Commercial Quality of Potato Tubers of Different Varieties from Organic and Conventional Production System
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.2. Measurement Methods
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. The Significance of the Studied Factors
3.2. The Share of Tuber Defects and Yield Structure Depending on the Production System
3.3. The Share of Tuber Defects and Yield Structure Depending on the Variety
3.4. The Share of Tuber Defects and Yield Structure Depending on the Atmospheric Conditions in the Years
3.5. The Magnitude of the Influence of the Studied Factors on the Commercial Quality of Tubers
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- EUROSTAT. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lucas/database/2022 (accessed on 19 March 2024).
- Frinckh, M.R.; Schulte-Geldemann, E.; Bruns, C. Challenges to organic potato farming: Disease and nutrient management. Potato Res. 2006, 49, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asakaviciute, R.; Brazinskiene, V.; Razukas, A. Late blight Phytophtora infestans (Mont.) de Bary resistance evaluation in ten Lithuanian potato cultivars. Icel. Agric. Sci. 2013, 26, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, M.W.; Cooper, J.; Tétard-Jones, C.; Srednicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Eyre, M.; Shotton, P.N.; Volakakis, N.; Cakmak, I.; Oztruk, L.; et al. The influence of organic and conventional fertilisation and crop protection practices, preceding crop, harvest year and weather conditions on yield and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum) in a long-term management trial. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 49, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margus, K.; Eremeev, V.; Loit, E.; Runno-Paurson, E.; Mäeorg, E.; Luik, A.; Talgre, L. Impact of Farming System on Potato Yield and Tuber Quality in Northern Baltic Sea Climate Conditions. Agriculture 2022, 12, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erich, M.S.; Fitzgerald, C.B.; Porter, G.A. The effect of organic amendments on phosphorus chemistry in potato cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 88, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, D.H.; Sharifi, M.; Hammermeister, A.; Burton, D. Nitrogen management in organic potato production. In Sustainable Potato Production: Global Case Studies; He, Z., Larkin, R., Honeycutt, W., Eds.; Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002.
- Van Delden, A. Yield and growth of potato and wheat under organic N- Management. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1370–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möller, K.; Habermeyer, J.; Zinkernagel, V.; Reents, H. Impact and Interaction of Nitrogen and Phytophthora infestans as Yield-limiting and Yield-reducing Factors in Organic Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Crops. Potato Res. 2007, 49, 281–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzyńska, K.; Pietraszko, M. Differences in the degree of nutrition of potato plants grown under organic and conventional systems—An attempt to develop a model of plant feeding. J. Elem. 2021, 26, 1037–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djaman, K.; Irmak, S.; Koudahe, K.; Allen, S. Irrigation management in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) production: A review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzyńska, K.; Boguszewska-Mankowska, D.; Nosalewicz, A. Differences in size and architecture of the potato cultivars root system and their tolerance to drought stress. Plant. Soil Environ. 2017, 63, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero, A.P.; Alarcón, A.; Valbuena, R.I.; Galeano, C.H. Physiological assessment of water stress in potato using spectral information. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, R.G.; Gross, K.L.; Robertson, G.P. Effects of crop diversity on agroecosystem function: Crop yield response. Ecosystems 2008, 11, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; van Ittersum, M.K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seufuret, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djaman, K.; Sanogo, S.; Koudahe, K.; Allen, S.; Saibou, A.; Essah, S. Characteristics of Organically Grown Compared to Conventionally Grown Potato and the Processed Products: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzyńska, K.; Trawczyński, C.; Pietraszko, M. Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System. Agriculture 2023, 13, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingallina, C.; Spano, M.; Sobolev, A.P.; Esposito, C.; Santarcangelo, C.; Baldi, A.; Daglia, M.; Mannina, L. Characterization of local products for their industrial use: The case of Italian potato cultivars analyzed by untargeted and targeted methodologies. Foods 2020, 9, 1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustavsen, G.W. Sustainability and potato consumption. Potato Res. 2021, 64, 571–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzyńska, K.; Goliszewski, W. The role of cultivar in organic potato production. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2006, 51, 214–219. [Google Scholar]
- Gransedt, A.; Kjellenberg, L.; Roinila, P. Long term field experiment in Sweeden: Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil fertility and crop quality. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Boston, Tufts University, Agricultural Production and Nutrition, Boston, MA, USA, 19–21 March 1997; pp. 79–90. [Google Scholar]
- Stein-Bachinger, K.; Werner, W. Effect of manure on crop yield and quality in organic agricultural system. Biol. Agric. Hort. 1997, 14, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajslová, J.; Schulzová, V.; Slanina, P.; Janné, K.; Hellenäs, K.E.; Andersson, C. Quality of organically and conventionally grown potatoes: Four-year study of micronutrients, metals, secondary metabolites, enzymic browning and organoleptic properties. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22, 514–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ierna, A.; Parisi, B.; Melilli, M.G. Overall Quality of “Early” Potato Tubers as Affected by Organic Cultivation. Agronomy 2022, 12, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Delden, A.; Schroder, J.J.; Kropff, M.J.; Grashoff, C.; Booij, R. Simulated potato yield, and crop and soil nitrogen dynamics under different organic nitrogen management strategies in the Netherlands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 96, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rees, H.W.; Chow, T.L.; Zebarth, B.J.; Xing, Z.; Toner, P.; Lavoie, J.; Daigle, J.L. Effects of supplemental poultry manure applications on soil erosion and runoff water quality from a loam soil under potato production in northwestern New Brunswick. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 91, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernard, E.; Larkin, R.P.; Tavantzis, S.; Erich, M.S.; Alyokhin, A.; Gross, S.D. Rapeseed rotation, compost and biocontrol amendments reduce soilborne diseases and increase tuber yield in organic and conventional potato production systems. Plant. Soil. 2014, 374, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, A.D.; Satterwhite, M.; Olsen, N.L.; Frazier, M.J. Russet Burbank potato response to repeated dairy manure applications in Kimberly, Idaho: Initial findings. In Proceedings of the Washington State Potato Conference, Kennewick, WA, USA, 26–28 January 2016; Available online: https://www.nwpotatoresearch.com/images/documents/Moore%20et%20al%20Proceedings%202016.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2024).
- Tein, B.; Kauer, K.; Runno-Paurson, E.; Eremeev, V.; Luik, A.; Selge, A.; Loit, E. The potato tuber disease occurrence as affected by conventional and organic farming systems. Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 662–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzyńska, K.; Jończyk, K. Yield and commercial tuber quality of potatoes grown under two crop production systems in different environmental conditions. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Engin. 2017, 62, 186–192. [Google Scholar]
- Larkin, R.P.; Griffin, T.S. Control of soilborne diseases of potato using Brassica green manures. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1067–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Termorshuizen, A.J.; Van Rijn, E.; Van der Gaag, D.J.; Alabouvette, C.; Chen, Y.; Lagerlof, J.; Malandrakis, A.A.; Paplomatas, E.J.; Ramert, B.; Ryckeboer, J.; et al. Suppressiveness of 18 composts against 7 pathosystems: Variability in pathogen response. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 2461–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, K.L.; Lazarovits, G. Suppressing soil-borne diseases with residues management and organic amendments. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 72, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenc, L. The influence of seed potato pre-germination on the occurrence of Rhizoctonia solani Kühn on sprouts and tubers of six potato varieties grown in an organic system. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Engin. 2006, 51, 104–107. [Google Scholar]
- Maggio, A.; Carillo, P.; Bulmetti, G.S.; Fuggi, A.; Barbieri, G.; De Pascale, S. Potato yield and metabolic profiling under conventional and organic farming. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzyńska, K.; Pietraszko, M. Influence of climatic conditions on development and yield of potato plants growing under organic and conventional systems in Poland. Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazimierczak, R.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Hallmann, E.; Kopczyńska, K.; Zarzyńska, K. The impact of organic vs. conventional agricultural practices on selected quality features of eight potato cultivars. Agronomy 2019, 9, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, T.; Schuler, C.; Kolsch, E.; Heb, J. The influence of variety, stand density and tuber seed size on yield and grading of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in organic farming. In Proceedings of the 15th Triennial Conference of EAPR, Hamburg, Germany, 14–19 July 2002; Wenzel, G., Wulfert, I., Eds.; WPR Communication GmbH and co KG: Hamburg, Germany, 2002; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
- Koppel, M. Selection of potato varieties for organic growing. In Proceedings of the Abstracts of Conference Papers, EAPR Patology Section Meeting, Bonin, Poland, 10–15 February 2001; pp. 73–74. [Google Scholar]
- El Hage Scialabba, N.; Hattam, C. Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002; p. 252. [Google Scholar]
- Skrabule, I.; Gaile, Z.; Vigovskis, J. Optimizing agricultural output production: Theory and praxis. Evaluation of potato varieties for organic farming. Latv. J. Agron. 2005, 8, 348. [Google Scholar]
- Jankowska, J.; Lutomirska, B.; Pietraszko, M. Occurrence of common scab on potato tubers depending on meteorological conditions. Polish Potato. 2015, 4, 23–29. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Lutomirska, B. The influence of meteorological factors on the infection of potato tubers with common scab. Prog. Plant Prot. 2008, 48, 216–220. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Wanner, L.A. A survey of genetic variation in Streptomyces isolates causing potato common scab in the United States. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 1363–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crop Production Practice | Organic System | Conventional System |
---|---|---|
Fertilization | manure—28 t∙ha−1 + mustard as a catch crop | 4–5 t plowed straw + 1 kg mineral nitrogen per 100 kg straw N: 100 kg∙ha−1 P: 53 kg∙ha−1 K: 150 kg∙ha−1 |
Weed control | only mechanical | mechanical + herbicides Linurex—1.8∙ha−1, Titus + Trend 60 g∙ha−1 + 0.5 L∙ha−1 |
Colorado potato beetle control | biological insecticide Spin Tor 240 SC (Spinosad) 2 times per season—0.15 L∙ha−1 | chemical insecticides: Actara—2 times per season 60 g∙ha−1 Apacz-40 g∙ha−1 |
Late blight control | copper fungicides Miedzian 50 3 L∙ha−1—2 times per season | chemical fungicides Ridomil 2 L∙ha−1, Revus—0.6 L∙ha−1, Ranman 0.2 L∙ha−1, Altima 0.4 L∙ha−1 |
Variety | Maturity Group | Skin/Flesh Color | Resistance to Phytophthora infestans * |
---|---|---|---|
Pogoria | very early | yellow/yellow | 3 |
Bohun | early | yellow/yellow | 3 |
Ismena | early | yellow/yellow | 3 |
Irmina | mid early | yellow/yellow | 4 |
Gardena | mid early | pink/yellow | 7 |
Jelly | mid late | yellow/yellow | 5 |
Year/ Month | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P (mm) | T (°C) | P (mm) | T (°C) | P (mm) | T (°C) | P (mm) | T (°C) | P (mm) | T (°C) | P (mm) | T (°C) | |
2020 | 5.6 | 8.8 | 6.3 | 11.6 | 113.8 | 18.7 | 40.4 | 19 | 120.7 | 20.1 | 51.8 | 15.5 |
2021 | 37.8 | 6.9 | 69.5 | 12.7 | 97.2 | 20.1 | 124.2 | 21.9 | 120.4 | 17.2 | 37.5 | 13.5 |
2022 | 3.1 | 6.9 | 3.9 | 13.6 | 66 | 19.3 | 107.3 | 20.8 | 25 | 21.8 | 50 | 12 |
Tested Parameter | Crop Production System | Variety | Year |
---|---|---|---|
Tuber defects | |||
Common scab | ** | - | ** |
Black scarf | - | * | * |
Deformations | * | ** | - |
Cracks | ** | ** | * |
Green tubers | * | * | * |
Pest damages | ** | - | * |
Rust spot | * | - | - |
Hollow hearts | - | * | - |
Tuber size distribution | |||
Share of small tubers (<35 mm) | ** | * | * |
Share of medium tubers (35–60 mm) | ** | - | - |
Share of large tubers (>60 mm) | ** | - | * |
Tested Feature/Crop Production System | Organic | Conventional |
---|---|---|
Common scab (%) | 68.3a | 41.3b |
Black scarf (%) | 26.2a | 31.9a |
Deformations (%) | 4.9b | 9.2a |
Cracks (%) | 2.4b | 5.4a |
Green tubers (%) | 4.3b | 7.5a |
Pest damage (%) | 6.8a | 0.2b |
Rust spot (nb/20 large tubers) | 0.06b | 0.61a |
Hollow hearts (nb/20 large tubers) | 0.46a | 0.22a |
Share of small tubers (<35 mm) (%) | 10.2a | 4.2b |
Share of medium tubers (35–60 mm) (%) | 84.5a | 65.2b |
Share of large tubers (>60 mm)(%) | 5.3b | 30.6a |
Tested Feature/Variety | Bohun | Pogoria | Ismena | Irmina | Gardena | Jelly |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Common scab (%) | 60.6a | 48.8a | 46.8a | 59.5a | 45.5a | 67.9a |
Black scarf (%) | 24.0ab | 41.9a | 12.8b | 37.2ab | 38.1ab | 19.7ab |
Deformations (%) | 3.1a | 3.5a | 3.5a | 5.9a | 18.7b | 4.2a |
Cracks (%) | 2.8b | 2.8b | 3.6b | 3.6b | 8.7a | 4.4ab |
Green tubers (%) | 3.4b | 5.1b | 7.7ab | 3.5b | 16.5a | 3.8b |
Pest damages (%) | 2.8a | 3.2a | 3.9a | 3.2a | 5.0a | 3.1a |
Rust spot (nb/20 large tubers) | 0.32a | 0.0a | 0.0a | 0.0a | 1.3a | 0.56a |
Hollow hearts (nb/20 large tubers) | 0.0b | 0.26b | 1.54a | 0.0b | 1.5a | 0.76ab |
Share of small tubers (<35 mm) (%) | 11.9a | 4.9b | 6.7ab | 8.8ab | 7.8ab | 3.0b |
Share of medium tubers (35–60 mm) (%) | 76.3a | 71.4a | 78.0a | 72.8a | 77.3a | 73.2a |
Share of large tubers (>60 mm) (%) | 11.7a | 23.7a | 15.4a | 18.4a | 14.8a | 23.9a |
Tested Feature/Year | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|
Common scab (%) | 38.8b | 47.8b | 77.7a |
Black scarf (%) | 27.2ab | 20.5b | 39.6a |
Deformations (%) | 7.2a | 8.4a | 5.7a |
Cracks (%) | 5.5a | 4.6a | 1.7b |
Green tubers (%) | 8.5a | 5.0ab | 5.0ab |
Pest damage (%) | 5.3a | 0.2b | 5.1a |
Rust spot (nb/20 large tubers) | 0.49a | 0.33a | 0.20a |
Hollow hearts (nb/20 large tubers) | 0.82a | 0.82a | 0.80a |
Share of small tubers (<35 mm) | 7.0ab | 9.9a | 4.8b |
Share of medium tubers (35–60 mm) | 73.4a | 78.9a | 77.2a |
Share of large tubers (>60 mm) | 19.7ab | 11.2b | 23.0a |
Tested Feature/Parameter | Production System | Genotype | Atmospheric Conditions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | F | p | F | p | |
Common scab | 14.189 | <0.001 | 1.060 | 0.403 | 10.708 | <0.001 |
Black scarf | 1.263 | 0.269 | 3.445 | 0.015 | 4.714 | 0.017 |
Deformations | 12.626 | 0.001 | 16.207 | <0.001 | 1.624 | 0.215 |
Cracks | 10.986 | <0.001 | 5.389 | <0.001 | 6.566 | 0.004 |
Green tubers | 6.685 | 0.015 | 5.107 | 0.002 | 4.154 | 0.026 |
Pest damages | 33.165 | <0.001 | 0.309 | 0.902 | 7.908 | 0.001 |
Rust spot | 5.371 | 0.030 | 2.054 | 0.102 | 0.316 | 0.731 |
Hollow hearts | 0.607 | 0.442 | 3.105 | 0.040 | 1.914 | 0.166 |
Share of small tubers (<35 mm) | 21.028 | <0.001 | 3.777 | 0.010 | 5.100 | 0.013 |
Share of medium tubers (35–60 mm) | 33.084 | <0.001 | 0.432 | 0.822 | 1.501 | 0.241 |
Share of large tubers (>60 mm) | 74.640 | <0.001 | 1.909 | 0.125 | 5.738 | 0.008 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zarzyńska, K.; Boguszewska-Mańkowska, D. Commercial Quality of Potato Tubers of Different Varieties from Organic and Conventional Production System. Agronomy 2024, 14, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14040778
Zarzyńska K, Boguszewska-Mańkowska D. Commercial Quality of Potato Tubers of Different Varieties from Organic and Conventional Production System. Agronomy. 2024; 14(4):778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14040778
Chicago/Turabian StyleZarzyńska, Krystyna, and Dominika Boguszewska-Mańkowska. 2024. "Commercial Quality of Potato Tubers of Different Varieties from Organic and Conventional Production System" Agronomy 14, no. 4: 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14040778