Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T19:23:35.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Yield, Variability and Quality of Sweet Potato Cultivars in Sub-Tropical Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

D. O. Huett
D. O. Huett
Affiliation:
N.S.W.Department of Agriculture, Tropical Fruit Research Station, Alstonville, N.S.W., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The yield, variability and quality of 16 sweet potato cultivars, harvested after 21 weeks growth, were evaluated in sub-tropical Australia. The coloured-flesh cultivars L8-92, Centennial, HAC-Pink, Copperskin Goldrush and Nemagold produced yields of marketable storage roots in excess of 19,000 kg ha−1, which was three to four times the yield of the local commercial cultivar, White Maltese. The high variability in mean yield per plant of all cultivars offers scope for selection within cultivars. Those with a deep orange flesh and high soluble solids content, i.e. L8-92, Copperskin Goldrush and Centennial, were preferred by members of a taste panel. A high carotene cultivar L8-92 has the greatest commercial potential because it produced the highest yield of marketable storage roots and had the highest taste panel rating for eating quality of stored roots.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 9 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A.O.A.C. (1970). Official Methods of Analysis, 11th edn. Washington, D.C.: Assoc. Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Austin, M. E., Aung, L. H. & Graves, B. (1970). F. hort. Sci. 45, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. A. & Martin, W. J. (1952). La. State Univ. Agr. Ext. Pub. 1121.Google Scholar
Edmond, J. B. (1971). Sweet Potatoes: Producing, Processing, Marketing. Westport, Conn.: Avi Publishing.Google Scholar
Ezell, B. B., Wilcox, M. S. & Crowder, J. N. (1952). Pl. Physiol. 27, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, E. H., Querido, I. B. & Cahanap, A. C. (1970). Phillip. F. Pl. Ind. 35, 203.Google Scholar
Gooding, H. J. (1964). Emp. F. exp. Agric. 32, 279.Google Scholar
Haynes, P. (1970). Second Int. Symp. Trop. Root and Tuber Crops, Hawaii, 10.Google Scholar
Lowe, S. B. & Wilson, L. A. (1974). Ann. Bot. 38, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minges, P. A. & Morris, L. L. (1953). Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 431.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, C. E. & Kushman, L. J. (1971). Agric. Res. Serv. U.S.D.A. Agric. Hnbk 388.Google Scholar
Trochoulias, T. (1973). Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 13, 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar