BIBLIOGRAPHY MATSAL, LEONILA P. APRIL 2009. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MATSAL, LEONILA P. APRIL 2009. Fry Quality of Promising Potato
Selections Grown from Three Locations of Benguet. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser: Esther Josephine Sagalla, MSc
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to identify the location that produces potato selections with the
best fry quality, determine the potato entry with the best potato fry quality and determine
the interaction between locations and potato entries on fry quality.
The potato tubers harvested in Loo had the highest dry matter content and fry
yield. In addition, the fries produced from entries harvested at Loo were liked much by
the panelists. The fries produced from the tubers harvested at Bonglo and Sagpat were
moderately crispy, moderately perceptible, moderately oily, slightly firm, slightly brown
and were liked moderately by the panelists.
CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota have good fry quality based on high dry matter content
and high fry yield. Both entries produced fries which were liked much by the panelists.
Growing CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota in Loo might result in the production of tubers
with good fry quality.
TABLES OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….. i
Abstract………… ……………………………………………………………..
i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………….
ii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………...
3
Nutritive Content of Potato………………………………………………….
3
Preferred tuber characteristics for fries………………………………………
3
Tuber Moisture Content and Crispness………………………………………
5
Factors Affecting Tuber Dry Matter Content………………………………..
5
Factors Affecting Tuber Sugar Content……………………………………..
6
Processing of Potato Fries……………………………………………………
7
Potato Fry Storage……………………………………………………………
7
Potato Varieties Identified in the Philippines………………………………..
7
Results of Local Studies……………………………………………………..
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data gathered………………………………………………………………...
10
Potato Tuber………………………………………………………………….
10
Potato Fries…………………………………………………………………...
10
Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………...
14
ii
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature, Relative Humidity and
15
Rainfall………………………………………………………………………
Dry matter content……………………………………………………………
16
Sugar content (oBricks)……………………………………………………… 19
Potato Fry yield………………………………………………………………
20
Potato Fry color………………………………………………………………
23
Fry Sugar End………………………………………………………………..
27
Sensory Evaluation…………………………………………………………...
30
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary……………………………………………………………………..
32
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………
33
Recommendation……………………………………………………………..
33
LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………………….
34
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………... 36
iii
INTRODUCTION
Filipino people both young and old enjoy potato fries due to its appealing taste
and low cost. As a result, a growing demand for potato snack food (BPRE, 2007) is
observed. However, Philippines is more of an importer than an exporter of fresh and
processed potatoes. In 2006, the Philippines imported 61,699 mt of a wide range of
processed potato products having a value of $ 30.5 M (PCARRD, 2008).
In addition, potato varieties such as Granola which are commonly grown in
Benguet are often not suitable for processing. Thus, the country needs immediate action
to continuously produce and evaluate potential processing varieties to sufficiently supply
the increasing demand for processed potatoes (Balaoing, 2006).
The most significant factor that may influence quality of potatoes for processing
is the variety. Varieties for potato fries must have a tuber dry matter content of 21-24 %
for high fry recovery, less oil uptake, crispy texture and light yellow or light brown sticks
(Balaoing, 2006). Potato processors are inclined to pay significant price premiums if
such favored varieties are developed (Van der Zaag, 1990). However, Cordillera which
produces 75% of potatoes in the Philippines (PCARRD, 2008) grow a limited number of
varieties suitable for processing. Thus, continuous selection for varieties suitable for
processing must be done.
Another factor which may influence fry processing quality is the growing
condition. Different growing conditions may enhance processing qualities of these
varieties. Therefore, evaluation of the processing varieties grown from different
locations is important.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
2
The study was conducted to:
1. identify the location that produces potato selections with the best fry quality;
2. determine the potato entry with the best potato fry quality; and
3. determine the interaction between locations and potato selection on fry quality.
The study was conducted at the Northern Philippine Root Crops Research and
Training Center on October 2008.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Nutritive Content of Potato
Potato is approximately 80% water, 17% carbohydrates, 20% protein in its raw
and cooked status. As a consequence, energy content of raw potato is less than that of
raw cereals and legumes (Artzen, 1994).
One hundred grams of French fries have a nutrient content of 309.1 cal. food
energy, 4.0 grams of protein, 38.6 grams of carbohydrates, 16.1 grams of total fat, 5.0
grams of saturated fat, 3.2 grams of dietary fiber, 712.0 milligrams of potassium, 5.3
milligrams of vitamin C, 33.0 micrograms of foliate, 29.0 milligrams of vitamin A (FFD,
2001).
Preferred Tuber Characteristics for Fries
Netherlands Potato Consultative Foundation (NIVAP, 2007) stated that the
external quality of potatoes is extremely important in the processing industry.
Characteristics of particular interest are the shape and the extent of external damage.
Size, shape and shallow eyes are important with regard to the appearance of the product
and the influence on wastage during peeling. French fry producers prefer long oval or
long tubers with a size of at least 50 mm. Both the processing efficiency and quality of
the finished product benefit from a high dry matter content. For the production of French
fries, potatoes with a dry matter content of 20-24% are preferred. If the dry matter
content is too low, the French fry will be soft or too wet. A high dry matter content
concentration results in a lower fat content. This lowers the processing costs and is better
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
4
for the health of consumers. However, if the dry matter content is too high, the French
fry will be too hard and dry.
According to Batt (2001), the four most important attributes that Filipino potato
farmer’s sought for their most preferred variety was tuber size, tuber shape, skin color
and the suitability of the variety to the growing environment. The tuber size, tuber shape
and skin color are no doubt related to the marketability of the tubers.
Potatoes intended for processing as French fry should have a sugar level less
than 1.2% mg/g or 0.125% of the tuber fresh weight. Potatoes with higher values than
these will usually show color problems after cooking (Stark et al., 2001). Potatoes with
low starch can lead to poor texture and excess oiliness while high reducing sugars caused
undesirable dark fry color (Mosley, 2005).
Another important aspect of characteristics for processing quality is the color
distribution. Unevenness in color distribution results in French fry with a brown color at
one end. The cause of this phenomenon is senescence after long storage and secondary
growth (NIVAP, 2007).
Frozen processing varieties are preferably high in starch (high dry matter) and
low in reducing sugars. Approximately 80% of tuber dry matter is starch. High dry
matter potatoes are frequently thought as “dry” for most culinary purposes where as low
dry matter varieties are considered as “moist”. Tubers with less than about 18% dry
matter are seldom used for frozen processing because of poor texture. Approximately
two-thirds of the water in French fries is replaced by oil during frying. Varieties with
high water or low dry matter produce oily, soggy French fries. Because more water must
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
5
be removed during processing, product recovery is low and the cost of fry production is
higher making such varieties unprofitable in most situations (Mosley, 2005).
Mosley (2005) mentioned also that potato varieties vary in appearance, season
of maturity, internal composition, yield and tuber quality, pest and disease resistance and
adaptability. Early maturing varieties typically have short storage dormancy and are
usually processed at harvest on shortly afterward. Leading frozen processing varieties
are relatively late maturing, have long storage dormancies and can be processed for
several months. Hollow heart, internal brown spot, sugar-ends and stem-end
discoloration caused from heat, moisture and other environmental stresses during their
growing season. The disorders severely reduce processing quality, especially for frozen
fries which must be uniform in appearance. Sugar-end for example, causes “dark-end”
fries which are unacceptable to the industry and must be discarded.
Tuber Moisture Content and Crispness
The increase in final frying time increased crispness, but it cannot
counterbalance a lack of pre-frying. The differences in crispness due to different pre-
frying time cannot be explained in terms of moisture content of the whole French fries,
but can be explained in terms of the moisture content of the outer layer. The pre-frying
step likely affects the morphology of the outer crust by allowing an easier loss of water
during the final frying step (Sanz et al., 2007).
Factors Affecting Tuber Dry Matter Content
Date of planting (early planting) helps increase dry matter content by
lengthening the growth period. Crops that mature early generally have higher dry matter
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
6
content than later plantings. The earlier the plants appear and can begin to produce solids
from photosynthesis the better. Soil type, water holding capacity, drainage, structure,
fertility and temperature of the soil can affect dry matter. For example, a sandy soil could
be expected to drain better than a clay loam. In a wet season this could be an advantage
and a higher dry matter may result. In order for the potatoes to achieve optimal maturity
and reach good dry matter levels at harvest, the tubers should be left as long as possible,
bearing in mind the comments made on time of planting and the growth period (Kellock,
1995).
Factors Affecting Tuber Sugar Content
Stark et al. (2001) mentioned that tuber maturity, temperature, variety, storage
stress and handling affect the sugar content of a tuber. As the tuber grow and mature, the
sugar content decreases, reaching the lowest point when the vines are rearing complete
senescence. For potatoes intended for French fry processing, the temperature is about 47
to 50oF. It is critical to match varieties with intended use. Potatoes bred for French fry
processing typically have intermediate sugar contents.
The major factors that influence tuber sugar concentrations and fry color are the
growing season, cultivar and storage management. Fertilization practices, diseases, and
other management practices can also have an effect (Sanders, 2008).
Alingbas (2007), found out that the lowest sugar content was obtained from
accessions 96-06 (5.88 oBrix) while the highest sugar content was obtained from
accessions 5.19.2.2. (6.29 oBrix).
Sugar content is a varietal characteristic that maybe influenced by
environmental factors in a location (Peet, 2007).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
7
Processing of Potato Fries
Raw products play an important role in processing, fry yield and finished
quality. Every effort should be made to obtain potatoes with few external and internal
defects and of the proper starch and sugar content. Tuber malformations and mechanical
injury can lead to excessive peel and trim loss. Trimming and peeling potatoes reduces
overall weight by approximately 22%. Blanching using hot water reduces total raw
product weight an additional 5-10%. Par-frying reduces raw product weight an
additional 16% despite 6-8% oil absorption. Par-frying assures that all enzyme activity is
terminated and tissues are stabilized for long-term frozen at about -23.3 to 28oC on
conveyor lines to stabilize the tissues in preparation for packaging and long term storage
(Mosley, 2005).
Potato Fry Storage
Par fries can be held long-term in a frozen state. Smaller cuts can be stored up
to 12 months and larger cuts up to 18 to 24 months at about -18oC without serious loss of
quality due to dehydration. However, processors prefer to store only 6-9 months
(Mosley, 2005).
Potato Varieties Identified in the Philippines
Four new potato varieties which possesses the desired dry matter content
required by the fast-food chains to make good French fries were Igorota, Solibao, Ganza
and the fourth one which has yet to be given an official tag (Cariňo, 2007).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
8
Results of Local Studies
Igorota variety is good for processing because of its 16.6-17.50% dry matter
content and sugar content of 4.00-4.74 oBrix. The potato fries also were moderately
crispy, moderately perceptible, moderately oily, moderately firm, and liked very much by
the panelist (Ruega, 2005).
Alingbas (2007) found out that Balili and Longlong are the best sites in growing
organic potatoes for chip processing because these sites produced high chip yield and
light yellow chips with moderately browning. In addition, tubers from accessions
5.19.2.2 and 676089 showed good chip characteristics such as high dry matter and high
chip recovery. Both accessions also produced tubers with crispy chips which were liked
much by the panelists.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Marketable potato tubers harvested from different locations of Benguet were used
for potato fries. Five hundred grams of sound potato tubers per replication per entry was
processed. The potato tubers were washed, peeled and cut into 7mm to 12 mm thick
sticks (Macmillan, 2000). The sticks were soaked in cold water and pat dried using clean
cotton cloth.
The dried strips were partially fried or par-fried for about 2 to 3 minutes in hot
vegetable oil under 180oC. The par-fried strips were packed and quickly frozen at about
1oC within 7 to 9 days. The frozen par-fried sticks were finally fried at about 2-3 minutes
under 180oC until the oil stops bubbling. Finally, the fried entries were quickly evaluated
by ten panelists.
The experiment was laid out in split- plot design with three replications. The
treatments were:
Mainplot: Location of Production (L)
Code
Location
L1
Loo,
Buguias
L2
Bonglo,
Atok
L3
Sagpat,
Kibungan
Subplot: Potato Entries (E)
Code
Entry
Locality
of
Collection
E1
CIP
380241.17 CIP
E2
PHIL
5.19.2.2
Philippines
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
10
E3
CIP
676070
CIP
E4
CIP
573275
CIP
E5
PHIL
2.21.6.2
Philippines
E6
Granola- Cv
CIP
E7
Ganza- Cv
CIP
E8
Igorota-
Cv
Philippines
Data Gathered
A. Potato Tuber
1. Dry matter content. This was taken by oven drying 50 g of sliced potato
tubers for 72 hours at 70oC. This was computed using the formula:
% Dry Matter Content = 100% - % Moisture content
Where:
%Moisture content = Fresh weight-Oven dry weight x 100
Fresh weight
2. Sugar content (oBrix). This was taken by extracting the juice of 20 g
potato tubers on a digital refractometer.
B. Potato Fries
1. Potato fry yield. This was taken by using the formula:
Potato Fry Yield = Weight of unpeeled tubers – Weight of sliced tubers x 100
Weight
of
unpeeled
tubers
2. Potato fry color. After final frying, the color of the fries was evaluated
using the color chart provided by Stark et al. (2001).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
11
Weighing 500 g of tubers
Peeling
Soaking to avoid browning
Weighing
Pat-drying
Slicing into sticks
Par-frying
for
2-3
minutes
Packing Sealing
Evaluating of 10 panelists
Final
frying
Freezing
at
1oC
Figure 1. Methodology of the study
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
12
3. Potato fry sugar end. After final frying, the fry’s sugar end was evaluated
by using the following scale:
Scale
Description
1
Present
2
Absent
4. Sensory evaluation. Sensory evaluation includes crispness, taste, oil
absorption, texture, browning and general acceptability. After final frying, ten non-
smoking panelist aged 13 and above evaluated the fries using the following parameters
(Mabesa, 1986):
a. Crispness
Scale
Remarks
1
very
crispy
2
crispy
3
moderate
crispness
4
slight
crispness
5
no
crispness
b. Taste
Scale
Remarks
1 very
perceptible
2 perceptible
3 moderately
perceptible
4 slightly
perceptible
5 not
perceptible
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
13
c. Oil Absorption
Scale
Remarks
1 not
oily
2 slightly
oily
3 moderately
oily
4
oily
5 very
oily
d.
Texture
Scale
Remarks
1
firm
2 moderately
firm
3 slightly
firm
4 not
firm
e.
Browning
Scale
Remarks Rate
1 severe
browning
6%
browning
2 moderate
browning
3-5%browning
3 slight
browning 1-2%browning
4 not
browning
0%
browning
f. General acceptability
Scale
Remarks
1 like
very
much
2 like
much
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
14
3 like
moderately
4 like
slightly
5 dislike
or
not
like
Analysis of Data
All quantitative data was analyzed using analysis of variance for Split-Plot
Design with three replications. The significance of differences among treatment means
was tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature, Relative Humidity and Rainfall
The temperature, relative humidity and rainfall from the different locations were
taken from July 2008 to September 2008 (Table 1).
Potatoes grow best in temperature ranging from 17-22 oC (HARRDEC, 1996).
Loo, Bonglo and Sagpat are within this temperature range which maybe favorable to the
production of potatoes for good fry quality.
Relative humidity (95.62%) and rainfall (6.73L) are highest in Bonglo. Relative
humidity and rainfall might influence the fry quality of the potato tubers by causing
changes in the dry matter of tubers. For instance excess of water during the growth of the
plants will result to low dry matter content (Kellock, 1995).
Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity, and rainfall from July to September 2008
TREATMENT LOO,
BUGUIAS
BONGLO,
ATOK
SAGPAT,
KIBUNGAN
Temperature
17.75
18.20
18.14
(oC)
Relative humidity
77.32
95.62
83.54
(%)
Rainfall (L)
0.82
6.73
1.27
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
16
Dry Matter Content
Effect of location. Highly significant differences are observed on dry matter
content of the tubers harvested from different locations. Tubers harvested from Loo gave
the highest dry matter (Table 2). Dry matter content might be attributed to the rainfall
and relative humidity during the growth stage of the plants.
Loo and Sagpat which had the highest rainfall and relative humidity produced
tubers with low dry matter content. Excessive water is said to result to low dry matter
content in the potato tubers (Kellock, 1995). However, all the tubers harvested from the
different locations might be suitable for processing due to their above 18% dry matter
content.
Effect of entry. The tuber dry matter content of the different entries ranged from
18 to 20%. The highest dry matter content of 20% was obtained from CIP 380241.17,
PHIL 5.19.2.2, CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota.
All the entries may be used for fry processing since tubers with less than 18% dry
matter are seldom used for frozen processing because of poor texture (Mosley, 2005).
The dry matter content of the different entries might be attributed to their genetic
characteristic and maturity of the crops. Entries that mature early generally have higher
dry matter content (Kellock, 1995).
Interaction effect. A highly significant interaction was observed between
locations and entries on tuber dry matter content. CIP 380241.17 and CIP 573275
planted in Loo gained the highest tuber dry matter content (Fig. 2).
Dry matter content is affected by genetic characteristics but maybe influenced by
water uptake, temperature, photoperiod and others (Rastovski et al., 1981). Thus, both
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
17
entries and location must be considered in selecting potato entries for processing in terms
of dry matter content.
Table 2. Dry matter content of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT
DRY MATTER CONTENT
(%)
Location (L)
Loo
20a
Bonglo
19b
Sagpat
19b
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP 380241.17
20a
PHIL 5.19.2.2
20a
CIP 676070
19b
CIP 573275
20a
PHIL 2.21.6.2
20a
Granola
18c
Ganza
19b
Igorota
20a
L x PE
**
CV (a) %
10.59
CV (b) %
15.09
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of
DMRT.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
18
ENTRY
) 25
%
(
CIP 380241.17
NT 20
PHIL 5.19.2.2
E
NT
CIP 676070
15
CIP 573275
R CO
E 10
T
PHIL 2.21.6.2
AT
5
GRANOLA
M
GANZA
DRY
0
IGOROTA
LOO
BONGLO
SAGPAT
LOCATION
Figure 2. Interaction of location and potato entry on dry matter content of tubers
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
19
Sugar content (oBrix)
Effect of location. Highly significant differences are observed on the sugar
content of the potato tubers harvested from different locations (Table 3). Potato tubers
harvested from Sagpat gave the highest sugar content while potato tubers from Bonglo
gave the lowest sugar content.
Sugar content is a varietal characteristic that maybe influenced by environmental
factors in a location (Peet, 2007). The low sugar content of the potatoes from Bonglo
may be due to the high rainfall of the site.
Effect of entry. The potato entries significantly differed in terms of sugar content.
The lowest sugar content was obtained from CIP 380241.17 and CIP 573275 but are not
significantly different from the rest of the entries except Granola and CIP 676070. These
entries with low sugar contents may be processed into fries with less browning.
The sugar content of the entries might be attributed to cultivar characteristics
(Sanders, 2008).
Interaction effect. No interaction existed between the locations and entries.
However, lowest sugar content was exhibited by PHIL 5.19.2.2 in Bonglo.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
20
Table 3. Sugar content of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT SUGAR
CONTENT
(oBrix)
Location (L)
Loo
3.7b
Bonglo
2.5c
Sagpat
4.4a
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP380241.17
3.2b
PHIL 5.19.2.2
3.4a
CIP 676070
3.7a
CIP 573275
3.2b
PHIL 2.21.6.2
4.1a
Granola
3.7a
Ganza
3.4b
Igorota
3.3b
L x PE
ns
CV (a) %
15.71
CV (b) %
17.80
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of
DMRT.
Potato Fry yield
Effect of location. No significant differences are observed in the fry yield of
potato tubers in each location (Table 4). Potato tubers harvested from Loo gave the
highest fry yield.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
21
Effect of entry. The tuber fry yield of the different entries (Fig. 3) was not
significantly different from each other. However, the highest fry yield was obtained from
CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota.
Interaction
affect. No significant interaction exists between the locations and
entries. The highest fry yield was observed in entries harvested from Loo.
Table 4. Fry yield of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT FRY
YIELD
(g)
Location (L)
Loo
35
Bonglo
33
Sagpat
31
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP 380241.17
33
PHIL 5.19.2.2
28
CIP 676070
32
CIP 573275
35
PHIL 2.21.6.2
35
Granola
32
Ganza
32
Igorota
35
L x PE
ns
CV (a) %
21.40
CV (b) %
35.60
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
22
(a)
96-06
(e)
2.21.6.2
(b)
5.19.2.2
(f)
Granola
(c)
676070
(g)
Ganza
(d)
573275
(f)
Igorota
Figure 3. Tuber fry sticks of the eight potato entries
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
23
Potato Fry color
Effect of location. The color of the processed fries from each location showed no
significant differences (Table 5). However, entries harvested from Loo and Sagpat
produced yellow potato fries (rating 3) while those harvested from Bonglo produced light
yellow fries (rating 2).
Effect of entry. Significant differences are observed in the color of the processed
fries from the different entries. PHIL 5.19.2.2, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota produced light
yellow fries while Ganza produced fries that are dark yellow with browning (Fig. 5).
The color of the potato fries maybe due to the sugar content of the tubers. The
light yellow fries from PHIL 5.19.2.2 and Igorota may be attributed to their low sugar
contents (3.4 and 3.3 oBrix, respectively). The relatively high sugar content of the other
entries may have resulted to dark fry color (Mosley, 2005).
Interaction
effect. A highly significant difference exists between the locations
and potato entries (Fig. 4). Fries processed from Ganza harvested at Sagpat was dark
yellow with browning while PHIL 5.19.2.2, CIP 380241.17 and Igorota harvested at Loo
obtained a yellow fry color (Fig. 5). This result implies that both entries and location are
important factors in selecting potatoes with light yellow to yellow fries.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
24
Table 5. Fry color of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT FRY
COLOR
Location (L)
Loo
3
Bonglo
2
Sagpat
3
Potato Entries (PE)
CIP 380241.17
3b
PHIL 5.19.2.2
2c
CIP 676070
3b
CIP 573275
3b
PHIL 2.21.6.2
2c
Granola
3b
Ganza
4a
Igorota
2c
L x PE
**
CV (a) %
19.12
CV (b) %
20.19
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of
DMRT.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
25
ENTRY
25
CIP 380241.17
PHIL 5.19.2.2
20
R
CIP 676070
LO 15
O
CIP 573275
C
Y 10
PHIL 2.21.6.2
FR
GRANOLA
5
GANZA
0
IGOROTA
LOO
BONGLO
SAGPAT
LOCATION
Figure 4. Interaction of location and potato entry on fry color
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
26
(a) rating 2 or light yellow
(b) rating 3 or yellow
(b) rating 4 or dark yellow
Figure 5. Processed fries showing the different color ratings
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
27
Fry Sugar End
Effect of location. Potato tubers harvested from Loo produced fries with sugar
ends while those harvested from Bonglo and Sagpat had no sugar ends (Table 6).
The presence of sugar ends on the fries from Loo may be attributed to the
relatively high sugar content of the tubers (Stark et al., 2001).
Effect of entry. Most of the entries had no sugar end (Fig. 7) except CIP 573275,
CIP 380241.17 and Granola. The presence of sugar end in the potato fries of these
entries (Fig. 6) maybe due to the sugar level of the potato tubers. Less than 0.125 %
sugar of the tuber’s fresh weight is required in processing to avoid color problems after
cooking (Stark et al., 2001).
In addition, the presence of sugar end which causes dark-end fries are
unacceptable to processing and must be discarded.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
28
Table 6. Sugar end of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT SUGAR
END
Location (L)
Loo
Present
Bonglo
Absent
Sagpat
Absent
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP 380241.17
Present
PHIL 5.19.2.2
Absent
CIP 676070
Absent
CIP 573275
Present
PHIL 2.21.6.2
Absent
Granola
Present
Ganza
Absent
Igorota
Absent
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
29
Figure 6. Processed fries with sugar end
Figure 7. Processed fries without sugar end
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
30
Sensory Evaluation
Effect of location. The potato fries that were produced from the potatoes
harvested from the different locations were moderately crispy, had moderately
perceptible taste, were moderately oily, slightly firm, and slightly brown (Table 7). Dry
matter content may influence the crispiness, oiliness and texture of the potato fries
produced. On the other hand, sugar content of the tubers may influence taste and
browning pattern of the fries.
Moreover, the fries that were produced from tubers harvested in Loo were liked
much by the panelists which may be attributed to the color and sugar content of the fries.
The fries of the tubers harvested in Bonglo and Sagpat were moderately liked by the
panelists.
Effect of entry. Most of the potato fries of the different entries were slightly to
moderately crispy, had moderately perceptible taste, were moderately oily, slightly firm,
and slightly brown. Potato fries of the entries PHIL 5.19.2.2 and CIP 676070 were
slightly oily which may be due to their relatively high dry matter contents. Varieties with
high dry matter content concentration results in a low oil content (NIVAP, 2007).
PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota produced fries which were liked much by the panelists.
The acceptability of the fries maybe influenced by the sugar content of the tubers and
color of the fries (Alingbas, 2007).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted to identify the location that produces potato selections
with the best fry quality, determine the potato entry with the best potato fry quality, and
determine the interaction between locations and potato selection on fry quality.
Potato tubers harvested from the three locations had a dry matter content ranging
from 19 to 20%. Loo gained the highest dry matter content while Bonglo and Sagpat
gained the lowest. The highest sugar content was obtained from the potato tubers
harvested from Sagpat.
Potato tubers from Bonglo produced light yellow fries with no sugar end. The
fries produced from the three locations were moderately crispy, moderately perceptible,
moderately oily, slightly firm, slightly brown and were liked moderately by the panelists.
The fries from Loo were liked much.
CIP 380241.17, PHIL 5.19.2.2, CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota had the
highest dry matter content. The high dry matter content of these entries resulted to high
fry yield. Highest sugar content which was exhibited by PHIL 2.21.6.2, Granola, CIP
380241.17 and CIP 573275 resulted to sugar end on fries.
All entries produced fries with moderately perceptible taste, were slightly brown
and slightly firm. Moderately crispy fries were also obtained from most of the entries
except CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Ganza which produced slightly crispy fries. PHIL
2.21.6.2 and Igorota were liked much by the panelists.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
33
Interaction between the location and potato entries were highly significant on dry
matter content, sugar end and potato fry color. No significant interactions were observed
on sugar content and fry yield.
Conclusion
Loo is the best site to produce potato entries with the best fry quality. Potatoes
harvested from Loo had dry matter contents acceptable for processing. Tubers from Loo
also produced the highest fry yield and the fries were liked much by the panelists.
Tubers from PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota showed good traits for fry quality. Both
entries had high dry matter content and high fry yield. Moreover, processed fries from
both entries were liked much by the panelists.
Growing PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota in Loo might result in the production of
tubers with good fry quality.
Recommendation
Based on the results, Loo, on the other hand, is recommended for producing
potato selections suitable for fry processing.
CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota are recommended for potato fry processing because of
their high fry yield, high dry matter content and acceptability.
Growing CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota in Loo is recommended for producing potatoes
with good fry quality.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
LITERATURE CITED
ALINGBAS, A. 2007. Chipping quality of promising potato accessions grown
organically in six locations of Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Pp. 32-33.
ARTZEN, C. 1994. Encyclopedia of agricultural Science. Academic press, Inc. San
Diego, California. Vol. 3. Pp. 423-424.
BALAOING, J. G. 2006. Performance of potato cultivars as influenced by lime and
organic fertilizer application. PhD Dissertation. Benguet State University. La
Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1, 35.
BATT, P. J. 2001. Variety: The Key Driver of demand for Seed Potatoes in the
Philippines. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1. Pp 317- 329.
Retrieved July 2008 from http://www.bioline.org.br/.
BUREAU OF POSTHARVEST RESEARCH AND EXTENSION. 2007. Philippine
Postharvest Industry Profile: POTATO. CLSU Compound, Science City of
Munoz 3120 Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Retrieved July 2008 from
http://www.biotech.da .gov.ph.
CARIŇO, D. 2007. Potato varieties for Processing identified in the Philippines.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 2008 from http://www.potatopro.com/
Lists/News/.
FROZEN FOOD DIGEST. 2001. Nutritional content of potato chips, French fries and
bakes potatoes. Pp 1,2. Retrieved July 2008 from
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturi ng/food-manufacturing-fruit/.
FOUNDATION for RESOURCES LINKAGE and DEVELOPMENT, INC (FRLD).
1995. The Potato: Marketing system in Major Production and Demand Areas in
the Philippines. Martliak, DA, ASAP, UNSAID. Pp. 10-15.
KELLOCK, T. 1995. Potatoes: Factors Affecting Dry Matter. Retrieved June 2008
from http://www.dpi. vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/.
MABESA, L.B. 1986. Sensory Evaluation of Foods, Principles and Methods.
Phillipines: CRDL Printing Press, Laguna. Pp. 29-50.
MACMILLAN, N. 2000. The Encyclopedia of cooking Skills and Technique. Anness
Publishing Limited. London. P.113.
MOSLEY, A.R. 2005. Manufacture, Storage and Transport of Frozen French Fries.
Retrieved July 2008 from http://oregonstate.edu/potatoes/Frozen .
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
35
NETHERLANDS POTATO CONSULTATIVE FOUNDATION (NIVAP). 2007. Tuber
characteristics determining quality. Retrieved August 2008 from
http://www.nivaa.nl/uk/about_potatoes/agronomy/on_the_road_to_potato_process
ing/tuber_characteristics.
PCARRD. 2008. Industry Status. Retrieved July 2008 from http://www.maidon.pcarrd.
.
dost. gov.ph/joomla/ .
PEET, M. 2007. Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South. Retrieved
August 2008 from http://www.cals.ncsu.edu.
RUEGA, N. 2005. Processing quality of potato (cv Igorota) as influenced by different
inorganic fertilizer rates. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. P 24.
SANDERS, G. 2008. The influence of moist irrigation on the potato IV. American
Journal of Potato Research. Retrieved June 2008 from http://www.springer
link.com/content.
SANZ, T., C. PRIMO-MARTIN and T. VAN VLIET. 2007. Characterization of
crispiness of French fries by fracture and acoustic measurements, effect of pre-
frying and final frying times. Retrieved June 2008 from
http://www.tifn.nl/webdb/a_index.html.
STARK, J.C., N.OLSEN ,G.K. KLENKOFF, and L. LOVE. 2001. Tuber Quality.
Retrieved July 2008 from http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/potato/production/.
ZAAG De V. 1990. The demand for seed potatoes in South East Asia. Retrieved
September 2008 from http://www.agrifoof.info/review.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Dry matter content (%) of the potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III
TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 21 20
21
62
20.7
E2
19
20
19
58
19.3
E3
21 19
20
60
20.0
E4
21 21
20
62
20.7
E5
19 21
21
61
20.0
E6
21 17
20
58
19.3
E7
20 19
21
60
20.0
E8
20 21
20
61
20.3
SUBTOTAL 162
158
162
482
161.3
L2 E1
21 20
20
61
20.3
E2
21 19
21
61
20.3
E3
19 21
19
59
19.7
E4
21 20
20
61
20.3
E5
20 20
20
60
20.0
E6
16 15
18
49
16.3
E7
19 18
18
55
18.3
E8
19 21
19
59
19.7
SUBTOTAL 156
154
155
465
155
L3 E1
19 21
21
61
20.3
E2
20 20
21
61
20.3
E3
14 17
17
48
16.0
E4
18 20
19
57
19.0
E5
17 19
20
56
18.7
E6
20 19
18
57
19.0
E7
20 20
20
60
20.0
E8
21 20
18
59
19.7
SUBTOTAL 149
156
154
459
152
TOTAL
467
468
472
1406
469
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
37
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 62.000
61.000
61.000
184
20.444
E2
58.000
61.000
61.000
180
20.000
E3
60.000
59.000
48.000
167
18.556
E4
62.000
61.000
57.000
180
20.000
E5
61.000
60.000
56.000
177
19.667
E6
58.000
49.000
57.000
164
18.222
E7
60.000
55.000
60.000
175
19.444
E8 61.000
59.000
59.000
179
19.889
TOTAL 482.000 465.000 459.000 1406
MEAN
20.083a 19.375b 19.125b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.778
0.389
Main-plot factor (A) 2
11.861
5.931
5.51**
3.22 5.15
Error
(a) 4 4.306
1.076
Subplot factor (B)
7
36.833
5.262
4.23**
2.59 3.80
A
x
B
14
51.917
3.708
2.98**
1.94
2.54
Error (b)
42
52.250
1.244
TOTAL 71
157.944
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 10.59 %
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
15.09
%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
38
Appendix Table 2. Sugar content (oBrix) of potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III
TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 2.8 2.7
3.6
9.1
3.0
E2
4.2
3.6
4.5
12.3
4.1
E3
3.8
3.5
4.6
11.9
4.0
E4
4.0
3.0
2.2
9.2
3.1
E5
3.5
4.5
3.7
11.7
3.9
E6
3.1
4.4
3.3
10.8
3.6
E7
3.5
3.2
3.5
10.2
3.4
E8
3.8
3.5
3.0
10.3
3.4
SUBTOTAL 28.7
28.4
28.4
85.5
28.5
L2 E1
2.6
2.4
2.8
7.8
2.6
E2
1.5
2.3
2.5
6.3
2.1
E3
3.7
2.0
1.9
7.6
2.5
E4
1.4 3.1
2.1
6.6
2.2
E5
3.2 3.5
4.5
11.2
3.7
E6
3.4 2.6
2.0
8.0
2.7
E7
1.8 2.0
2.7
6.5
2.2
E8
3.1 1.6
1.8
6.5
2.2
SUBTOTAL 20.7
19.5
20.3
60.5
20.2
L3 E1
4.0 4.0
3.8
11.8
3.9
E2
3.9 3.8
4.5
12.2
4.1
E3
4.5 4.8
4.1
13.4
4.5
E4
4.3 4.0
4.3
12.6
4.2
E5
5.5 5.4
3.9
14.8
4.9
E6
4.8 4.9
5.0
14.7
4.9
E7
4.3 4.5
4.8
13.6
4.5
E8
3.5 5.1
4.6
13.2
4.4
SUBTOTAL 34.8
36.5
35.0
106.2
35.4
TOTAL
84.2
84.4
83.7
252.2
84.1
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
39
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 9.100
7.800
11.800
28.700
3.189
E2
12.300
6.300
12.200
30.800
3.422
E3
11.900
7.600
13.400
32.900
3.655
E4
9.200
6.600
12.600
28.400
3.156
E5
11.700
11.200
14.800
37.700
4.189
E6
10.800
8.000
14.700
33.500
3.722
E7
10.200
6.500
13.600
30.300
3.367
E8 10.300
6.500
13.200
30.000
3.330
TOTAL
85.500
60.500
106.300
252.300
MEAN
3.562b 2.521c
4.429a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.011
0.005
Main-plot factor (A) 2
43.823
21.912
286.6**
3.22 5.15
Error
(a) 4 0.306
0.076
Subplot factor (B) 7
7.335
1.048
2.69*
2.59 3.80
A
x
B
14
4.917
0.351
0.90ns
1.94 2.54
Error (b)
42
16.337
0.389
TOTAL 71
72.729
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 15.71 %
*Significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
17.80
%
ns not significant
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
40
Appendix Table 3. Fry yield (g) of potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III
TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 37 39
38
114
38.0
E2
25
47
21
93
31.0
E3
39 41
39
119
39.7
E4
39 47
32
119
39.7
E5
34 40
32
106
35.3
E6
34 21
40
94
31.3
E7
27 34
40
101
33.7
E8
32 34
28
94
31.3
SUBTOTAL 264
303
272
920
35
L2 E1
26 29
26
81
27
E2
24 44
18
86
28.7
E3
27 28
38
93
31
E4
33 31
43
105
35
E5
29 32
48
109
36.3
E6
32 33
42
108
36
E7
40 26
30
95
31.7
E8
40 36
29
105
35
SUBTOTAL 250
260
275
39
32.58
L3 E1
29 39
33
101
33.7
E2
27 23
26
76
25.3
E3
26 20
29
75
25
E4
41 21
30
91
30.3
E5
33 35
36
103
34.3
E6
31 28
24
83
47.8
E7
27 29
34
90
30
E8
31 37
48
116
38.7
SUBTOTAL 11
13
13
37
30.6
TOTAL
840
782
735
2357
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
41
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 114.000 81.000
101.000 296.000 32.889
E2
93.000
86.000
76.000
255.000
28.333
E3
119.000
93.000
75.000
287.000
31.889
E4
119.000 105.000 91.000
315.000 35.000
E5
106.000
109.000
103.000
318.000
35.333
E6
94.000
108.000 83.0000 285.000 31.667
E7
101.000
95.000
90.000
286.000
31.778
E8 94.000
105.000 116.000 315.000 35.000
TOTAL 840.000 782.000 735.000 2357.000
MEAN 35.000 32.583 30.625
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
35.528
17.764
Main-plot factor (A) 2
230.528
115.264
3.21ns
3.22 5.15
Error (a)
4
136.806
34.201
Subplot factor (B)
7
352.653
50.379
1.03ns
2.59 3.80
A x B
14
670.806
47.915
0.98ns
1.94 2.54
Error (b)
42
2061.667
49.087
TOTAL 71
3487.986
ns=not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 21.40%
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
35.60%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
42
Appendix Table 4. Fry color of the potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 1
1 1
3
1.0
E2
1
1
1
3
1.0
E3
4
4 4 12
4.0
E4
4
4 4 12
4.0
E5
4
4 1
9
3.0
E6
2
5 5 12
4.0
E7
1
2 6
9
3.0
E8
1
1 1
3
1.0
SUBTOTAL 18
22
23
63
21.0
L2 E1
4
1 1
6
2.0
E2
4
1 2
7
2.3
E3
2
2 2
6
2.0
E4
1
4 4
9
3.0
E5
1
1 1
3
1.0
E6
4
5 4 13
4.3
E7
1
4 1
6
2.0
E8
1
1 4
6
2.0
SUBTOTAL 18
19
19
56
18.7
L3 E1
4
5 5 14
4.7
E2
4
2 2
8
2.7
E3
4
3 2
9
3.0
E4
3
3 1
7
2.3
E5
1
4 4
9
3.0
E6
2
1 2
5
1.7
E7
5
7 5 17
5.7
E8
1
4 1
6
2.0
SUBTOTAL 24
29
22
75
25
TOTAL
60
70
64
194
64.7
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
43
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 3 6 14
23
3
E2
3
7
8
18
2
E3
12
6 9 27
3
E4
12
9
7 28
3
E5
9
3
9
21
2
E6
12
13
5 30
3
E7
9 6 17
32
4
E8 3 6 6 15
2
TOTAL 63
56
75
194
MEAN
3 2 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
2.111
1.056
Main-plot factor (A) 2
7.694
3.847
5.18ns 6.94
18.00
Error
(a) 4 2.972
0.743
Subplot factor (B)
7
27.944
3.992
2.28*
2.24 3.26
A
x
B
14
72.972
5.212
2.97**
1.94
2.54
Error (b)
42
73.583
1.752
TOTAL 71
157.944
ns
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 19.12 %
*Significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
28.12
%
**Highly Significant
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
44
Appendix Table 5. Fry sugar ends of the potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 1
1 1 3 1
E2
2
2
2
6
2
E3
1
1 1 3 1
E4
2
2 2 6 2
E5
1
2
2
5
2
E6
1
1 1 3 1
E7
1
1 1 3 1
E8
1
2 5 5 2
SUBTOTAL 10
12
12
34
11
L2 E1
1
2 1 4 1
E2
2
2 2 6 2
E3
2
2 2 6 2
E4
1
2 1 4 1
E5
1
2 1 4 1
E6
1
1 1 3 1
E7
2
2 2 6 2
E8
2
2 2 6 2
SUBTOTAL 12
15
12
39
13
L3 E1
1
1 1 3 1
E2
2
2 2 2 2
E3
2
2 2 6 2
E4
1
1 1 3 1
E5
1
2 2 5 2
E6
1
1 1 3 1
E7
2
2 2 6 2
E8
1
2 2 5 2
SUBTOTAL 11
13
13
37
12
TOTAL
33
40
39
110
36
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
45
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 3.000
4.000
3.000
10.000
1.111c
E2
6.000
6.000
6.000
18.000
2.000a
E3
3.000
6.000
6.000
15.000
1.667ab
E4
6.000
4.000
3.000
13.000
1.444bc
E5
5.000
4.000
5.000
14.000
1.556ab
E6
3.000
3.000
3.000
9.000
1.000c
E7
3.000
6.000
6.000
15.000
1.667ab
E8 5.000
6.000
5.000
16.000
1.778ab
TOTAL 34.000
39.000
37
110.000
MEAN
1.417
1.625
1.542
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
1.028
0.514
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.528
0.264
2.71ns
3.22 5.15
Error
(a) 4 0.389
0.097
Subplot factor (B)
7
7.056
1.008
13.03**
2.59 3.80
A
x
B
14
5.694
0.407
5.26**
1.94
2.54
Error
(b) 42
3.250
0.077
TOTAL 71
17.944
**Highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 14.20%
ns=not
significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
18.21
%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
46
Appendix Table 6a. Crispiness of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 31 3.1
E2
4 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 32 3.2
E3
4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 27 2.7
E4
5 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 38 3.8
E5
3 3 4 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 31 3.1
E6
4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 4.0
E7
5 4 5 5 4 4 5 3 4 3 42 4.2
E8
5 3 3 5 3 2 3 2 2 4 32 3.2
SUBTOTAL 34 28 29 28 25 25 31 23 25 25 273 27.3
L2 E1
5 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 26 2.6
E2
4 2 4 3 4 3 4 1 3 3 31 3.1
E3
4 2 2 3 3 2 4 1 4 3 28 2.8
E4
5 4 3 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 35 3.5
E5
4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 36 3.6
E6
4 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 24 2.4
E7
4 4 2 3 4 3 3 1 4 2 30 3.0
E8
4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 3 31 3.1
SUBTOTAL 34 21 23 26 26 22 29 11 28 21 241 24.1
L2 E1
4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 5 37 3.7
E2
5 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 39 3.9
E3
4 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 3 5 35 3.5
E4
4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 35 3.5
E5
5 4 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 40 4.0
E6
5 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 24 2.4
E7
5 4 5 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 38 3.8
E8
5 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 25 2.5
SUBTOTAL 37 28 33 26 22 21 25 21 28 32 273 27.3
TTOTAL
105 77 85 80 73 68 85 55 81 78 787 78.7
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
47
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 31.000
26.000
37.000
94.000
3.133b
E2
32.000
31.000
39.000
102.000
3.400ab
E3
27.000
28.000
35.000
90.000
3.000b
E4
38.000
35.000
35.000
108.000
3.600a
E5
31.000
36.000
40.000
107.000
3.567a
E6
40.000
24.000
24.000
88.000
2.933b
E7
42.000
30.000
38.000
110.000
3.667a
E8 32.000
31.000
25.000
88.000
2.933b
TOTAL 273.000 241.000 273.000 787.000
MEAN
3.413
3.013
3.413
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
62.087
6.899
Main-plot
factor
(A)
2 8.533
4.267
2.92ns
3.05
4.72
Error (a)
18
26.300
1.461
Subplot factor (B)
7
20.662
2.952
7.20**
2.06 2.74
A
x
B
14
37.200
2.657
6.48**
1.75
2.18
Error (b)
189
77.513
0.410
TOTAL 239
232.296
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 19.53%
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 22.83 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
48
Appendix Table 6b. Taste of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 2.4
E2
3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28 2.8
E3
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22 2.2
E4
2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 29 2.9
E5
4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 29 2.9
E6
3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 30 3.0
E7
2 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 3
3 33 3.3
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 30 3.0
22.5
SUBTOTAL 20 20 24 25 24 23 24 20 24 21 225
L2 E1
1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 2.4
E2
2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28 2.8
E3
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22 2.2
E4
1 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 29 2.9
E5
1 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 29 2.9
E6
1 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 30 3.0
E7
2 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 33 3.3
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 30 3.0
22
21.5
SUBTOTAL 31 21 20 15 21 24 15 29 17 215
L2 E1
1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 3.7
E2
2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28 3.9
E3
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22 3.5
E4
1 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 29 3.5
E5
1 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 29 4.0
E6
1 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 30 2.4
E7
2 3 5 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 33 3.8
2.5
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 30
22.5
SUBTOTAL 27 21 21 21 20 15 24 20 28 28 225
TOTAL
74 63 66 66 59 59 72 55 81 66 665
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
49
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 25.000
24.000
28.000
77.000
2.567ab
E2
27.000
25.000
29.000
81.000
2.700ab
E3
22.000
28.000
27.000
77.000
2.567ab
E4
29.000
33.000
32.000
94.000
3.133a
E5
29.000
28.000
32.000
89.000
2.967ab
E6
30.000
24.000
21.000
75.000
2.500b
E7
33.000
26.000
31.000
90.000
3.000a
E8 30.000
27.000
25.000
82.000
2.733ab
TOTAL 225.000 215.000 225.000 665.000
MEAN
2.813
2.688
2.813
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
26.271
2.919
Main-plot
factor
(A)
2 0.833
0.417
0.24ns
3.05
4.72
Error (a)
18
30.667
1.704
Subplot factor (B)
7
11.563
1.652
4.31**
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
12.700
0.907
2.37**
1.75
2.18
Error (b)
189
72.362
0.383
TOTAL 239
154.396
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 22.33 %
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 15.69 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
50
Appendix Table 6c. Oiliness of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 35 3.5
E2
4 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 31 3.1
E3
3
4
3 3
2
3
3
3
2
4
30
3.0
E4
3 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 43 29 2.9
E5
4 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 33 3.3
E6
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 35 3.5
E7
2 3 3 3 3 2 1 4 2 2 25 2.5
E8
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 27 2.7
SUBTOTAL 28 26 21 23 25 20 24 25 24 21 244 24.4
L2 E1
4 5 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 26 2.6
E2
3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 27 2.7
E3
4 4 2 4 3 2 3 2 4 3 31 3.1
E4
3 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 29 2.9
E5
4 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 34 3.4
E6
4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 31 3.1
E7
3 4 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 25 2.5
E8
3 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 33 3.3
SUBTOTAL 28 33 21 24 21 20 20 18 27 24 236 23.6
L2 E1
2 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 31 3.1
E2
2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 28 2.8
E3
2 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 3 4 30 3.0
E4
4 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 31 3.1
E5
4 4 5 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 36 3.6
E6
5 4 2 2 1 4 1 1 2 2 24 2.4
E7
3 3 2 2 1 3 2
3 3 3 25 3.5
E8
5 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 4 33 3.3
SUBTOTAL 27 25 26 24 16 29 22 21 22 29 238 23.8
TOTAL
83 84 65 71 62 69 66 64 73 74 718 71.8
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
51
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 35.000
26.000
31.000
92.000
3.067
E2
31.000
27.000
28.000
86.000
2.867
E3
30.000
31.000
30.000
91.000
3.033
E4
33.000
29.000
31.000
93.000
3.100
E5
28.000
34.000
36.000
98.000
3.267
E6
35.000
31.000
24.000
90.000
3.000
E7
25.000
25.000
25.000
75.000
2.500
E8 27.000
33.000
33.000
93.000
3.100
TOTAL 244.000 236.000 238.000 728.000
MEAN
3.050
2.950
2.975
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
25.733
2.859
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.433
0.217
0.15ns
3.05 4.72
Error (a)
18
26.317
1.462
Subplot factor (B)
7
10.917
1.560
2.01ns
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
17.433
1.245
2.33**
1.75 2.18
Error (b)
189
101.150
0.535
TOTAL 239 181.983
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 24.45 %
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 18.39 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
52
Appendix Table 6d. Texture of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
4 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 25 2.5
E2
2 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 20 2.0
E3
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 23 2.3
E4
4 2 1 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 28 3.8
E5
3 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 25 2.5
E6
3 3 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 31 3.1
E7
3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 28 2.8
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 27 3.7
SUBTOTAL 25 20 12 25 19 20 16 23 21 25 207 20.7
L2 E1
4 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 26 2.6
E2
3
3 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 27 2.7
E3
3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 24 2.4
E4
3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 25 2.5
E5
3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 26 2.6
E6
3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 24 2.4
E7
2 4 2 1 4 2 3 1 2 2 23 2.3
E8
3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 25 2.5
SUBTOTAL 24 20 23 18 21 16 23 14 22 19 200 20.0
L2 E1
3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 26 2.6
E2
2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 4 25 2.5
E3
3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 24 2.4
E4
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 31 3.1
E5
4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 27 2.7
E6
4 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 21 2.1
E7
4 3 3 2 3 2 3
3 3 3 29 2.9
E8
4 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 26 2.6
SUBTOTAL 28 23 18 20 18 18 19 20 22 23 209 20.9
TOTAL
83 87 65 75 62 69 66 64 73 74
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
53
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 25.000
26.000
26.000
77.000
2.567
E2
20.000
27.000
25.000
72.000
2.400
E3
23.000
24.000
24.000
71.000
2.367
E4
28.000
25.000
31.000
84.000
2.800
E5
25.000
26.000
27.000
78.000
2.600
E6
31.000
24.000
21.000
76.000
2.533
E7
28.000
23.000
29.000
80.000
3.667
E8 27.000
25.000
26.000
78.000
2.600
TOTAL 207.000 200.000 209.000 616.000
MEAN
2.588
2.500
2.613
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
18.850
2.094
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.558
0.279
0.20ns 3.05
4.72
Error (a)
18
25.525
1.418
Subplot factor (B)
7
4.067
0.581
1.52**
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
11.708
0.836
2.19**
1.75
2.18
Error (b)
189
72.225
0.382
TOTAL 239
132.933
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 24.08%
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 15.43%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
54
Appendix Table 6e. Browning of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
2 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 29 2.9
E2
3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 25 2.5
E3
3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 26 2.6
E4
2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 27 3.7
E5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 21 2.1
E6
2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 25 2.5
E7
1 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 26 2.6
E8
3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 27 2.7
SUBTOTAL 18 20 19 21 20 22 23 21 20 22 206 20.6
L2 E1
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 27 2.7
E2
3 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 22 2.2
E3
3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 29 2.9
E4
4
3
3
3
3 2
2
2
3
1
26
2.6
E5
2
3
4
3
3 2
3
2
3
3
28
2.8
E6
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 27 2.7
E7
2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 27 2.7
E8
3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 4 22 2.2
SUBTOTAL 23 22 23 20 22 20 20 17 22 19 208 20.8
L2 E1
3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 28 2.8
E2
3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 29 2.9
E3
4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 28 2.8
E4
3 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 31 3.1
E5
1 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 4 24 2.4
E6
4 3 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 23 2.3
E7
2 3 3 1 4 2 3 1 3 3 25 2.5
E8
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
2 21 2.1
SUBTOTAL 22 21 22 18 23 19 21 20 22 21 209 20.9
TOTAL
63 63 64 59 65 61 64 58 64 62 623 62.3
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
55
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 29.000
27.000
28.000
84.000
2.800
E2
25.000
22.000
29.000
76.000
2.533
E3
26.000
29.000
28.000
83.000
2.767
E4
27.000
26.000
31.000
84.000
2.800
E5
21.000
28.000
24.000
73.000
2.433
E6
25.000
27.000
23.000
75.000
2.500
E7
26.000
27.000
25.000
78.000
3.600
E8 27.000
22.000
21.000
70.000
2.333
TOTAL 206.000 208.000 209.000 665.000
MEAN
2.575
2.600
2.613
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
2.044
2.223
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.058
0.027
0.07ns
3.05 4.72
Error
(a) 18
7.358
0.409
Subplot factor (B)
7
6.629
0.947
1.72ns
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
10.008
0.715
1.30ns
1.75 2.18
Error (b)
189
103.738
0.549
TOTAL 239
154.396
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 28.54 %
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
17.26
%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
56
Appendix Table 6f. General acceptability of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 29 2.9
E2
1 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 24 2.4
E3
1 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 21 2.1
E4
3 2 5 4 3 3 5 2 3 3 33 3.3
E5
4 3 3 3 2 3 4 1 3 3 29 2.9
E6
2 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 2 4 32 3.2
E7
2 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 35 3.5
E8
4 2 4 4 3 2 3 4 2 2 30 3.0
SUBTOTAL 20 19 26 25 21 25 32 20 22 23 233 23.3
L2 E1
4 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 24 2.4
E2
4 1 3 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 24 2.4
E3
3 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 4 1 23 2.3
E4
4
3
2
2
2 2
1
2
4
2
24
2.4
E5
3
1
3
3
2 3
3
2
4
2
26
2.6
E6
4 2 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 23 2.3
E7
3 2 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 20 2.0
E8
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 4 2 26 2.6
SUBTOTAL 28 15 21 15 13 24 21 13 27 13 190 19.0
L2 E1
3 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 30 3.0
E2
4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 36 3.6
E3
3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 27 2.7
E4
5 3 5 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 35 3.5
E5
4 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 32 3.2
E6
5 4 2 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 27 2.7
E7
5 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 30 3.0
E8
5 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2
3 30 3.0
SUBTOTAL 34 24 26 24 23 23 25 25 19 24 247 24.7
TOTAL
82 58 73 64 57 72 78 58 68 60 670 67.0
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
57
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 29.000
24.000
30.000
83.000
2.767
E2
24.000
24.000
36.000
84.000
2.800
E3
21.000
23.000
27.000
71.000
2.367
E4
33.000
24.000
35.000
92.000
3.067
E5
29.000
26.000
32.000
87.000
2.900
E6
32.000
23.000
27.000
82.000
2.733
E7
35.000
20.000
30.000
85.000
3.833
E8 30.000
26.000
30.000
86.000
2.867
TOTAL 233.000 190.000 247.000 670.000
MEAN
2.913a
2.375b 3.088a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
30.333
3.370
Main-plot factor (A) 2
22.058
11.029
4.68*
3.05 4.75
Error (a)
18
42.442
2.358
Subplot factor (B)
7
8.383
1.198
1.72ns
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
16.942
1.210
1.74ns
1.75 2.18
Error (b)
189
131.425
0.695
TOTAL 239
151.583
*Significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(a):
29.87
%
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 18.43 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
MATSAL, LEONILA P. APRIL 2009. Fry Quality of Promising Potato
Selections Grown from Three Locations of Benguet. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser: Esther Josephine Sagalla, MSc
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to identify the location that produces potato selections with the
best fry quality, determine the potato entry with the best potato fry quality and determine
the interaction between locations and potato entries on fry quality.
The potato tubers harvested in Loo had the highest dry matter content and fry
yield. In addition, the fries produced from entries harvested at Loo were liked much by
the panelists. The fries produced from the tubers harvested at Bonglo and Sagpat were
moderately crispy, moderately perceptible, moderately oily, slightly firm, slightly brown
and were liked moderately by the panelists.
CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota have good fry quality based on high dry matter content
and high fry yield. Both entries produced fries which were liked much by the panelists.
Growing CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota in Loo might result in the production of tubers
with good fry quality.
TABLES OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….. i
Abstract………… ……………………………………………………………..
i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………….
ii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………...
3
Nutritive Content of Potato………………………………………………….
3
Preferred tuber characteristics for fries………………………………………
3
Tuber Moisture Content and Crispness………………………………………
5
Factors Affecting Tuber Dry Matter Content………………………………..
5
Factors Affecting Tuber Sugar Content……………………………………..
6
Processing of Potato Fries……………………………………………………
7
Potato Fry Storage……………………………………………………………
7
Potato Varieties Identified in the Philippines………………………………..
7
Results of Local Studies……………………………………………………..
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data gathered………………………………………………………………...
10
Potato Tuber………………………………………………………………….
10
Potato Fries…………………………………………………………………...
10
Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………...
14
ii
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature, Relative Humidity and
15
Rainfall………………………………………………………………………
Dry matter content……………………………………………………………
16
Sugar content (oBricks)……………………………………………………… 19
Potato Fry yield………………………………………………………………
20
Potato Fry color………………………………………………………………
23
Fry Sugar End………………………………………………………………..
27
Sensory Evaluation…………………………………………………………...
30
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary……………………………………………………………………..
32
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………
33
Recommendation……………………………………………………………..
33
LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………………….
34
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………... 36
iii
INTRODUCTION
Filipino people both young and old enjoy potato fries due to its appealing taste
and low cost. As a result, a growing demand for potato snack food (BPRE, 2007) is
observed. However, Philippines is more of an importer than an exporter of fresh and
processed potatoes. In 2006, the Philippines imported 61,699 mt of a wide range of
processed potato products having a value of $ 30.5 M (PCARRD, 2008).
In addition, potato varieties such as Granola which are commonly grown in
Benguet are often not suitable for processing. Thus, the country needs immediate action
to continuously produce and evaluate potential processing varieties to sufficiently supply
the increasing demand for processed potatoes (Balaoing, 2006).
The most significant factor that may influence quality of potatoes for processing
is the variety. Varieties for potato fries must have a tuber dry matter content of 21-24 %
for high fry recovery, less oil uptake, crispy texture and light yellow or light brown sticks
(Balaoing, 2006). Potato processors are inclined to pay significant price premiums if
such favored varieties are developed (Van der Zaag, 1990). However, Cordillera which
produces 75% of potatoes in the Philippines (PCARRD, 2008) grow a limited number of
varieties suitable for processing. Thus, continuous selection for varieties suitable for
processing must be done.
Another factor which may influence fry processing quality is the growing
condition. Different growing conditions may enhance processing qualities of these
varieties. Therefore, evaluation of the processing varieties grown from different
locations is important.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
2
The study was conducted to:
1. identify the location that produces potato selections with the best fry quality;
2. determine the potato entry with the best potato fry quality; and
3. determine the interaction between locations and potato selection on fry quality.
The study was conducted at the Northern Philippine Root Crops Research and
Training Center on October 2008.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Nutritive Content of Potato
Potato is approximately 80% water, 17% carbohydrates, 20% protein in its raw
and cooked status. As a consequence, energy content of raw potato is less than that of
raw cereals and legumes (Artzen, 1994).
One hundred grams of French fries have a nutrient content of 309.1 cal. food
energy, 4.0 grams of protein, 38.6 grams of carbohydrates, 16.1 grams of total fat, 5.0
grams of saturated fat, 3.2 grams of dietary fiber, 712.0 milligrams of potassium, 5.3
milligrams of vitamin C, 33.0 micrograms of foliate, 29.0 milligrams of vitamin A (FFD,
2001).
Preferred Tuber Characteristics for Fries
Netherlands Potato Consultative Foundation (NIVAP, 2007) stated that the
external quality of potatoes is extremely important in the processing industry.
Characteristics of particular interest are the shape and the extent of external damage.
Size, shape and shallow eyes are important with regard to the appearance of the product
and the influence on wastage during peeling. French fry producers prefer long oval or
long tubers with a size of at least 50 mm. Both the processing efficiency and quality of
the finished product benefit from a high dry matter content. For the production of French
fries, potatoes with a dry matter content of 20-24% are preferred. If the dry matter
content is too low, the French fry will be soft or too wet. A high dry matter content
concentration results in a lower fat content. This lowers the processing costs and is better
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
4
for the health of consumers. However, if the dry matter content is too high, the French
fry will be too hard and dry.
According to Batt (2001), the four most important attributes that Filipino potato
farmer’s sought for their most preferred variety was tuber size, tuber shape, skin color
and the suitability of the variety to the growing environment. The tuber size, tuber shape
and skin color are no doubt related to the marketability of the tubers.
Potatoes intended for processing as French fry should have a sugar level less
than 1.2% mg/g or 0.125% of the tuber fresh weight. Potatoes with higher values than
these will usually show color problems after cooking (Stark et al., 2001). Potatoes with
low starch can lead to poor texture and excess oiliness while high reducing sugars caused
undesirable dark fry color (Mosley, 2005).
Another important aspect of characteristics for processing quality is the color
distribution. Unevenness in color distribution results in French fry with a brown color at
one end. The cause of this phenomenon is senescence after long storage and secondary
growth (NIVAP, 2007).
Frozen processing varieties are preferably high in starch (high dry matter) and
low in reducing sugars. Approximately 80% of tuber dry matter is starch. High dry
matter potatoes are frequently thought as “dry” for most culinary purposes where as low
dry matter varieties are considered as “moist”. Tubers with less than about 18% dry
matter are seldom used for frozen processing because of poor texture. Approximately
two-thirds of the water in French fries is replaced by oil during frying. Varieties with
high water or low dry matter produce oily, soggy French fries. Because more water must
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
5
be removed during processing, product recovery is low and the cost of fry production is
higher making such varieties unprofitable in most situations (Mosley, 2005).
Mosley (2005) mentioned also that potato varieties vary in appearance, season
of maturity, internal composition, yield and tuber quality, pest and disease resistance and
adaptability. Early maturing varieties typically have short storage dormancy and are
usually processed at harvest on shortly afterward. Leading frozen processing varieties
are relatively late maturing, have long storage dormancies and can be processed for
several months. Hollow heart, internal brown spot, sugar-ends and stem-end
discoloration caused from heat, moisture and other environmental stresses during their
growing season. The disorders severely reduce processing quality, especially for frozen
fries which must be uniform in appearance. Sugar-end for example, causes “dark-end”
fries which are unacceptable to the industry and must be discarded.
Tuber Moisture Content and Crispness
The increase in final frying time increased crispness, but it cannot
counterbalance a lack of pre-frying. The differences in crispness due to different pre-
frying time cannot be explained in terms of moisture content of the whole French fries,
but can be explained in terms of the moisture content of the outer layer. The pre-frying
step likely affects the morphology of the outer crust by allowing an easier loss of water
during the final frying step (Sanz et al., 2007).
Factors Affecting Tuber Dry Matter Content
Date of planting (early planting) helps increase dry matter content by
lengthening the growth period. Crops that mature early generally have higher dry matter
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
6
content than later plantings. The earlier the plants appear and can begin to produce solids
from photosynthesis the better. Soil type, water holding capacity, drainage, structure,
fertility and temperature of the soil can affect dry matter. For example, a sandy soil could
be expected to drain better than a clay loam. In a wet season this could be an advantage
and a higher dry matter may result. In order for the potatoes to achieve optimal maturity
and reach good dry matter levels at harvest, the tubers should be left as long as possible,
bearing in mind the comments made on time of planting and the growth period (Kellock,
1995).
Factors Affecting Tuber Sugar Content
Stark et al. (2001) mentioned that tuber maturity, temperature, variety, storage
stress and handling affect the sugar content of a tuber. As the tuber grow and mature, the
sugar content decreases, reaching the lowest point when the vines are rearing complete
senescence. For potatoes intended for French fry processing, the temperature is about 47
to 50oF. It is critical to match varieties with intended use. Potatoes bred for French fry
processing typically have intermediate sugar contents.
The major factors that influence tuber sugar concentrations and fry color are the
growing season, cultivar and storage management. Fertilization practices, diseases, and
other management practices can also have an effect (Sanders, 2008).
Alingbas (2007), found out that the lowest sugar content was obtained from
accessions 96-06 (5.88 oBrix) while the highest sugar content was obtained from
accessions 5.19.2.2. (6.29 oBrix).
Sugar content is a varietal characteristic that maybe influenced by
environmental factors in a location (Peet, 2007).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
7
Processing of Potato Fries
Raw products play an important role in processing, fry yield and finished
quality. Every effort should be made to obtain potatoes with few external and internal
defects and of the proper starch and sugar content. Tuber malformations and mechanical
injury can lead to excessive peel and trim loss. Trimming and peeling potatoes reduces
overall weight by approximately 22%. Blanching using hot water reduces total raw
product weight an additional 5-10%. Par-frying reduces raw product weight an
additional 16% despite 6-8% oil absorption. Par-frying assures that all enzyme activity is
terminated and tissues are stabilized for long-term frozen at about -23.3 to 28oC on
conveyor lines to stabilize the tissues in preparation for packaging and long term storage
(Mosley, 2005).
Potato Fry Storage
Par fries can be held long-term in a frozen state. Smaller cuts can be stored up
to 12 months and larger cuts up to 18 to 24 months at about -18oC without serious loss of
quality due to dehydration. However, processors prefer to store only 6-9 months
(Mosley, 2005).
Potato Varieties Identified in the Philippines
Four new potato varieties which possesses the desired dry matter content
required by the fast-food chains to make good French fries were Igorota, Solibao, Ganza
and the fourth one which has yet to be given an official tag (Cariňo, 2007).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
8
Results of Local Studies
Igorota variety is good for processing because of its 16.6-17.50% dry matter
content and sugar content of 4.00-4.74 oBrix. The potato fries also were moderately
crispy, moderately perceptible, moderately oily, moderately firm, and liked very much by
the panelist (Ruega, 2005).
Alingbas (2007) found out that Balili and Longlong are the best sites in growing
organic potatoes for chip processing because these sites produced high chip yield and
light yellow chips with moderately browning. In addition, tubers from accessions
5.19.2.2 and 676089 showed good chip characteristics such as high dry matter and high
chip recovery. Both accessions also produced tubers with crispy chips which were liked
much by the panelists.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Marketable potato tubers harvested from different locations of Benguet were used
for potato fries. Five hundred grams of sound potato tubers per replication per entry was
processed. The potato tubers were washed, peeled and cut into 7mm to 12 mm thick
sticks (Macmillan, 2000). The sticks were soaked in cold water and pat dried using clean
cotton cloth.
The dried strips were partially fried or par-fried for about 2 to 3 minutes in hot
vegetable oil under 180oC. The par-fried strips were packed and quickly frozen at about
1oC within 7 to 9 days. The frozen par-fried sticks were finally fried at about 2-3 minutes
under 180oC until the oil stops bubbling. Finally, the fried entries were quickly evaluated
by ten panelists.
The experiment was laid out in split- plot design with three replications. The
treatments were:
Mainplot: Location of Production (L)
Code
Location
L1
Loo,
Buguias
L2
Bonglo,
Atok
L3
Sagpat,
Kibungan
Subplot: Potato Entries (E)
Code
Entry
Locality
of
Collection
E1
CIP
380241.17 CIP
E2
PHIL
5.19.2.2
Philippines
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
10
E3
CIP
676070
CIP
E4
CIP
573275
CIP
E5
PHIL
2.21.6.2
Philippines
E6
Granola- Cv
CIP
E7
Ganza- Cv
CIP
E8
Igorota-
Cv
Philippines
Data Gathered
A. Potato Tuber
1. Dry matter content. This was taken by oven drying 50 g of sliced potato
tubers for 72 hours at 70oC. This was computed using the formula:
% Dry Matter Content = 100% - % Moisture content
Where:
%Moisture content = Fresh weight-Oven dry weight x 100
Fresh weight
2. Sugar content (oBrix). This was taken by extracting the juice of 20 g
potato tubers on a digital refractometer.
B. Potato Fries
1. Potato fry yield. This was taken by using the formula:
Potato Fry Yield = Weight of unpeeled tubers – Weight of sliced tubers x 100
Weight
of
unpeeled
tubers
2. Potato fry color. After final frying, the color of the fries was evaluated
using the color chart provided by Stark et al. (2001).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
11
Weighing 500 g of tubers
Peeling
Soaking to avoid browning
Weighing
Pat-drying
Slicing into sticks
Par-frying
for
2-3
minutes
Packing Sealing
Evaluating of 10 panelists
Final
frying
Freezing
at
1oC
Figure 1. Methodology of the study
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
12
3. Potato fry sugar end. After final frying, the fry’s sugar end was evaluated
by using the following scale:
Scale
Description
1
Present
2
Absent
4. Sensory evaluation. Sensory evaluation includes crispness, taste, oil
absorption, texture, browning and general acceptability. After final frying, ten non-
smoking panelist aged 13 and above evaluated the fries using the following parameters
(Mabesa, 1986):
a. Crispness
Scale
Remarks
1
very
crispy
2
crispy
3
moderate
crispness
4
slight
crispness
5
no
crispness
b. Taste
Scale
Remarks
1 very
perceptible
2 perceptible
3 moderately
perceptible
4 slightly
perceptible
5 not
perceptible
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
13
c. Oil Absorption
Scale
Remarks
1 not
oily
2 slightly
oily
3 moderately
oily
4
oily
5 very
oily
d.
Texture
Scale
Remarks
1
firm
2 moderately
firm
3 slightly
firm
4 not
firm
e.
Browning
Scale
Remarks Rate
1 severe
browning
6%
browning
2 moderate
browning
3-5%browning
3 slight
browning 1-2%browning
4 not
browning
0%
browning
f. General acceptability
Scale
Remarks
1 like
very
much
2 like
much
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
14
3 like
moderately
4 like
slightly
5 dislike
or
not
like
Analysis of Data
All quantitative data was analyzed using analysis of variance for Split-Plot
Design with three replications. The significance of differences among treatment means
was tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature, Relative Humidity and Rainfall
The temperature, relative humidity and rainfall from the different locations were
taken from July 2008 to September 2008 (Table 1).
Potatoes grow best in temperature ranging from 17-22 oC (HARRDEC, 1996).
Loo, Bonglo and Sagpat are within this temperature range which maybe favorable to the
production of potatoes for good fry quality.
Relative humidity (95.62%) and rainfall (6.73L) are highest in Bonglo. Relative
humidity and rainfall might influence the fry quality of the potato tubers by causing
changes in the dry matter of tubers. For instance excess of water during the growth of the
plants will result to low dry matter content (Kellock, 1995).
Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity, and rainfall from July to September 2008
TREATMENT LOO,
BUGUIAS
BONGLO,
ATOK
SAGPAT,
KIBUNGAN
Temperature
17.75
18.20
18.14
(oC)
Relative humidity
77.32
95.62
83.54
(%)
Rainfall (L)
0.82
6.73
1.27
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
16
Dry Matter Content
Effect of location. Highly significant differences are observed on dry matter
content of the tubers harvested from different locations. Tubers harvested from Loo gave
the highest dry matter (Table 2). Dry matter content might be attributed to the rainfall
and relative humidity during the growth stage of the plants.
Loo and Sagpat which had the highest rainfall and relative humidity produced
tubers with low dry matter content. Excessive water is said to result to low dry matter
content in the potato tubers (Kellock, 1995). However, all the tubers harvested from the
different locations might be suitable for processing due to their above 18% dry matter
content.
Effect of entry. The tuber dry matter content of the different entries ranged from
18 to 20%. The highest dry matter content of 20% was obtained from CIP 380241.17,
PHIL 5.19.2.2, CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota.
All the entries may be used for fry processing since tubers with less than 18% dry
matter are seldom used for frozen processing because of poor texture (Mosley, 2005).
The dry matter content of the different entries might be attributed to their genetic
characteristic and maturity of the crops. Entries that mature early generally have higher
dry matter content (Kellock, 1995).
Interaction effect. A highly significant interaction was observed between
locations and entries on tuber dry matter content. CIP 380241.17 and CIP 573275
planted in Loo gained the highest tuber dry matter content (Fig. 2).
Dry matter content is affected by genetic characteristics but maybe influenced by
water uptake, temperature, photoperiod and others (Rastovski et al., 1981). Thus, both
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
17
entries and location must be considered in selecting potato entries for processing in terms
of dry matter content.
Table 2. Dry matter content of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT
DRY MATTER CONTENT
(%)
Location (L)
Loo
20a
Bonglo
19b
Sagpat
19b
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP 380241.17
20a
PHIL 5.19.2.2
20a
CIP 676070
19b
CIP 573275
20a
PHIL 2.21.6.2
20a
Granola
18c
Ganza
19b
Igorota
20a
L x PE
**
CV (a) %
10.59
CV (b) %
15.09
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of
DMRT.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
18
ENTRY
) 25
%
(
CIP 380241.17
NT 20
PHIL 5.19.2.2
E
NT
CIP 676070
15
CIP 573275
R CO
E 10
T
PHIL 2.21.6.2
AT
5
GRANOLA
M
GANZA
DRY
0
IGOROTA
LOO
BONGLO
SAGPAT
LOCATION
Figure 2. Interaction of location and potato entry on dry matter content of tubers
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
19
Sugar content (oBrix)
Effect of location. Highly significant differences are observed on the sugar
content of the potato tubers harvested from different locations (Table 3). Potato tubers
harvested from Sagpat gave the highest sugar content while potato tubers from Bonglo
gave the lowest sugar content.
Sugar content is a varietal characteristic that maybe influenced by environmental
factors in a location (Peet, 2007). The low sugar content of the potatoes from Bonglo
may be due to the high rainfall of the site.
Effect of entry. The potato entries significantly differed in terms of sugar content.
The lowest sugar content was obtained from CIP 380241.17 and CIP 573275 but are not
significantly different from the rest of the entries except Granola and CIP 676070. These
entries with low sugar contents may be processed into fries with less browning.
The sugar content of the entries might be attributed to cultivar characteristics
(Sanders, 2008).
Interaction effect. No interaction existed between the locations and entries.
However, lowest sugar content was exhibited by PHIL 5.19.2.2 in Bonglo.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
20
Table 3. Sugar content of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT SUGAR
CONTENT
(oBrix)
Location (L)
Loo
3.7b
Bonglo
2.5c
Sagpat
4.4a
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP380241.17
3.2b
PHIL 5.19.2.2
3.4a
CIP 676070
3.7a
CIP 573275
3.2b
PHIL 2.21.6.2
4.1a
Granola
3.7a
Ganza
3.4b
Igorota
3.3b
L x PE
ns
CV (a) %
15.71
CV (b) %
17.80
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of
DMRT.
Potato Fry yield
Effect of location. No significant differences are observed in the fry yield of
potato tubers in each location (Table 4). Potato tubers harvested from Loo gave the
highest fry yield.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
21
Effect of entry. The tuber fry yield of the different entries (Fig. 3) was not
significantly different from each other. However, the highest fry yield was obtained from
CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota.
Interaction
affect. No significant interaction exists between the locations and
entries. The highest fry yield was observed in entries harvested from Loo.
Table 4. Fry yield of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT FRY
YIELD
(g)
Location (L)
Loo
35
Bonglo
33
Sagpat
31
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP 380241.17
33
PHIL 5.19.2.2
28
CIP 676070
32
CIP 573275
35
PHIL 2.21.6.2
35
Granola
32
Ganza
32
Igorota
35
L x PE
ns
CV (a) %
21.40
CV (b) %
35.60
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
22
(a)
96-06
(e)
2.21.6.2
(b)
5.19.2.2
(f)
Granola
(c)
676070
(g)
Ganza
(d)
573275
(f)
Igorota
Figure 3. Tuber fry sticks of the eight potato entries
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
23
Potato Fry color
Effect of location. The color of the processed fries from each location showed no
significant differences (Table 5). However, entries harvested from Loo and Sagpat
produced yellow potato fries (rating 3) while those harvested from Bonglo produced light
yellow fries (rating 2).
Effect of entry. Significant differences are observed in the color of the processed
fries from the different entries. PHIL 5.19.2.2, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota produced light
yellow fries while Ganza produced fries that are dark yellow with browning (Fig. 5).
The color of the potato fries maybe due to the sugar content of the tubers. The
light yellow fries from PHIL 5.19.2.2 and Igorota may be attributed to their low sugar
contents (3.4 and 3.3 oBrix, respectively). The relatively high sugar content of the other
entries may have resulted to dark fry color (Mosley, 2005).
Interaction
effect. A highly significant difference exists between the locations
and potato entries (Fig. 4). Fries processed from Ganza harvested at Sagpat was dark
yellow with browning while PHIL 5.19.2.2, CIP 380241.17 and Igorota harvested at Loo
obtained a yellow fry color (Fig. 5). This result implies that both entries and location are
important factors in selecting potatoes with light yellow to yellow fries.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
24
Table 5. Fry color of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT FRY
COLOR
Location (L)
Loo
3
Bonglo
2
Sagpat
3
Potato Entries (PE)
CIP 380241.17
3b
PHIL 5.19.2.2
2c
CIP 676070
3b
CIP 573275
3b
PHIL 2.21.6.2
2c
Granola
3b
Ganza
4a
Igorota
2c
L x PE
**
CV (a) %
19.12
CV (b) %
20.19
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of
DMRT.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
25
ENTRY
25
CIP 380241.17
PHIL 5.19.2.2
20
R
CIP 676070
LO 15
O
CIP 573275
C
Y 10
PHIL 2.21.6.2
FR
GRANOLA
5
GANZA
0
IGOROTA
LOO
BONGLO
SAGPAT
LOCATION
Figure 4. Interaction of location and potato entry on fry color
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
26
(a) rating 2 or light yellow
(b) rating 3 or yellow
(b) rating 4 or dark yellow
Figure 5. Processed fries showing the different color ratings
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
27
Fry Sugar End
Effect of location. Potato tubers harvested from Loo produced fries with sugar
ends while those harvested from Bonglo and Sagpat had no sugar ends (Table 6).
The presence of sugar ends on the fries from Loo may be attributed to the
relatively high sugar content of the tubers (Stark et al., 2001).
Effect of entry. Most of the entries had no sugar end (Fig. 7) except CIP 573275,
CIP 380241.17 and Granola. The presence of sugar end in the potato fries of these
entries (Fig. 6) maybe due to the sugar level of the potato tubers. Less than 0.125 %
sugar of the tuber’s fresh weight is required in processing to avoid color problems after
cooking (Stark et al., 2001).
In addition, the presence of sugar end which causes dark-end fries are
unacceptable to processing and must be discarded.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
28
Table 6. Sugar end of potato entries harvested across locations
TREATMENT SUGAR
END
Location (L)
Loo
Present
Bonglo
Absent
Sagpat
Absent
Potato Entry (PE)
CIP 380241.17
Present
PHIL 5.19.2.2
Absent
CIP 676070
Absent
CIP 573275
Present
PHIL 2.21.6.2
Absent
Granola
Present
Ganza
Absent
Igorota
Absent
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
29
Figure 6. Processed fries with sugar end
Figure 7. Processed fries without sugar end
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
30
Sensory Evaluation
Effect of location. The potato fries that were produced from the potatoes
harvested from the different locations were moderately crispy, had moderately
perceptible taste, were moderately oily, slightly firm, and slightly brown (Table 7). Dry
matter content may influence the crispiness, oiliness and texture of the potato fries
produced. On the other hand, sugar content of the tubers may influence taste and
browning pattern of the fries.
Moreover, the fries that were produced from tubers harvested in Loo were liked
much by the panelists which may be attributed to the color and sugar content of the fries.
The fries of the tubers harvested in Bonglo and Sagpat were moderately liked by the
panelists.
Effect of entry. Most of the potato fries of the different entries were slightly to
moderately crispy, had moderately perceptible taste, were moderately oily, slightly firm,
and slightly brown. Potato fries of the entries PHIL 5.19.2.2 and CIP 676070 were
slightly oily which may be due to their relatively high dry matter contents. Varieties with
high dry matter content concentration results in a low oil content (NIVAP, 2007).
PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota produced fries which were liked much by the panelists.
The acceptability of the fries maybe influenced by the sugar content of the tubers and
color of the fries (Alingbas, 2007).
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted to identify the location that produces potato selections
with the best fry quality, determine the potato entry with the best potato fry quality, and
determine the interaction between locations and potato selection on fry quality.
Potato tubers harvested from the three locations had a dry matter content ranging
from 19 to 20%. Loo gained the highest dry matter content while Bonglo and Sagpat
gained the lowest. The highest sugar content was obtained from the potato tubers
harvested from Sagpat.
Potato tubers from Bonglo produced light yellow fries with no sugar end. The
fries produced from the three locations were moderately crispy, moderately perceptible,
moderately oily, slightly firm, slightly brown and were liked moderately by the panelists.
The fries from Loo were liked much.
CIP 380241.17, PHIL 5.19.2.2, CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota had the
highest dry matter content. The high dry matter content of these entries resulted to high
fry yield. Highest sugar content which was exhibited by PHIL 2.21.6.2, Granola, CIP
380241.17 and CIP 573275 resulted to sugar end on fries.
All entries produced fries with moderately perceptible taste, were slightly brown
and slightly firm. Moderately crispy fries were also obtained from most of the entries
except CIP 573275, PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Ganza which produced slightly crispy fries. PHIL
2.21.6.2 and Igorota were liked much by the panelists.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
33
Interaction between the location and potato entries were highly significant on dry
matter content, sugar end and potato fry color. No significant interactions were observed
on sugar content and fry yield.
Conclusion
Loo is the best site to produce potato entries with the best fry quality. Potatoes
harvested from Loo had dry matter contents acceptable for processing. Tubers from Loo
also produced the highest fry yield and the fries were liked much by the panelists.
Tubers from PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota showed good traits for fry quality. Both
entries had high dry matter content and high fry yield. Moreover, processed fries from
both entries were liked much by the panelists.
Growing PHIL 2.21.6.2 and Igorota in Loo might result in the production of
tubers with good fry quality.
Recommendation
Based on the results, Loo, on the other hand, is recommended for producing
potato selections suitable for fry processing.
CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota are recommended for potato fry processing because of
their high fry yield, high dry matter content and acceptability.
Growing CIP 2.21.6.2 and Igorota in Loo is recommended for producing potatoes
with good fry quality.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
LITERATURE CITED
ALINGBAS, A. 2007. Chipping quality of promising potato accessions grown
organically in six locations of Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Pp. 32-33.
ARTZEN, C. 1994. Encyclopedia of agricultural Science. Academic press, Inc. San
Diego, California. Vol. 3. Pp. 423-424.
BALAOING, J. G. 2006. Performance of potato cultivars as influenced by lime and
organic fertilizer application. PhD Dissertation. Benguet State University. La
Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1, 35.
BATT, P. J. 2001. Variety: The Key Driver of demand for Seed Potatoes in the
Philippines. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1. Pp 317- 329.
Retrieved July 2008 from http://www.bioline.org.br/.
BUREAU OF POSTHARVEST RESEARCH AND EXTENSION. 2007. Philippine
Postharvest Industry Profile: POTATO. CLSU Compound, Science City of
Munoz 3120 Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Retrieved July 2008 from
http://www.biotech.da .gov.ph.
CARIŇO, D. 2007. Potato varieties for Processing identified in the Philippines.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 2008 from http://www.potatopro.com/
Lists/News/.
FROZEN FOOD DIGEST. 2001. Nutritional content of potato chips, French fries and
bakes potatoes. Pp 1,2. Retrieved July 2008 from
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturi ng/food-manufacturing-fruit/.
FOUNDATION for RESOURCES LINKAGE and DEVELOPMENT, INC (FRLD).
1995. The Potato: Marketing system in Major Production and Demand Areas in
the Philippines. Martliak, DA, ASAP, UNSAID. Pp. 10-15.
KELLOCK, T. 1995. Potatoes: Factors Affecting Dry Matter. Retrieved June 2008
from http://www.dpi. vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/.
MABESA, L.B. 1986. Sensory Evaluation of Foods, Principles and Methods.
Phillipines: CRDL Printing Press, Laguna. Pp. 29-50.
MACMILLAN, N. 2000. The Encyclopedia of cooking Skills and Technique. Anness
Publishing Limited. London. P.113.
MOSLEY, A.R. 2005. Manufacture, Storage and Transport of Frozen French Fries.
Retrieved July 2008 from http://oregonstate.edu/potatoes/Frozen .
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
35
NETHERLANDS POTATO CONSULTATIVE FOUNDATION (NIVAP). 2007. Tuber
characteristics determining quality. Retrieved August 2008 from
http://www.nivaa.nl/uk/about_potatoes/agronomy/on_the_road_to_potato_process
ing/tuber_characteristics.
PCARRD. 2008. Industry Status. Retrieved July 2008 from http://www.maidon.pcarrd.
.
dost. gov.ph/joomla/ .
PEET, M. 2007. Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South. Retrieved
August 2008 from http://www.cals.ncsu.edu.
RUEGA, N. 2005. Processing quality of potato (cv Igorota) as influenced by different
inorganic fertilizer rates. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. P 24.
SANDERS, G. 2008. The influence of moist irrigation on the potato IV. American
Journal of Potato Research. Retrieved June 2008 from http://www.springer
link.com/content.
SANZ, T., C. PRIMO-MARTIN and T. VAN VLIET. 2007. Characterization of
crispiness of French fries by fracture and acoustic measurements, effect of pre-
frying and final frying times. Retrieved June 2008 from
http://www.tifn.nl/webdb/a_index.html.
STARK, J.C., N.OLSEN ,G.K. KLENKOFF, and L. LOVE. 2001. Tuber Quality.
Retrieved July 2008 from http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/potato/production/.
ZAAG De V. 1990. The demand for seed potatoes in South East Asia. Retrieved
September 2008 from http://www.agrifoof.info/review.
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Dry matter content (%) of the potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III
TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 21 20
21
62
20.7
E2
19
20
19
58
19.3
E3
21 19
20
60
20.0
E4
21 21
20
62
20.7
E5
19 21
21
61
20.0
E6
21 17
20
58
19.3
E7
20 19
21
60
20.0
E8
20 21
20
61
20.3
SUBTOTAL 162
158
162
482
161.3
L2 E1
21 20
20
61
20.3
E2
21 19
21
61
20.3
E3
19 21
19
59
19.7
E4
21 20
20
61
20.3
E5
20 20
20
60
20.0
E6
16 15
18
49
16.3
E7
19 18
18
55
18.3
E8
19 21
19
59
19.7
SUBTOTAL 156
154
155
465
155
L3 E1
19 21
21
61
20.3
E2
20 20
21
61
20.3
E3
14 17
17
48
16.0
E4
18 20
19
57
19.0
E5
17 19
20
56
18.7
E6
20 19
18
57
19.0
E7
20 20
20
60
20.0
E8
21 20
18
59
19.7
SUBTOTAL 149
156
154
459
152
TOTAL
467
468
472
1406
469
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
37
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 62.000
61.000
61.000
184
20.444
E2
58.000
61.000
61.000
180
20.000
E3
60.000
59.000
48.000
167
18.556
E4
62.000
61.000
57.000
180
20.000
E5
61.000
60.000
56.000
177
19.667
E6
58.000
49.000
57.000
164
18.222
E7
60.000
55.000
60.000
175
19.444
E8 61.000
59.000
59.000
179
19.889
TOTAL 482.000 465.000 459.000 1406
MEAN
20.083a 19.375b 19.125b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.778
0.389
Main-plot factor (A) 2
11.861
5.931
5.51**
3.22 5.15
Error
(a) 4 4.306
1.076
Subplot factor (B)
7
36.833
5.262
4.23**
2.59 3.80
A
x
B
14
51.917
3.708
2.98**
1.94
2.54
Error (b)
42
52.250
1.244
TOTAL 71
157.944
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 10.59 %
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
15.09
%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
38
Appendix Table 2. Sugar content (oBrix) of potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III
TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 2.8 2.7
3.6
9.1
3.0
E2
4.2
3.6
4.5
12.3
4.1
E3
3.8
3.5
4.6
11.9
4.0
E4
4.0
3.0
2.2
9.2
3.1
E5
3.5
4.5
3.7
11.7
3.9
E6
3.1
4.4
3.3
10.8
3.6
E7
3.5
3.2
3.5
10.2
3.4
E8
3.8
3.5
3.0
10.3
3.4
SUBTOTAL 28.7
28.4
28.4
85.5
28.5
L2 E1
2.6
2.4
2.8
7.8
2.6
E2
1.5
2.3
2.5
6.3
2.1
E3
3.7
2.0
1.9
7.6
2.5
E4
1.4 3.1
2.1
6.6
2.2
E5
3.2 3.5
4.5
11.2
3.7
E6
3.4 2.6
2.0
8.0
2.7
E7
1.8 2.0
2.7
6.5
2.2
E8
3.1 1.6
1.8
6.5
2.2
SUBTOTAL 20.7
19.5
20.3
60.5
20.2
L3 E1
4.0 4.0
3.8
11.8
3.9
E2
3.9 3.8
4.5
12.2
4.1
E3
4.5 4.8
4.1
13.4
4.5
E4
4.3 4.0
4.3
12.6
4.2
E5
5.5 5.4
3.9
14.8
4.9
E6
4.8 4.9
5.0
14.7
4.9
E7
4.3 4.5
4.8
13.6
4.5
E8
3.5 5.1
4.6
13.2
4.4
SUBTOTAL 34.8
36.5
35.0
106.2
35.4
TOTAL
84.2
84.4
83.7
252.2
84.1
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
39
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 9.100
7.800
11.800
28.700
3.189
E2
12.300
6.300
12.200
30.800
3.422
E3
11.900
7.600
13.400
32.900
3.655
E4
9.200
6.600
12.600
28.400
3.156
E5
11.700
11.200
14.800
37.700
4.189
E6
10.800
8.000
14.700
33.500
3.722
E7
10.200
6.500
13.600
30.300
3.367
E8 10.300
6.500
13.200
30.000
3.330
TOTAL
85.500
60.500
106.300
252.300
MEAN
3.562b 2.521c
4.429a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.011
0.005
Main-plot factor (A) 2
43.823
21.912
286.6**
3.22 5.15
Error
(a) 4 0.306
0.076
Subplot factor (B) 7
7.335
1.048
2.69*
2.59 3.80
A
x
B
14
4.917
0.351
0.90ns
1.94 2.54
Error (b)
42
16.337
0.389
TOTAL 71
72.729
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 15.71 %
*Significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
17.80
%
ns not significant
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
40
Appendix Table 3. Fry yield (g) of potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III
TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 37 39
38
114
38.0
E2
25
47
21
93
31.0
E3
39 41
39
119
39.7
E4
39 47
32
119
39.7
E5
34 40
32
106
35.3
E6
34 21
40
94
31.3
E7
27 34
40
101
33.7
E8
32 34
28
94
31.3
SUBTOTAL 264
303
272
920
35
L2 E1
26 29
26
81
27
E2
24 44
18
86
28.7
E3
27 28
38
93
31
E4
33 31
43
105
35
E5
29 32
48
109
36.3
E6
32 33
42
108
36
E7
40 26
30
95
31.7
E8
40 36
29
105
35
SUBTOTAL 250
260
275
39
32.58
L3 E1
29 39
33
101
33.7
E2
27 23
26
76
25.3
E3
26 20
29
75
25
E4
41 21
30
91
30.3
E5
33 35
36
103
34.3
E6
31 28
24
83
47.8
E7
27 29
34
90
30
E8
31 37
48
116
38.7
SUBTOTAL 11
13
13
37
30.6
TOTAL
840
782
735
2357
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
41
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 114.000 81.000
101.000 296.000 32.889
E2
93.000
86.000
76.000
255.000
28.333
E3
119.000
93.000
75.000
287.000
31.889
E4
119.000 105.000 91.000
315.000 35.000
E5
106.000
109.000
103.000
318.000
35.333
E6
94.000
108.000 83.0000 285.000 31.667
E7
101.000
95.000
90.000
286.000
31.778
E8 94.000
105.000 116.000 315.000 35.000
TOTAL 840.000 782.000 735.000 2357.000
MEAN 35.000 32.583 30.625
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
35.528
17.764
Main-plot factor (A) 2
230.528
115.264
3.21ns
3.22 5.15
Error (a)
4
136.806
34.201
Subplot factor (B)
7
352.653
50.379
1.03ns
2.59 3.80
A x B
14
670.806
47.915
0.98ns
1.94 2.54
Error (b)
42
2061.667
49.087
TOTAL 71
3487.986
ns=not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 21.40%
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
35.60%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
42
Appendix Table 4. Fry color of the potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 1
1 1
3
1.0
E2
1
1
1
3
1.0
E3
4
4 4 12
4.0
E4
4
4 4 12
4.0
E5
4
4 1
9
3.0
E6
2
5 5 12
4.0
E7
1
2 6
9
3.0
E8
1
1 1
3
1.0
SUBTOTAL 18
22
23
63
21.0
L2 E1
4
1 1
6
2.0
E2
4
1 2
7
2.3
E3
2
2 2
6
2.0
E4
1
4 4
9
3.0
E5
1
1 1
3
1.0
E6
4
5 4 13
4.3
E7
1
4 1
6
2.0
E8
1
1 4
6
2.0
SUBTOTAL 18
19
19
56
18.7
L3 E1
4
5 5 14
4.7
E2
4
2 2
8
2.7
E3
4
3 2
9
3.0
E4
3
3 1
7
2.3
E5
1
4 4
9
3.0
E6
2
1 2
5
1.7
E7
5
7 5 17
5.7
E8
1
4 1
6
2.0
SUBTOTAL 24
29
22
75
25
TOTAL
60
70
64
194
64.7
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
43
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 3 6 14
23
3
E2
3
7
8
18
2
E3
12
6 9 27
3
E4
12
9
7 28
3
E5
9
3
9
21
2
E6
12
13
5 30
3
E7
9 6 17
32
4
E8 3 6 6 15
2
TOTAL 63
56
75
194
MEAN
3 2 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
2.111
1.056
Main-plot factor (A) 2
7.694
3.847
5.18ns 6.94
18.00
Error
(a) 4 2.972
0.743
Subplot factor (B)
7
27.944
3.992
2.28*
2.24 3.26
A
x
B
14
72.972
5.212
2.97**
1.94
2.54
Error (b)
42
73.583
1.752
TOTAL 71
157.944
ns
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 19.12 %
*Significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
28.12
%
**Highly Significant
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
44
Appendix Table 5. Fry sugar ends of the potato entries harvested across locations
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I II III TOTAL MEAN
LI E1 1
1 1 3 1
E2
2
2
2
6
2
E3
1
1 1 3 1
E4
2
2 2 6 2
E5
1
2
2
5
2
E6
1
1 1 3 1
E7
1
1 1 3 1
E8
1
2 5 5 2
SUBTOTAL 10
12
12
34
11
L2 E1
1
2 1 4 1
E2
2
2 2 6 2
E3
2
2 2 6 2
E4
1
2 1 4 1
E5
1
2 1 4 1
E6
1
1 1 3 1
E7
2
2 2 6 2
E8
2
2 2 6 2
SUBTOTAL 12
15
12
39
13
L3 E1
1
1 1 3 1
E2
2
2 2 2 2
E3
2
2 2 6 2
E4
1
1 1 3 1
E5
1
2 2 5 2
E6
1
1 1 3 1
E7
2
2 2 6 2
E8
1
2 2 5 2
SUBTOTAL 11
13
13
37
12
TOTAL
33
40
39
110
36
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
45
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 3.000
4.000
3.000
10.000
1.111c
E2
6.000
6.000
6.000
18.000
2.000a
E3
3.000
6.000
6.000
15.000
1.667ab
E4
6.000
4.000
3.000
13.000
1.444bc
E5
5.000
4.000
5.000
14.000
1.556ab
E6
3.000
3.000
3.000
9.000
1.000c
E7
3.000
6.000
6.000
15.000
1.667ab
E8 5.000
6.000
5.000
16.000
1.778ab
TOTAL 34.000
39.000
37
110.000
MEAN
1.417
1.625
1.542
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
1.028
0.514
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.528
0.264
2.71ns
3.22 5.15
Error
(a) 4 0.389
0.097
Subplot factor (B)
7
7.056
1.008
13.03**
2.59 3.80
A
x
B
14
5.694
0.407
5.26**
1.94
2.54
Error
(b) 42
3.250
0.077
TOTAL 71
17.944
**Highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 14.20%
ns=not
significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
18.21
%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
46
Appendix Table 6a. Crispiness of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 31 3.1
E2
4 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 32 3.2
E3
4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 27 2.7
E4
5 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 38 3.8
E5
3 3 4 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 31 3.1
E6
4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 4.0
E7
5 4 5 5 4 4 5 3 4 3 42 4.2
E8
5 3 3 5 3 2 3 2 2 4 32 3.2
SUBTOTAL 34 28 29 28 25 25 31 23 25 25 273 27.3
L2 E1
5 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 26 2.6
E2
4 2 4 3 4 3 4 1 3 3 31 3.1
E3
4 2 2 3 3 2 4 1 4 3 28 2.8
E4
5 4 3 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 35 3.5
E5
4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 36 3.6
E6
4 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 24 2.4
E7
4 4 2 3 4 3 3 1 4 2 30 3.0
E8
4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 3 31 3.1
SUBTOTAL 34 21 23 26 26 22 29 11 28 21 241 24.1
L2 E1
4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 5 37 3.7
E2
5 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 39 3.9
E3
4 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 3 5 35 3.5
E4
4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 35 3.5
E5
5 4 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 40 4.0
E6
5 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 24 2.4
E7
5 4 5 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 38 3.8
E8
5 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 25 2.5
SUBTOTAL 37 28 33 26 22 21 25 21 28 32 273 27.3
TTOTAL
105 77 85 80 73 68 85 55 81 78 787 78.7
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
47
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 31.000
26.000
37.000
94.000
3.133b
E2
32.000
31.000
39.000
102.000
3.400ab
E3
27.000
28.000
35.000
90.000
3.000b
E4
38.000
35.000
35.000
108.000
3.600a
E5
31.000
36.000
40.000
107.000
3.567a
E6
40.000
24.000
24.000
88.000
2.933b
E7
42.000
30.000
38.000
110.000
3.667a
E8 32.000
31.000
25.000
88.000
2.933b
TOTAL 273.000 241.000 273.000 787.000
MEAN
3.413
3.013
3.413
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
62.087
6.899
Main-plot
factor
(A)
2 8.533
4.267
2.92ns
3.05
4.72
Error (a)
18
26.300
1.461
Subplot factor (B)
7
20.662
2.952
7.20**
2.06 2.74
A
x
B
14
37.200
2.657
6.48**
1.75
2.18
Error (b)
189
77.513
0.410
TOTAL 239
232.296
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 19.53%
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 22.83 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
48
Appendix Table 6b. Taste of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 2.4
E2
3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28 2.8
E3
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22 2.2
E4
2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 29 2.9
E5
4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 29 2.9
E6
3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 30 3.0
E7
2 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 3
3 33 3.3
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 30 3.0
22.5
SUBTOTAL 20 20 24 25 24 23 24 20 24 21 225
L2 E1
1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 2.4
E2
2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28 2.8
E3
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22 2.2
E4
1 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 29 2.9
E5
1 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 29 2.9
E6
1 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 30 3.0
E7
2 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 33 3.3
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 30 3.0
22
21.5
SUBTOTAL 31 21 20 15 21 24 15 29 17 215
L2 E1
1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 3.7
E2
2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28 3.9
E3
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22 3.5
E4
1 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 29 3.5
E5
1 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 29 4.0
E6
1 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 30 2.4
E7
2 3 5 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 33 3.8
2.5
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 30
22.5
SUBTOTAL 27 21 21 21 20 15 24 20 28 28 225
TOTAL
74 63 66 66 59 59 72 55 81 66 665
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
49
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 25.000
24.000
28.000
77.000
2.567ab
E2
27.000
25.000
29.000
81.000
2.700ab
E3
22.000
28.000
27.000
77.000
2.567ab
E4
29.000
33.000
32.000
94.000
3.133a
E5
29.000
28.000
32.000
89.000
2.967ab
E6
30.000
24.000
21.000
75.000
2.500b
E7
33.000
26.000
31.000
90.000
3.000a
E8 30.000
27.000
25.000
82.000
2.733ab
TOTAL 225.000 215.000 225.000 665.000
MEAN
2.813
2.688
2.813
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
26.271
2.919
Main-plot
factor
(A)
2 0.833
0.417
0.24ns
3.05
4.72
Error (a)
18
30.667
1.704
Subplot factor (B)
7
11.563
1.652
4.31**
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
12.700
0.907
2.37**
1.75
2.18
Error (b)
189
72.362
0.383
TOTAL 239
154.396
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 22.33 %
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 15.69 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
50
Appendix Table 6c. Oiliness of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 35 3.5
E2
4 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 31 3.1
E3
3
4
3 3
2
3
3
3
2
4
30
3.0
E4
3 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 43 29 2.9
E5
4 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 33 3.3
E6
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 35 3.5
E7
2 3 3 3 3 2 1 4 2 2 25 2.5
E8
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 27 2.7
SUBTOTAL 28 26 21 23 25 20 24 25 24 21 244 24.4
L2 E1
4 5 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 26 2.6
E2
3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 27 2.7
E3
4 4 2 4 3 2 3 2 4 3 31 3.1
E4
3 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 29 2.9
E5
4 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 34 3.4
E6
4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 31 3.1
E7
3 4 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 25 2.5
E8
3 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 33 3.3
SUBTOTAL 28 33 21 24 21 20 20 18 27 24 236 23.6
L2 E1
2 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 31 3.1
E2
2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 28 2.8
E3
2 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 3 4 30 3.0
E4
4 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 31 3.1
E5
4 4 5 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 36 3.6
E6
5 4 2 2 1 4 1 1 2 2 24 2.4
E7
3 3 2 2 1 3 2
3 3 3 25 3.5
E8
5 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 4 33 3.3
SUBTOTAL 27 25 26 24 16 29 22 21 22 29 238 23.8
TOTAL
83 84 65 71 62 69 66 64 73 74 718 71.8
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
51
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 35.000
26.000
31.000
92.000
3.067
E2
31.000
27.000
28.000
86.000
2.867
E3
30.000
31.000
30.000
91.000
3.033
E4
33.000
29.000
31.000
93.000
3.100
E5
28.000
34.000
36.000
98.000
3.267
E6
35.000
31.000
24.000
90.000
3.000
E7
25.000
25.000
25.000
75.000
2.500
E8 27.000
33.000
33.000
93.000
3.100
TOTAL 244.000 236.000 238.000 728.000
MEAN
3.050
2.950
2.975
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
25.733
2.859
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.433
0.217
0.15ns
3.05 4.72
Error (a)
18
26.317
1.462
Subplot factor (B)
7
10.917
1.560
2.01ns
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
17.433
1.245
2.33**
1.75 2.18
Error (b)
189
101.150
0.535
TOTAL 239 181.983
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 24.45 %
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 18.39 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
52
Appendix Table 6d. Texture of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
4 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 25 2.5
E2
2 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 20 2.0
E3
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 23 2.3
E4
4 2 1 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 28 3.8
E5
3 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 25 2.5
E6
3 3 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 31 3.1
E7
3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 28 2.8
E8
2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 27 3.7
SUBTOTAL 25 20 12 25 19 20 16 23 21 25 207 20.7
L2 E1
4 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 26 2.6
E2
3
3 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 27 2.7
E3
3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 24 2.4
E4
3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 25 2.5
E5
3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 26 2.6
E6
3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 24 2.4
E7
2 4 2 1 4 2 3 1 2 2 23 2.3
E8
3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 25 2.5
SUBTOTAL 24 20 23 18 21 16 23 14 22 19 200 20.0
L2 E1
3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 26 2.6
E2
2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 4 25 2.5
E3
3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 24 2.4
E4
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 31 3.1
E5
4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 27 2.7
E6
4 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 21 2.1
E7
4 3 3 2 3 2 3
3 3 3 29 2.9
E8
4 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 26 2.6
SUBTOTAL 28 23 18 20 18 18 19 20 22 23 209 20.9
TOTAL
83 87 65 75 62 69 66 64 73 74
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
53
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 25.000
26.000
26.000
77.000
2.567
E2
20.000
27.000
25.000
72.000
2.400
E3
23.000
24.000
24.000
71.000
2.367
E4
28.000
25.000
31.000
84.000
2.800
E5
25.000
26.000
27.000
78.000
2.600
E6
31.000
24.000
21.000
76.000
2.533
E7
28.000
23.000
29.000
80.000
3.667
E8 27.000
25.000
26.000
78.000
2.600
TOTAL 207.000 200.000 209.000 616.000
MEAN
2.588
2.500
2.613
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
18.850
2.094
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.558
0.279
0.20ns 3.05
4.72
Error (a)
18
25.525
1.418
Subplot factor (B)
7
4.067
0.581
1.52**
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
11.708
0.836
2.19**
1.75
2.18
Error (b)
189
72.225
0.382
TOTAL 239
132.933
**Highly
Significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 24.08%
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 15.43%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
54
Appendix Table 6e. Browning of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
2 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 29 2.9
E2
3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 25 2.5
E3
3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 26 2.6
E4
2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 27 3.7
E5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 21 2.1
E6
2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 25 2.5
E7
1 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 26 2.6
E8
3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 27 2.7
SUBTOTAL 18 20 19 21 20 22 23 21 20 22 206 20.6
L2 E1
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 27 2.7
E2
3 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 22 2.2
E3
3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 29 2.9
E4
4
3
3
3
3 2
2
2
3
1
26
2.6
E5
2
3
4
3
3 2
3
2
3
3
28
2.8
E6
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 27 2.7
E7
2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 27 2.7
E8
3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 4 22 2.2
SUBTOTAL 23 22 23 20 22 20 20 17 22 19 208 20.8
L2 E1
3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 28 2.8
E2
3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 29 2.9
E3
4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 28 2.8
E4
3 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 31 3.1
E5
1 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 4 24 2.4
E6
4 3 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 23 2.3
E7
2 3 3 1 4 2 3 1 3 3 25 2.5
E8
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
2 21 2.1
SUBTOTAL 22 21 22 18 23 19 21 20 22 21 209 20.9
TOTAL
63 63 64 59 65 61 64 58 64 62 623 62.3
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
55
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 29.000
27.000
28.000
84.000
2.800
E2
25.000
22.000
29.000
76.000
2.533
E3
26.000
29.000
28.000
83.000
2.767
E4
27.000
26.000
31.000
84.000
2.800
E5
21.000
28.000
24.000
73.000
2.433
E6
25.000
27.000
23.000
75.000
2.500
E7
26.000
27.000
25.000
78.000
3.600
E8 27.000
22.000
21.000
70.000
2.333
TOTAL 206.000 208.000 209.000 665.000
MEAN
2.575
2.600
2.613
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
2.044
2.223
Main-plot factor (A) 2
0.058
0.027
0.07ns
3.05 4.72
Error
(a) 18
7.358
0.409
Subplot factor (B)
7
6.629
0.947
1.72ns
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
10.008
0.715
1.30ns
1.75 2.18
Error (b)
189
103.738
0.549
TOTAL 239
154.396
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (a): 28.54 %
Coefficient
of
Variance
(b):
17.26
%
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
56
Appendix Table 6f. General acceptability of potato entries harvested across locations
PANELIST
TREATMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL MEAN
10
LI E1
3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 29 2.9
E2
1 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 24 2.4
E3
1 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 21 2.1
E4
3 2 5 4 3 3 5 2 3 3 33 3.3
E5
4 3 3 3 2 3 4 1 3 3 29 2.9
E6
2 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 2 4 32 3.2
E7
2 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 35 3.5
E8
4 2 4 4 3 2 3 4 2 2 30 3.0
SUBTOTAL 20 19 26 25 21 25 32 20 22 23 233 23.3
L2 E1
4 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 24 2.4
E2
4 1 3 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 24 2.4
E3
3 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 4 1 23 2.3
E4
4
3
2
2
2 2
1
2
4
2
24
2.4
E5
3
1
3
3
2 3
3
2
4
2
26
2.6
E6
4 2 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 23 2.3
E7
3 2 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 20 2.0
E8
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 4 2 26 2.6
SUBTOTAL 28 15 21 15 13 24 21 13 27 13 190 19.0
L2 E1
3 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 30 3.0
E2
4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 36 3.6
E3
3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 27 2.7
E4
5 3 5 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 35 3.5
E5
4 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 32 3.2
E6
5 4 2 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 27 2.7
E7
5 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 30 3.0
E8
5 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2
3 30 3.0
SUBTOTAL 34 24 26 24 23 23 25 25 19 24 247 24.7
TOTAL
82 58 73 64 57 72 78 58 68 60 670 67.0
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
57
TWO-WAY TABLE
LOCATIONS
ENTRIES
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL MEAN
E1 29.000
24.000
30.000
83.000
2.767
E2
24.000
24.000
36.000
84.000
2.800
E3
21.000
23.000
27.000
71.000
2.367
E4
33.000
24.000
35.000
92.000
3.067
E5
29.000
26.000
32.000
87.000
2.900
E6
32.000
23.000
27.000
82.000
2.733
E7
35.000
20.000
30.000
85.000
3.833
E8 30.000
26.000
30.000
86.000
2.867
TOTAL 233.000 190.000 247.000 670.000
MEAN
2.913a
2.375b 3.088a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE F
0.05 0.01
Replication
9
30.333
3.370
Main-plot factor (A) 2
22.058
11.029
4.68*
3.05 4.75
Error (a)
18
42.442
2.358
Subplot factor (B)
7
8.383
1.198
1.72ns
2.05 2.74
A
x
B
14
16.942
1.210
1.74ns
1.75 2.18
Error (b)
189
131.425
0.695
TOTAL 239
151.583
*Significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
(a):
29.87
%
ns=
not
significant
Coefficient of Variance (b): 18.43 %
Fry Quality of Promising Potato Selections Grown
from Three Locations of Benguet / Leonila P. Matsal. 2009
Document Outline
- Fry Quality of Promising Potato
Selections Grown from Three Locations of Benguet
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLES OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES