Quality of sweet potato cultivars planted harvested at different times of two seasons

Abstract

This study aimed at adapting harvest time of different potato cultivars in two seasons during the year. Two experiments were conducted: one in the rainy season and another in the dry period. Two production factors were studied in experiments using a splitplot design in a complete randomized block design. The first factor (including 3 sweet potato cultivars: ESAM 1, Paraná and Mãe de Família) was assigned to the plots. The second factor (harvest time: 90, 105, 120, 135 and 150 days after planting) was assigned to the subplots. Soluble solids, total soluble sugars, starch content, pulp firmness, cooking time and vitamin C were assessed. The harvest after 150 days resulted in increased levels of soluble sugars, starch, and vitamin C in both growing seasons, compared to other harvests, demonstrating that tuberization does not depend on season. In addition, late harvesting increased the cooking times with all cultivars, especially those grown in the rainy season. In the dry season, cooking time was higher for cv. ESAM 1. Of the three sweet potato cultivars, cv. Parana presented the highest total amount of soluble sugars and vitamin C, as well as faster cooking time, while cv. ESAM 1 had the highest starch content, pulp firmness and the longest cooking time. The results suggest that Paraná and Mãe de Família are feasible for the fresh market and ESAM 1 for industry, regardless of the season or harvest time. These cultivars offer growers flexibility when deciding on sweet potato crops for different purposes, i.e. fresh market or industry. Delaying the harvest of sweet potatoes until 150 days gives greater flexibility to producers in the semi-arid region of Brazil in relation to either fresh or the industrial market.

Quality of Table Cassava Roots Fertilized With Phosphorus1

“…Deus (2019), evaluating doses of P (40, 80, 120 and 160 kg ha -1 of P 2 O 5 ) as sweet potato, did not identify variation in the content of total soluble sugars with the doses of P 2 O 5 , presenting an average of 4.80%. However, Albuquerque et al (2018) observed variation in the content of soluble solids and total soluble sugars among sweet potato cultivars.…”

“…Total soluble solids (%) The cultivar Água Morna showed greater firmness in the root pulp among the evaluated cultivars (Table 2), while the cultivar BRS Gema de Ovo showed the lowest values, demonstrating that this parameter is influenced by genetics. Albuquerque et al (2018) found variation in root firmness among sweet potato cultivars and associated this behavior with the starch content. Cultivars with a higher starch content tend to have greater root firmness and cultivars with a lower starch content consequently have less firmness.…”

Blanching effect on physicochemical and functional properties of flours processed from peeled and unpeeled white‐fleshed sweet potato Algerian cultivar

“…Their content did not exceed 6% which could indicate the freshness of the SP tubers used in the present study. In fact, delayed harvesting time and storage increase significantly total soluble sugar content of sweet potato (Adu-Kwarteng et al, 2014;Albuquerque et al, 2018). The starch content of the different SP flours (31% -61%) was in the range reported by Jangchud et al (2003) (36.6-75.0%) but lower compared to other studies (Olatunde et al, 2019).…”

Ecological factors affecting minerals and nutritional quality of “Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott”: an underutilized wild leafy vegetable in rural communities

“…Studied site spatial factors, soil characteristics, and diversity indices variations observed could explain the response in the proximal composition of the evaluated species, where the sites showed neutral pH. According to de Albuquerque et al ( 67 ) and Misra and Tyler ( 68 ), the pH and nutrient availability at these sites were directly controlled by the soil texture and water availability. The neutral soil pH additionally the availability and uptake of nutrients from the soil, that aid in increasing nutritional value of a plant species ( 69 ).…”