep

0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

LSD (P=.05) 1.2 2.9

CV 22.5 7.2

46

Results: Yield and Grade (Table 48)

There was no difference in yield or grade between treatments despite the greater amount of

senescence (late blight) in the check. The difference in senescence between the check and

fungicide treatments did not occur until September when the plants were nearly mature, so

there was too little time for a yield difference to develop.

Table 48 Yield and Grade

1 Check 42.2 a 186.1 a 228.3 a

2 Mancozeb 22.2 a 221.5 a 243.7 a

3 Bravo Zn 38.7 a 201.5 a 240.3 a

4 Revus/Protectant 31.3 a 200.3 a 231.6 a

5 Allegro/Protectant 37.1 a 217.6 a 254.7 a

6 Syngenta Program 40.5 a 205.9 a 246.4 a

7 Curzate/Protectant 34.6 a 196.4 a 231.0 a

8 Tanos/Protectant 38.9 a 195.9 a 234.8 a

9 4 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha 26.1 a 204.8 a 230.9 a

10 3 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha 37.6 a 201.9 a 239.5 a

11 2 app. Confine @5.8L/Ha 38.1 a 200.8 a 238.9 a

12 Phostrol @ 5.8L/Ha (3 app) 35.6 a 208.2 a 243.8 a

13 Phostrol @ 2.9L/Ha (4 app) 31.9 a 216.3 a 248.2 a

14 Reason/Protectant 34.7 a 198.7 a 233.4 a

15 Tattoo/Protectant 37.2 a 221.1 a 258.3 a

16 Zampro/Protectant 36.2 a 216.3 a 252.5 a

17 Cabrio Plus/protectant 30.2 a 221.3 a 251.5 a

18 Gavel/Protectant 36.2 a 207.5 a 243.7 a

19 Ranman/Protectant 36.3 a 218.4 a 254.7 a

20 Grower Program #1 32.8 a 214.7 a 247.5 a




Treatment Prob(F) 0.8785 0.0813 0.2006

LSD (P=.05) 16.3 22.8 22.0

CV 33.0 7.7 6.4

Yield (cwt/ac)

Treatment Undersize Marketable Total Yield

47

Results: Storage Analysis (Table 49)

At harvest, a 20 lb random sample was collected from each plot and placed into storage. On

December 17th the samples were weighed and graded to determine the percent rot and

shrink.

Table 49 Percent rot and shrink

1 Check 0.85 a 5.61 ab

2 Mancozeb 0.32 a 5.66 ab

3 Bravo Zn 0.00 a 4.40 cd

4 Revus/Protectant 0.38 a 4.01 d

5 Allegro/Protectant 1.08 a 4.06 d

6 Syngenta Program 0.00 a 4.47 cd

7 Curzate/Protectant 0.00 a 4.14 d

8 Tanos/Protectant 0.00 a 4.21 d

9 4 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha 0.00 a 5.69 a

10 3 app. Confine @ 5.8L/Ha 0.57 a 5.29 abc

11 2 app. Confine @5.8L/Ha 0.00 a 4.16 d

12 Phostrol @ 5.8L/Ha (3 app) 0.00 a 4.41 cd

13 Phostrol @ 2.9L/Ha (4 app) 0.00 a 4.75 a-d

14 Reason/Protectant 1.27 a 4.18 d

15 Tattoo/Protectant 0.32 a 4.28 d

16 Zampro/Protectant 0.00 a 4.33 cd

17 Cabrio Plus/protectant 0.26 a 4.95 a-d

18 Gavel/Protectant 0.32 a 4.06 d

19 Ranman/Protectant 0.33 a 4.68 bcd

20 Grower Program #1 1.38 a 4.52 cd

21 Grower Program #2 0.44 a 4.20 d

22 Grower Program #3 0.63 a 4.02 d

23 Grower Program #4 0.78 a 4.78 a-d

Treatment Prob(F) 0.6533 0.0046

LSD (P=.05) 1.32 1.00

CV 240.7 15.5

Treatment % rot % shrink

Dec-17

48

Starch Variety Evaluation for the Manitoba Potato Industry

Funding: Growing Forward

Progress: First Year


Summary:

Potato production for starch extraction is a key segment of the potato market in Europe.

There, production is regulated by a quota system and almost 2 million tons of potato starch

can be produced each year from 250,000 hectares producing a harvest of around 10 million

tons of starch potatoes. Europe is the world leader for potato starch, accounting for 80%

of global production. The European potato starch industry consists of 14,000 farmers and

4000 employees in the starch industry. The key production regions are in Germany, the

Netherlands, France, Denmark, Poland and Sweden due to EU subsidies that support this

industry. In North America, potato starch is mainly extracted from surplus potatoes or

potato waste byproduct from French fry potato processing industry. Contracting potato

production specifically for starch production hasn’t been economically feasible in North

America as it is not possible to compete with the subsidized European starch production.

Phasing out of EU subsidies could change the economics of growing potatoes for starch. If

potatoes are to be contracted for starch production in Manitoba in the future, it will be

necessary to identify suitable varieties.

Objectives:

1. To identify varieties that might be suitable for starch production in Manitoba

2. Evaluate varieties under Manitoba conditions for production of starch.

3. Establish a seed nursery to localize potato varieties for future trials.

Procedure:



Plot location: Yield Trial: CMCDC Carberry Nursery: CMCDC Portage la Prairie

Crop: Potatoes

49


Soil type: Wellwood, Clay Loam

Planting date: May 10

Harvest date: Sept 20

The seed potato industry was consulted to obtain varieties suitable for starch production.

Nine varieties were included in the replicated yield trial (Table 50). Information about the

spacing and nitrogen requirements for each variety was gathered from industry and from

the literature. All of these varieties plus Horizon (available only as mini tubers in 2012) were

included in a seed nursery to provide seed for 2013 (Table 51). The nursery provides the

added benefit of localizing the seed, growing all varieties under uniform conditions.

Table 50 Replicated trial variety list with seed spacing and N applications.

Seed Spacing

(in)

@ Plant

(May 10)

@ Hilling

(June 18)

1 Alturas 12 80 25

2 Aquilon 15 80 25

3 Atlantic 10 80 60

4 Ivory Crisp 10 80 80

5 AR2012-13 F07071 (F96015 x Russette) 12 80 80

6 Lady Rosetta 12 80 80

7 Ranger Russet 12 80 80

8 Verdi 15 80 60

9 Alpine Russet 12 80 80

Variety / Clone

NO3-N (lbs/ac)

Table 51 Seed nursery variety list.

1 Alturas

2 Aquilon

3 Atlantic

4 Ivory Crisp

5 AR2012-13 F07071 (F96015 x Russette)

6 Lady Rosetta

7 Ranger Russet

8 Verdi

9 Alpine Russet

10 Horizon

Variety / Clone

50

Results:

Senescence ratings were conducted on September 14th and 20th (Table 52). Aquilon and

F07071 had senesced the most by that point. It should be noted that Alturas showed some

yellowing throughout September, suggesting it may have run low on nitrogen.

Table 52 Senescence ratings.

1 Alturas 6.3 cd 27.5 b

2 Aquilon 23.8 ab 63.8 a

3 Atlantic 20.0 b 50.0 a

4 Ivory Crisp 10.0 c 31.3 b

5 F07071 28.8 a 55.0 a

6 Lady Rosetta 5.0 cd 20.0 b

7 Ranger Russet 3.5 d 22.5 b

8 Verdi 5.5 cd 26.3 b

9 Alpine Russet 7.5 cd 31.3 b

% Senescence

Treatment 14-Sep 20-Sep


LSD (P=.05) 5.5 14.9

CV 30.6 28.0

Yield (Table 53) and dry matter production (Table 54) are tabulated below. Ranger Russet

had the highest total yield, although not significantly different from Ivory Crisp, Atlantic,

F07071, and Aquilon. There were 4 varieties that had average specific gravity in excess of

1.100 – Verdi, Ivory Crisp, Lady Rosetta and F07071. Dry matter per acre takes into account

both the production of solids and total tuber yield. Preliminary results indicate that Ivory

Crisp, Atlantic, F07071 and Ranger Russet have the best combination of yield and production

of solids under the growing conditions of 2012. The 2012 season was somewhat atypical

with long periods of heat. Additionally, seed was acquired from a number of different

sources grown in widely varying environments. Because of this, additional information

should be gathered on these varieties before assumptions are made about their

performance under Manitoba conditions.

Tuber samples have been submitted for evaluation of the quantity and quality of starch.

51

Table 53 Tuber yield.

1 Alturas 67.1 b 350.6 c 417.7 de 20.0 e

2 Aquilon 15.8 d 450.7 ab 466.5 abc 31.5 bcd

3 Atlantic 47.7 bc 438.5 ab 486.2 abc 21.5 de

4 Ivory Crisp 17.0 d 475.3 a 492.4 ab 27.1 cde

5 F07071 24.0 d 457.4 ab 481.4 abc 33.0 abc

6 Lady Rosetta 99.8 a 351.4 c 451.2 cd 8.8 f

7 Ranger Russet 56.3 bc 441.7 ab 498.0 a 39.0 ab

8 Verdi 69.6 b 312.3 c 381.9 e 17.2 ef

9 Alpine Russet 38.9 cd 416.0 b 454.9 bcd 42.2 a

>10 oz

(%)

CV 33.1 7.4 5.7 25.5

LSD (P=.05) 23.4 44.4 38.1 9.9

Yield (cwt)

Treatment (<2") (>2") Total

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Table 54 Dry matter production.

1 Alturas 1.0898 d 9,527 f

2 Aquilon 1.0960 c 11,312 cd

3 Atlantic 1.0989 bc 12,158 abc

4 Ivory Crisp 1.1020 ab 12,663 a

5 F07071 1.1017 ab 12,349 ab

6 Lady Rosetta 1.1019 ab 11,599 bc

7 Ranger Russet 1.0961 c 12,127 abc

8 Verdi 1.1048 a 10,068 ef

9 Alpine Russet 1.0915 d 10,602 de

Treatment

LSD (P=.05) 0.0044 988

Specific

Gravity

Dry Matter

(lbs/ac)

CV 0.27 5.95


52

Effect of Fall Soil Preparation on Potato Yield and Grade 2010 - 2012

Funding: ARDI 50%



McCain Foods 16.7%

In Kind: Under the Hill, Glenboro, MB

Spud Plains, Carberry, MB

Progress: Final Year


Ltd.

Summary:

Several Manitoba potato growers are subsoiling, shaping beds and forming reservoir pockets

(dikes) in the fall prior to a potato crop. The expectation is that these procedures will

improve the soil environment and increase yield. Raised beds are more exposed to the air

and sunlight and may warm up quicker in the spring allowing for earlier planting. Reservoir

pockets will capture snowmelt preventing runoff into lower areas of the field, which causes

saturated soils. This will allow the field to dry more quickly and also facilitate earlier tillage

and planting in the spring. Earlier planting provides a longer growing season with the

potential to produce greater yields. The use of sub-soil tillage is expected to reduce soil

compaction and improve water infiltration and root development. This will improve water

and nutrient uptake by the plant ultimately leading to greater yields.

Compacted soils occur when the stress (weight) on the soil from farm equipment exceeds

the ability of the soil to support that stress. The soil is "squeezed" into a smaller volume (i.e.

compacted) at the expense of the larger soil pores. The potential for traffic to cause soil

compaction is greatest when the soil moisture content is high because water acts as a

lubricant allowing soil particles to slide past each other as the soil is compressed.

There are three types of soil compaction. Shallow compaction is limited to the upper 10 cm

(4 inches) of soil. A second type of compaction is plow pan or tillage pan formation, in which

a dense layer forms just below the depth of normal tillage. The third type of compaction is

deep compaction in the wheel tracks of heavy farm equipment under wet soil conditions. If

53

the soil is dry, deep subsoil compaction is less likely, even with high axle loads. Shallow soil

compaction is of short duration since the soil will loosen as it undergoes wetting and drying,

freezing and thawing, or normal tillage. Tillage pan and deep compaction are of longer

duration and cannot be solved with normal tillage. Subsoil tillage or deep ripping to a depth

of 30-45 cm (12-18 inches) may be required to break up compacted layers.

The symptoms of soil compaction are excessive clod formation and slower water infiltration,

especially in wheel tracks. Potatoes are sensitive to the physical condition of the soil. Dense

or compacted soil interferes with root penetration as well as water and nutrient uptake. The

plant will display symptoms of stress resulting in lower yield and poor quality (malformed

tubers, sugar end defect). Compacted soil zones can be identified by carefully inspecting root

growth patterns and soil texture in a 3-foot (0.9 m) deep trench.

In the fall of 2009, 2010 and 2011, a Dammer Diker was used to perform subsoil tillage,

shape beds and form reservoir pockets. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the effect of these

operations was evaluated on potato yield and quality. Soil temperature readings indicated

that fall bedding did not cause soil to warm faster in the spring than conventional tillage

methods. Penetrometer readings in July and August indicated that sub-soil tillage

significantly reduced soil density in the 0-12 inch profile in 3 of the 6 sites; however this

effect diminished over time due to tillage, traffic, precipitation and irrigation. There were no

differences in yield or grade between treatments at any of the sites.

Objective: Determine the effect of fall soil preparation on:

1. Soil temperature

2. Time of planting

3. Soil Moisture

4. Soil Compaction

5. Yield and Quality

Procedure:

Trial design: Strip trial - 4 replicates

Plot location: Cooperator fields in Carberry and Glenboro production areas

Variety: Russet Burbank


1) Unconventional fall tillage (subsoiled tillage and formation of hills and

reservoir pockets (dikes)).

2) Conventional tillage

54

Table 55 Soil Types

Location Year Soil Description Texture

Carberry 2010 Wellwood VFSL

2011 Wellwood VFSL

2012 Glenboro/Fairland VFSL

Glenboro 2010 VFSL

2011 VFSL

2012 VFSL

Table 56 List of tillage treatments 2010-2012

Year Location Crop 1

Treatment Fall 2

Spring Summer

2010 Carberry Wheat Unconventional Double disced followed by

bedding, subsoiling to 17"

and diking

Tilled once with a rotary

power cultivator

Hilled, subsoiled to 8"

between rows and reservoir

pockets formed

Conventional Double disced Tilled once with a rotary

power cultivator


between rows and diked

2010 Glenboro Canola Unconventional Bedded, subsoiling to 17"

and diked

Tilled once with a rotary

power cultivator



Conventional No tillage Tilled twice with a rotary

power cultivator




bedded, subsoiling to 17"

and diked

Deep tilled than tilled once

with a rotary power

cultivator



Conventional Double disced Deep tilled than tilled once

with a rotary power

cultivator



2011 Glenboro Canola Unconventional Double disced followed by


and diked

Cultivated than tilled once

with a rotary power

cultivator



Conventional No tillage Cultivated than tilled once

with a rotary power

cultivator





and diked

Deep tilled than tilled once

with a rotary power

cultivator

Power hilled, and diked

Conventional Double disced Deep tilled than tilled once

with a rotary power

cultivator

Power hilled, and diked

2012 Glenboro Wheat Unconventional Double disced followed by


and diked


with a rotary power

cultivator

Hilled once - no reservoir

pockets or dikes established

Conventional

No tillage


with a rotary power

cultivator

Hilled once - no reservoir

pockets or dikes established

1Crop year prior to potatoes

2 Fall Prior to potatoes

55

Plot size: Conventional tilled plots were established in commercial potato fields that

were bedded, subsoiled and diked. Conventional plot sizes varied depending

upon the size of the cooperator’s equipment and the length of the field. The

size of the conventional strips at Spud Plains was 144 by 2640 ft. (8.7 acres)

and Under the Hill was 57 by 2640 feet (3.5 acres).

Harvest: At harvest, adjacent 40 foot strips were harvested from each of the eight plots

at a site and a 50 lb random subsample was retained for grading. Harvest

strips from each treatment in a replicate were located no more than 10 rows

apart to minimize the effect of spatial differences in the field.

Results:

Soil temperature. In the fall, a Hobo temperature data logger was installed anywhere from 4

to 6 inches below the ground surface in each plot. The hobo data loggers were installed at

different depths between treatments to account for the difference in soil surface profile. The

objective was to install the data logger at the same depth as if the soil surface were level.

The data logger was installed 4 -5 inches below the ground surface in all conventional tillage

plots. In the subsoiled plots, the data logger was installed at the 5-6 inch depth at Carberry

where the hills were higher and 4-5 inches at Glenboro where the hills were shallower. Data

loggers were removed from the field when soil temperature was appropriate for planting.

This date ranged from April 17 to May 12 depending on seasonal temperature variations.

Analysis was conducted on the maximum daily temperature of the 26 days prior to removal.

There was no difference in temperature between treatments on any of the twenty six (26)

days, so subsoil and bedding would not have influenced planting date.

Soil Moisture (Figure 5)

After hilling, Echo EC-5 soil moisture sensors were installed 12 inches (30 cm) below the top

of the hill in each plot. Soil moisture data was collected from mid-July to mid-September.

The EC-5 determines volumetric water content (VWC) by measuring the dielectric constant

of the media using capacitance/frequency domain technology. Readings were adjusted for

differences in soil bulk density between treatments. In 2011, there were no differences in

soil moisture content between treatments. In 2012, the subsoil treatment at Carberry had

higher soils moisture content (p=0.05) than the conventional from 07/23 - 08/03. In 2012,

the conventional treatment at Glenboro had higher soil moisture content then the subsoil

treatment from 07/22-23 and on 07/26. These differences in soil moisture content were

too small and for too short of a duration to affect yield and quality.

56

Figure 5 Volumetric soil moisture readings for Carberry and Glenboro in 2011 and 2012

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

7/2

6/2

01

1

7/2

8/2

01

1

7/2

9/2

01

1

7/3

1/2

01

1

8/1

/20

11

8/3

/20

11

8/4

/20

11

8/6

/20

11

8/7

/20

11

8/9

/20

11

8/1

0/2

01

1

8/1

2/2

01

1

8/1

3/2

01

1

8/1

5/2

01

1

8/1

6/2

01

1

8/1

8/2

01

1

S

o

i

l

M

o

i

s

t

u

r

e

Carberry 2011 (W3/W3)

Sub-soil

Conventional

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

7/1

5/2

01

1

7/1

8/2

01

1

7/2

0/2

01

1

7/2

3/2

01

1

7/2

5/2

01

1

7/2

8/2

01

1

7/3

0/2

01

1

8/2

/20

11

8/4

/20

11

8/7

/20

11

8/9

/20

11

8/1

2/2

01

1

8/1

4/2

01

1

8/1

7/2

01

1

8/1

9/2

01

1

8/2

2/2

01

1

8/2

4/2

01

1

8/2

7/2

01

1

8/2

9/2

01

1

9/1

/20

11

9/3

/20

11

9/6

/20

11

9/8

/20

11

9/1

1/2

01

1

9/1

3/2

01

1

S

o

i

l

M

o

i

s

t

u

r

e

Glenboro 2011 (W3/W3)

Sub-soil

Conventional

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

7/1

3/2

01

3

7/1

6/2

01

3

7/1

9/2

01

3

7/2

2/2

01

3

7/2

5/2

01

3

7/2

8/2

01

3

7/3

1/2

01

3

8/3

/20

13

8/6

/20

13

8/9

/20

13

8/1

2/2

01

3

8/1

5/2

01

3

8/1

8/2

01

3

8/2

1/2

01

3

8/2

4/2

01

3

8/2

7/2

01

3

8/3

0/2

01

3

9/2

/20

13

9/5

/20

13

S

o

i

l

M

o

i

s

t

u

r

e

Carberry 2012 (W3/W3)

Sub-soil

Conventional

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

7/1

9/2

01

2

7/2

2/2

01

2

7/2

5/2

01

2

7/2

8/2

01

2

7/3

1/2

01

2

8/3

/20

12

8/6

/20

12

8/9

/20

12

8/1

2/2

01

2

8/1

5/2

01

2

8/1

8/2

01

2

8/2

1/2

01

2

8/2

4/2

01

2

8/2

7/2

01

2

8/3

0/2

01

2

9/2

/20

12

9/5

/20

12

9/8

/20

12

S

o

i

l

M

o

i

s

t

u

r

e

Glenboro 2012 W3/W3)

Sub-soil

Conventional

Soil compaction. In July and August, a penetrometer was used to determine soil density or

compaction. It consists of a 30-degree circular stainless steel cone with a driving shaft and a

pressure gauge (Figure 6). The tip is slightly wider than the driving shaft to limit friction of

the shaft with the soil. An operator pushes the penetrometer into the ground and the

resistance of the cone is displayed in pounds per square inch. Soil moisture content can

affect readings. Penetrometer readings are lower as soil moisture increases.

Soil compaction was significantly lower immediately after subsoil tillage in the fall, but the

effect tended to diminish with time due to vehicle traffic, tillage, rainfall and irrigation.

There was little difference in compaction between treatments near the end of the growing

season. In July and August, soil compaction in the 0-12 inch soil profile was less (p=0.05) in

the subsoiled treatment in 3 of the 6 sites and in the 12-24 inch profile in 1 of the 6 sites.

Figure 6 Penetrometer

Yield and Quality (Table 57 through

each plot and graded to determine yield (total, marketable and bonus) and grade (hollow

heart, specific gravity, sugar end defect, and fry colour). In 2011, the tuber size profile at

the Carberry site was smaller in the conventional than in the subsoiled tillage treatment.

This was evidenced by a higher yield of undersize tubers (p=0.02) and a lower percentage of

bonus tubers than in the subsoiled treatment. There were no other differences in yield and

grade between the tillage treatments.

Table 57 Effect of fall tillage methods on yield

1 Sub-Soil Tillage 44.0

2 Conventional Tillage 49.3

Treatment < 2"

Undersize

CV 6.5

LSD (P=.05) NSD


57

through Table 59. Forty (40) foot strips were harvested from

determine yield (total, marketable and bonus) and grade (hollow



s was evidenced by a higher yield of undersize tubers (p=0.02) and a lower percentage of


grade between the tillage treatments.

ect of fall tillage methods on yield at 2 sites over 3 years

44.0 a 352.8 a 396.8 a 37.5 a

49.3 a 354.2 a 403.5 a 35.3 a

< 2" > 2" Total (%)

Yield (cwt)

Undersize Marketable > 10 oz

6.5 1.8 1.3 4.6

NSD NSD NSD NSD

0.3201 0.8994 0.4746 0.4492

. Forty (40) foot strips were harvested from

determine yield (total, marketable and bonus) and grade (hollow



s was evidenced by a higher yield of undersize tubers (p=0.02) and a lower percentage of


58

Table 58 Effect of fall tillage methods on quality at 2 sites over 3 years

1 Sub-Soil Tillage 1.0867 a 10.6 a 16.1 a

2 Conventional Tillage 1.0882 a 8.2 a 11.9 a

Specific

Gravity

% Hollow

Heart by #

% Hollow

Heart by wtTreatment


CV 0.05 10.0 13.1

Treatment Prob(F) 0.1502 0.1548 0.2071

Table 59 Effect of fall tillage methods on fry colour and sugar end defect at 2 sites over 3

years

1 Sub-Soil Tillage 0.08 a 4.2 a 0.139 a 3.75 a

2 Conventional Tillage 0.08 a 3.3 a 0.122 a 4.27 a

Treatment


CV 27.21 43.42 17.09

Treatment Prob(F) 0.8254 0.7707 0.6708

% Sugar

End

Harvest January

Mean Fry

Colour

% Sugar

End

Mean Fry

Colour

NSD

19.15

0.6997

Conclusion:

In the fall of 2009, 2010 and 2011 a Dammer Diker was used to perform subsoil tillage, shape

beds and form reservoir pockets (diked). In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the effect of these

operations was evaluated on potato yield and quality. Soil temperature readings indicated

that fall bedding did not cause soil to warm faster in the spring than conventional methods.

Penetrometer readings in July and August indicated that sub-soil tillage significantly reduced

soil density in the 0-12 inch profile in 3 of the 6 sites; however no differences were

measured in rooting depth, yield or grade between treatments.

Tillage with a Dammer Diker in the fall prior to planting potatoes reduces the bulk density of

the soil, but the effect diminishes over time due to tillage, traffic, precipitation and irrigation.

The Dammer Diker is designed to subsoil and form beds and reservoir pockets (dikes) in the

fall. In the spring, the Dammer Diker is used a second time to subsoil and reshape the beds.

Planting takes place directly into the beds. Seed pieces are planted into soil with a low bulk

density. The Manitoba growers participating in this trial followed a modified program. In

the spring, the subsoiled fields were tilled prior to planting. Tillage and tractor traffic

compact the soil diminishing the effect of the fall subsoil tillage. The effect of subsoil tillage

continues to diminish because of planting, precipitation and irrigation. By mid-August there

is little difference in soil bulk density between the subsoiled and conventional plots. The

59

effect of subsoil tillage on yield may be greater if the Dammer Diker system was followed,

which maximizes the effect of subsoil tillage ensuring the lowest bulk density at the time of

planting.

60

Effect of Reservoir Tillage on Potato Yield and Grade

Funding: ARDI 50%



McCain Foods 16.7%

In Kind: Spud Plains Farms

Under the Hill

Hasket Farms

Progress: Third and final year


Ltd.

Summary

There are 60,000 acres of irrigated potatoes in Manitoba. Runoff from precipitation or

irrigation can be a problem in many of these irrigated fields with significant slope and fine

textured soils.

The rate at which a soil can absorb or take in water is called the infiltration rate. The rate at

which rainfall occurs or a sprinkler system applies water is called the application rate. If the

application rate is higher than the soil’s infiltration rate, some of the water will collect on the

surface, creating a potential for runoff. If there is a path downhill, the water will not stand,

but will form runoff stream carrying water away from where it was applied. Although the

stream may not leave the field boundary, it can create a problem since the water no longer

will be where it can effectively provide crop water needs. Runoff water is wasted water. It

also wastes energy, wastes topsoil, and can be a pollutant by carrying off sediments,

fertilizer, and pesticides. Ultimately yield and quality is lost. Runoff causes high knolls and

slopes to suffer drought conditions and for depressions to become saturated. Both

conditions cause crop stress and yield loss. In addition, water trapped in field depressions

seeps through the soil and leaches nitrogen into the ground water.

Soil texture, soil structure, and slope have the largest impact on infiltration rate. Water

moves by gravity into the open pore spaces in the soil, and the size of the soil particles and

their spacing determines how much water can flow in. Wide pore spacing at the soil surface

61

increases the rate of water infiltration, so coarse soils have a higher infiltration rate than fine

soils. Considerable runoff can occur where there is significant slope combined with a fine

texture soil.

There are several strategies for controlling runoff. Reduce the application rate of irrigation

equipment, use tillage methods that leave crop residue on the soil surface, which shields the

soil from water droplets or perform reservoir tillage, which alters the soil surface so that the

infiltration rate is increased and excess water is retained giving more time for infiltration.

Reservoir tillage consists of a sub-soil or ripper shank pulled at a depth of about 8 inches,

followed by a paddle wheel which penetrates to the depth of the shank, forming pits

(reservoirs) with small dikes between the pits (Figure 7). The reservoirs trap water allowing

it to infiltrate into the soil thus preventing runoff down slopes into field depressions. A five

year Idaho study demonstrated that the percent runoff from conventional tillage was 14%

compared to only 4% for reservoir tillage. Reservoir tillage increased yield by an average of

15%.

A three year (five site years) study commenced in 2010 comparing reservoir tillage to

conventional tillage practices in Manitoba. In 2010, two sites were established. Reservoir

tillage was observed to prevent runoff into field depressions. In 2011 only one site was

established due to excessive precipitation in early summer. In 2010 and 2011 it was

observed that by mid-season rainfall and irrigation eroded the reservoirs on slopes rendering

them ineffective in preventing runoff. Erosion was most pronounced on the steeper slopes

composed of coarse sand. It is not practical to reestablish the depressions because the

operation would damage the foliage and root system of the crop. In 2012, two sites were

established on fields with less slope than previous sites. These sites received below average

amounts of rainfall throughout the growing season. The reservoir pockets were still present

at harvest in September. In all 5 station years there was no difference in yield and quality

between treatments, with the exception of lower specific gravity in the reservoir tillage

treatment at the 2010 Carberry site.

62

Figure 7. Illustration of reservoirs (pits) formed with subsoil tillage and paddle. Courtesy of

Pacific Northwest Extension Publication titled Irrigation Runoff Control Strategies

Objective: Determine the effect of reservoir tillage (inter-row ripping and

formation of reservoirs) on potato yield and quality.

Procedure:

Plot locations: Table 60

Plot size: Plots were at least 16 rows to 24 rows wide by one-half mile.

Trial design: Strip trial - 4 replicates

Treatments: 1) Reservoir tillage - inter-row ripping and formation of reservoirs was

performed after hilling (Figure 8).

2) Untreated check was established in a field No reservoir tillage

Variety: Russet Burbank

Harvest: Forty (40) foot strips were harvested from three locations (top, middle

and bottom of a slope (Figure 9) in each of the eight plots and a 50 lb

random subsample was retained for grading. Harvest strips from each

treatment in a replicate were located no more than 10 rows apart to

minimize the effect of spatial differences in the field.

Table 60 Plot location

Year Location Soil Type

2010 Carberry Loam

2010 Glenboro Loamy sand

2011 Carberry Sand

2012 Glenboro Loamy sand

2012 Winkler Fine sandy loam

Figure 8 Reservoirs formed by subsoil

Figure 9 Location of harvest samples within a treatment

63

Soil Type Slope

Loam Steep

Loamy sand Steep

Sand Steep

Loamy sand Moderate

Fine sandy loam Gentle

Reservoirs formed by subsoil tillage and paddle

Location of harvest samples within a treatment

64

Results Yield and Grade (Table 61, Table 62 and Table 63)

Analysis of individual sites indicated that there were no differences in the yield or quality

between treatments. Analysis of the combined data from 5 sites also indicated there were

no differences in yield and grade between treatments.

Table 61. Effect of reservoir tillage and slope on yield and grade.

Reservoir Conventional Probability LSD(.05)

Bottom 36.3 43.4 39.8 Tillage 0.9999 NSD

Mid 40.8 40.5 40.7 Slope 0.9999 NSD

Top 45.8 41.2 43.5 Tillage x Slope 0.1586 NSD

41.0 41.7



Mid 322.8 324.5 323.6 Slope 0.9999 NSD


320.0 321.5



Mid 363.6 365.0 364.3 Slope 0.9999 NSD


361.0 363.2



Mid 32.9 35.8 34.3 Slope 0.9999 NSD


32.4 33.2

Undersize cwt/ac

Marketable cwt/ac

Total cwt/ac

% > 10 oz

65

Table 62. Effect of reservoir tillage and slope on specific gravity and hollow heart.



Mid 1.0853 1.0882 1.0868 Slope 0.3021 NSD


1.0856 1.0865



Mid 10.0 8.3 9.1 Slope 0.9999 NSD


9.1 9.5



Mid 12.9 13.2 13.0 Slope 0.9999 NSD


12.1 13.6

% HH by Number

Specific Gravity

% HH by Weight

66

Table 63 Effect of reservoir tillage and slope on fry colour and sugar end defect.



Mid 0.13 0.15 0.14 Slope 0.9999 NSD


0.15 0.12



Mid 10.5 12.2 11.4 Slope 0.9999 NSD


8.74 10.91

Mean Fry Colour - January



Mid 0.16 0.13 0.14 Slope 0.3631 NSD


0.14 0.10

% Sugar Ends - January



Mid 10.8 13.5 12.1 Slope 0.9999 NSD


9.9 11.4

Mean Fry Colour - Harvest

% Sugar Ends - Harvest

Conclusion:

A 5 site year study was conducted from 2010 to 2012 comparing reservoir tillage to

conventional practices in Manitoba. In 2011, only 1 site was established due to excessive

precipitation in early summer. In 2010, reservoir tillage was observed to prevent runoff into

field depressions, but this did not result in a yield increase. In 2010 and 2011 it was observed

that by mid-season intense rainfall events and irrigation eroded the reservoirs on slopes

rendering them ineffective in preventing runoff. The amount of erosion was affected by the

degree of slope and the texture of the soil. Erosion was most pronounced on the steeper

slopes composed of coarse sand. It is not practical to reestablish the depressions because

67

the operation would damage the foliage and root system of the crop. In 2012, two sites were

established on fields with less slope than previous sites. These sites received below average

amounts of rainfall throughout the growing season, so reservoir pockets were still present at

harvest. In all 5 station years there was no difference in yield and quality between

treatments, with the exception of lower specific gravity in the reservoir tillage treatment at

the 2010 Carberry site.

keystone potato producers association mccain foods …€¦ · keystone potato producers...

Documents