METHODS OF MANUFACTURING POTATO CHIPS. 



17 



ation in shape, general appearance, and quality between specimens 

 of the same variety grown in different parts of the country than is 

 found in different varieties produced in the same locality. The con- 

 dition of the tubers at the time of peeling also influences the per- 

 centage of waste. The value of careful handling, though less popu- 

 larly appreciated in the case of potatoes than with most perishable 

 crops, has been clearly demonstrated. Cuts and bruises caused by 

 careless methods of harvesting and handling are followed by decay 

 in storage and make necessary much deeper paring into the flesh. 

 Old potatoes that have softened and begun to sprout are much more 

 difficult to peel economically. When the flesh is hard and firm the 

 knife can shave off a thinner portion of crisp flesh than after some 

 of the water has evaporated and some of the starch has been con- 

 verted into sugar, leaving the flesh with a rubbery texture. 



Table 2. — Comparison of certain standard varieties of potatoes, showing the 

 loss in peeling and slicing and the quantity of chips produced, Arlington 

 Experimental Farm, 1915, 1916, and 1917. 



Varieties compared. 



Year. 



Weight 

 unpeeled 

 (grams). 



Average loss in 

 weight (per cent). 



Weight of chips per kilogram 

 of potatoes (grams). 



By 

 peeling. 



By peel- 

 ing and 

 slicing 



Un- 

 peeled. 



Peeled. 



Sliced 

 raw. 





f 1915 

 \ 1916 

 I 1917 



1,000 

 4,417 

 6, 377 



12.2 

 16.8 

 12.70 





272 



289.1 



305 



309.8 

 347.5 

 362.2 







21.46 

 17.09 



368.2 





376.5 



2-year avearge, 1916 and 1917. 



10, 794 

 11,794 



14.37 

 14.10 



18.88 



307.1 

 304.1 



358.6 

 354.4 



378.6 



3-year average, 1915, 1916 

 and 1917 









f 1915 

 \ 1916 

 I 1917 









2,002 



2,192 



396 



13.49 

 19.84 

 19.95 





268.2 

 264.6 

 275.2 



305.4 

 330.1 

 343.8 







21.99 

 . 22.72 



339.2 





356.2 



2-year average, 1916 and 1917. 



2, 588 

 4,590 



19.86 

 17.08 



22.10 



266.2 

 265.3 



332.2 

 320.0 



341.2 



3-year average, 1915, 1916, 

 and 1917 









I 1915 

 \ 1916 









2,000 

 2,581 



14.35 

 9.26 





218.0 

 275.1 



254.2 

 303.1 





Rural New "i orker 



12.55 



314.5 





4,581 



11.43 





250. 1 



282.4 







( 1915 



\ 1916 

 1 1917 









1,000 



2,323 



285 



11.8 

 10.8 

 12.98 





321 



299.2 



291.2 



363. 9 

 335. 4 

 334.7 







13.43 

 17. 19 



345. 6 





351.7 



2-year average, 1916 and 1917. 



2,608 

 3,608 



11.04 

 11.25 



13.84 



298.3 



KOI. 6 



335. 3 



313. 2 



346.2 



1915, 1916 

 and 1917 









| 1916 

 [ 1916 



1 1917 









1,005 



2,008 



396 



9.25 

 6.8 

 6. 83 





306.5 

 325. 7 

 308. 9 



337.7 

 345. 9 



331.5 







8.87 

 1 1 . 39 



357. 4 





317. 6 





2, 403 

 3,408 



5.99 



6,95 



9.23 



304. 1 



3 IK. 



321.3 

 340. 9 



355.8 



j'e, 1916, 1916 

 and 1917... 









/ 1916 



1 1917 









Peachblow 



2, 667 

 374 



8.73 

 7.22 



11.18 



11.50 



329.6 361.1 

 334.2 360.2 



371.08 

 377. (1 



■ , 1916 and rii. 



3,041 



8.64 



11.21 



330. 1 



361.11 



371.x 



