MARKETABLE YIELD VS. CHEMICAL STANDARD
+3.7%
More marketable tubers
than with the chemical
standard, at the same
application rate.
Evidence · Marketable return
More marketable
potatoes.
Less waste.
8 / 8 GEP trials
Standard chemical treatments can increase overall yield—but a significant portion of this comes from unmarketable tubers. RootDei Biocontrol® shifts this ratio: less waste, more produce that reaches the market.
TRY
8 / 8 GEP
PERIOD
2018 – 2019
COUNTRIES
DE · UK · NL · PL
PERMIT
BVL 00A933-00
MARKETABLE YIELD VS. UNTREATED
+5.8%
Higher marketable yield
than untreated plots
across the average of
the GEP trials.
UNMARKETABLE TUBERS VS. CHEMICAL STANDARD
−28.35%
Fewer unmarketable tubers
than with the chemical
standard, across the
average of the GEP trials.
Fundamentals · Yield Quality
Not every kilogram counts the same.
In potato marketing, the farm’s profit is not determined by the total harvested weight, but by the proportion that can actually be sold. To properly interpret the results of GEP (Good Experimental Practice) field trials, three key metrics must be distinguished.
KEY FIGURE 1
Total yield
Total Tuber Yield
The total harvested tuber weight per hectare — regardless of size, shape, or quality. This figure alone says little about the economic value of the harvest because it mixes marketable and non-marketable tubers.
KEY FIGURE 2 · CRUCIAL
Marketable yield
Marketable Yield
The proportion of tubers that meet market standards: consistent size, undamaged shape, free from signs of disease and damage. Only these tubers fetch the full market price. This is the yield that determines the revenue.
KEY FIGURE 3 · REJECTION
Non-marketable profit
Unmarketable Yield
Tubers below market standards: too small, deformed, diseased, or mechanically damaged. This produce cannot be marketed, or only at a significant price reduction, thus reducing revenue despite the cultivation costs incurred.
The crucial point:
A higher total yield does not automatically translate into higher revenue. The key is the distribution of this yield between marketable and unmarketable tubers. A portion of the rejects is directly attributable to disease infestation—for example, tubers deformed by Rhizoctonia solani or covered with sclerotia. This is precisely the cause addressed by RootDei Biocontrol®.
The crucial pattern
Total profit isn't everything — what matters is what can be sold.
1
THE TOTAL YIELD
Looking solely at the total yield, the standard chemical treatment achieved a slightly higher total weight than RootDei Biocontrol®. At first glance, this seems to favor the chemical option.
2
THE BREAKDOWN
Only the breakdown into marketable and unmarketable tubers reveals the true picture: the additional weight of the chemical treatment disproportionately results in rejects. The chemical treatment significantly increased the proportion of unmarketable tubers—even compared with the untreated control.
3
THE RESULT
RootDei Biocontrol® reverses this relationship: the proportion of marketable tubers increases by 3.7% compared with the chemical standard, while the reject rate decreases by 28.35%. The result is a harvest with higher commercial value—even if the total yield remains comparable. For the farm, this means more saleable produce and fewer losses due to quality defects.
How to read the results
What matters in comparison
Three key figures summarize the results of the 8 yield trials. Each compares the approved application rate of RootDei Biocontrol® (250 g/ha) with a reference value — and each highlights a different aspect of the economic benefit.
1
+
3.7
%
Marketable yield vs. chemical standard
With the same application rate, RootDei Biocontrol® produces a higher proportion of marketable tubers than the chemical reference — more produce that actually achieves the full market price.
2
+
5.8
%
Marketable yield vs. untreated
Compared with the untreated control, the marketable yield increases significantly. This demonstrates the independent contribution of the biological treatment to yield quality.
3
−
28.35
%
Non-marketable yield vs. chemical standard
The most economically significant difference: the rejection rate is considerably lower than with chemical treatment. Less rejection means lower yield, which, despite cultivation costs, does not translate into revenue.
yield analysis · Transparency
Why the yield analysis is based on 8 GEP trials?
A total of 15 GEP field trials were conducted. Yield evaluation was not possible in every one – the crucial question is how this selection was made and who carried it out.
From 15 trials for yield analysis
15
GEP trials conducted · 2018–2019
14
with evaluable disease infestation — basis for approval
↳
1 trial without evaluable infestation — excluded from evaluation
8
with full yield differentiation
↳
Three revenue components are recorded using a uniform methodology.
The crucial point:
The selection of the 8 trials was based on methodology, not results : The sole criterion was whether a trial uniformly recorded the three yield components—regardless of the specific values. The comparison is therefore free from any subsequent, results-oriented selection.
The three uniformly recorded key figures
→
Total yield (kg/ha) — total harvested tuber weight
→
Marketable yield — tubers within market standards
→
Non-marketable yield — rejects below market standards
The remaining trials are not rejected: all 14 GEP trials with infestation demonstrate disease control and support the approval.
