TOE eye, 
a 
ey 
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, Arlinyton 
Experimental Farm, 1915, 1916, and: 1917. 
Average loss in Weight of chips per kilogram 
Weight | weight (per cent). of potatoes (grams). 
Varieties compared. | Year. eee = : l 
grams). | By y peel- Une i 
peeling Ghee peeled me raw. 
E 1915 1,000 1 DAS eS Ee ae 272 S09S 8 alae 
Green-Mountam =< 23s se eek 1916 4,417 16.8 21. 46 285. 1 347. 5 | 368. 2 
(1917 6,377 12. 70 17. 09 305 362. 2 | 376. 5 
| en Ee 
2-year avearge, 1916and1917.|_....... | 10,794 14. 37 18. 88 307. 1 358. 6 378. 6 
3-year average, 1915, 1916 | 
ATi Gliese ee Pex e ee 5 } 11,794 | 1 Fa) eee 304. 1 Bhi ec: Mol eee ee 
| i ~O  -—_________ 
1915 | 2, 002 L324 Ga ae 268. 2 305: 4a a 288 eae 
Trishieopbl eres = =e ee ere 1916 | 2,192 19. 84 21.99 264. 6 330. 1 339. 2 
; 1917 | 396 19. 95 22. 72 275. 2 343. 8 356. 2 
| - i ~ 
2-year average, 1916 and 1917. ........ 2,588 | 19. 86 22. 10 266. 2 332. 2 341.2 
3-year average, 1915, 1916, | 
ATTEN io ee ee er | 4,590 | UU U1 Coed epee EE 265. 3 320; Oa eeeeon 
wee te 1915 DA0000| FAL Soe ee 218-0; | 254 21 ase 
Rural New Yorker. .-...-.------- { i916 | 27581 | 9.26 | 12.55| 275.1) 303.1| 314.5 
2-year average, 1915and1916.)....__.- 4,581 | 11. 43 | eS seers ar 250. 1 282 54s eo Eee 
( 1915 TOO fae 1-8 |e ee 321 Seg pees ote 
A DST TE Bree) Ta = ee i 1916 | 2,323 | 10. 8 13. 43 - 299. 2 335. 4 345. 6 
1917 285 12. 98 17. 19 291. 2 334. 7 351.7 
2-year average, 1916and 1917_|....._.. 9608 | 11.04) 13.841 2983]. 335.3|- 348.2 
3-year average, 1915, 1916 
SAV G 7 by ae een [eee 3, 608 iN SAG bor Se 304. 6 62 5 Se Ree 
( 1915 1,005 Cie tn eae Peer era eee 
tert Dates ee Se 1 1916 2008| 5.8 887] 325.7) 345.9| 357.4 
|| 1917 - suk 6. 83 | 11. 39 308. 9 Sait Gy 347. 6 
2-year average, 191§and 1917.|_......- 2, 403 ~ 5.99 9. 23 304. 1 321.3 | 355. 8 
3-year average, 1915, 1916 | | 
HON pees Peet eae 3, 408 QuOD sek seo as 318.0 Be I eae ree 
1916 R67) 8.73) 11. 18-| 329.6) 361.4, |. a7iees 
Peachblow. -....-....-...-------- { 1917 | 374| 7.22] 11.50| 334.2] 360.2 377.6 
2-year average, 1916 and el See | 3, 041 | 8. 54 | 11.21 330.1} 361.0 | 371.8 
SS SS SS 
