Marketing Maine arketing Maine 

Tablestock Potatoes ablestock Potatoes

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service

February 2010
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination 

write to USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

The use of trade, fi rm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use 

does not constitute an offi cial endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural 

Marketing Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. 
i

Authors

 

Gerald Berney, Agricultural Engineer

Marketing Service Division

Transportation and Marketing Programs

Greg Grajewski, Industrial Engineer

Marketing Service Division

Transportation and Marketing Programs

Don Hinman, Agricultural Economist

Economic Analysis and Program Planning Branch

Fruit and Vegetable Programs

Dr. Marvin Prater, Agricultural Economist

Transportation Services Division

Transportation and Marketing Programs 

April Taylor, Agricultural Marketing Specialist

Transportation Services Division

Transportation and Marketing Programs

Marketing Maine arketing Maine 

Tablestock Potatoes ablestock Potatoes

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service

February 2010
ii

The authors wish to thank the many Maine potato farmers, 

dealers, wholesalers, repackers, chain store produce buyers, 

and USDA Market News reporters who contributed information 

to this report. In particular, we wish to thank the offi cers, 

board members, and staff of the Maine Potato Board for their 

cooperation, and Dr. Jeff rey Steiner, National Program Leader, 

Integrated Agricultural Systems, USDA Agricultural Research 

Service, for his help in envisioning this project.

We also express our gratitude for the logistical assistance and 

valuable input from Dr. Wayne Honeycutt, Research Leader, 

and Dr. John Halloran, Agricultural Economist, both with the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service’s New England Soil and 

Water Laboratory, Orono, ME, and Dr. Tim Griffi n, formerly 

with USDA-ARS, in Orono, ME, now Associate Professor of 

Agriculture, Food, and Environment at Tufts University in 

Boston, MA. Additionally, we thank Bill Brockhouse from 

USDA’s Rural Development Business and Cooperative Programs 

for his guidance with agricultural cooperative issues.

Acknowledgments
iii

Executive Summary 1

Background 2

Introduction 3

Overview of the United States Potato Industry 5

 Potato Consumption 6

 Potato Utilization 7

 Trends 8

The Increased Interest in Organic and Sustainably Grown Potatoes 9

 Eco-Labeling 10

 Niche Marketing 11

 Heritage Potatoes 11

 U.S. Potato Prices and Acreage 13

International Potato Trade 16

 Leading Potato Exporters 17

 Imports of Fresh Potatoes 17

 U.S. Exports of Fresh Potatoes 17

Status of the Maine Potato Industry 18

 Yields 18

 Acreage 18

 Processing 18

 Cull Potatoes 18

 Potato Grades 18

 Loss of Markets 19

 Maine Potato Varieties 19

 Canadian Competition 20

 Energy Costs 23

 Processing 25

 Are Maine Farmers Receiving Diff erent Prices from Potato Farmers in Canada or Idaho? 27

Market Promotion Programs 30

 National Marketing Programs 30

 Category Management 31

 Potato Packers and Repackers 31

 Grower-Shippers 34

Contents
iv

State Branding and Promotion Programs 35

 Cooperatives 35

 Supply Management Strategies 38

 Marketing Strategies Used in Maine for Tablestock Potatoes 39

 What Improvements Could Be Made? 40

Quality and Postharvest Handling of Maine Potatoes 41

 Improving Quality 41

Logistical Challenges and Opportunities 43

 Truck Transportation 43

 Rail Transportation 44

 Water Transportation 48

Marketing Successes and Opportunities for Maine 49

 Organic Production 49

 Chef’s Potatoes 49

 Get Real, Get Maine! 50

 Wal-Mart Local Food Initiative 50

 Potatoes to Plastics 50

 Whole Foods Market and “Local Production” Opportunities 51

 Heritage Potatoes 51

 “Eco-Labeled” Potatoes 51

Conclusions and Recommendations 52

References 54

Additional Resources 56

Appendix 1: Typical Potato Packaging and Sources 57

Appendix 2: Mack Point Marine Intermodal Cargo Terminal 58

Appendix 3: U.S. Retail Electric Rates 59

Appendix 4: U.S. Fuel Prices 61

Appendix 5: Heritage Potato Varieties in Agriculture Canada’s Collection 62

Appendix 6: Summary of Recommendations 63

Appendix 7: Abbreviations Used in this Report 64

Photo Credits 65
1

This publication is a broad overview of the marketing 

environment for Maine potatoes and is designed to help 

Maine’s fresh potato producers better evaluate their handling, 

packaging, transportation, and distribution options, and 

improve the profi tability of their operations. The idea for the 

project emerged from a USDA, Agricultural Research 

Service analysis that concluded that the Maine tablestock 

(fresh) potato sector is particularly deserving of targeted 

marketing assistance. 

To assess the competitiveness of Maine potatoes, this report 

briefl y examines the production and marketing of potatoes 

in Maine, Canada, and in the Western United States. It is 

based on quantitative information gathered by market news 

reporters with the USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service’s 

Fruit and Vegetable Division and on anecdotal information 

obtained through interviews with retail and wholesale potato 

buyers. It describes in detail the marketing entities through 

which growers sell fresh potatoes, including regional marketing 

cooperatives and collective acreage/production limit schemes. 

Various potato promotion and branding campaigns are also 

examined, including the promotion of such highly diff erentiated 

potato items as heritage potatoes, “eco” (sustainably produced) 

potatoes, and organically produced potatoes.

The authors discuss category management, how it is used by 

potato marketers in other parts of the country to fulfi ll the 

needs of retailers, and how Maine potato growers might benefi t 

from the practice. Currently, Maine’s producer coordination is 

insuffi cient for category management. 

Energy and fuel costs infl uence transportation options for Maine 

potato producers. Unfortunately, energy costs in Maine are 

higher than the average in the United States and well above 

those in other potato-growing areas. Moreover, although 

escalating fuel costs make local sources of potatoes increasingly 

attractive, Maine’s current transportation infrastructure—

especially its railroads—limits its ability to deliver potatoes 

economically. Western producers typically use rail to reduce 

transportation costs, negating Maine’s geographical advantage. 

The potato industry in Maine should consider ways to upgrade 

the State’s transportation system with improved rail service to 

compete with Western States.

Quality, sizing, grading, and postharvest handling are also 

addressed in this report, along with suggestions for improving 

current practices. High-quality potatoes require a high-quality 

production system, including appropriate postharvest, grading, 

handling, and storage equipment and facilities, and proper 

quality control to prepare potatoes for market.

Executive Summary
2

The Marketing Services Division of USDA’s Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) was asked by USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) National Program Leader and ARS’s 

New England Soil and Water Research Laboratory personnel to 

help with existing eff orts to assist Maine fresh potato farmers 

in their search for alternative marketing strategies, and reverse 

the recent decline in the profi tability of their operations. ARS 

researchers previously had conducted an exhaustive study 

defi ning possible crop rotations for potatoes to maintain soil 

fertility, reduce pest infestation, and preserve crop yields. In 

the course of the investigation, they determined that Maine 

producers needed help in marketing their products and turned 

to AMS for expertise in marketing and distribution practices. 

As a result, AMS’s Marketing Services Division initiated a study 

to evaluate the Maine potato industry and identify changes in 

business planning, product aggregation and handling, grower 

organization, distribution practices, and marketing activities 

that might help Maine’s fresh potato growers. 

In order to more fully understand the Maine potato marketing 

situation, AMS and ARS staff interviewed people involved in 

the potato industry. In January 2007, they contacted Maine 

Potato Board members and staff and scheduled a meeting with 

the board. Also at that time, AMS and ARS staff met with the 

Maine Commissioner of Agriculture and the USDA State Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) Director who helped them understand the 

fi nancial situation of Maine tablestock potato producers. 

Beginning in June 2007, AMS researchers arranged on-site 

meetings with wholesalers and market news reporters in Jessup, 

MD, and Boston, MA, and with several potato farm operators 

in northern Maine. This was followed in 2008 by interviews 

and conference calls with chain store buyers in Virginia and 

Washington, DC; Cooperative Extension educators in Maine; 

potato brokers; AMS Market News staff in Benton Harbor, MI, 

and Boston; and USDA Federal inspectors. To better learn 

how Maine’s fresh potato producers could best penetrate the 

markets for “sustainable,” “local,” and “eco-labeled” foods, they 

met with the management and staff s of Red Tomato, Whole 

Foods Market, and Appalachian Sustainable Development, 

retailers on the forefront of developing direct supply chains for 

locally grown food. To understand the diff erent potato products 

marketed to consumers, AMS researchers conducted informal 

surveys of retail merchandising practices for Maine-origin and 

other potatoes at chain store outlets. 

AMS researchers also undertook several supplemental analyses 

to identify Maine’s relative competitiveness with other sources 

of supply in major market locations. Prices of Maine fresh 

potatoes were compared with those of potatoes from other 

production areas from AMS Market News data. The costs of 

rail, truck, and water transportation for Maine and other fresh 

potatoes to major market locations were also examined using 

waybill data, to understand the transportation burden faced by 

Maine’s fresh potato producers. The cost of energy and Maine’s 

position in the competitive world of electricity, fuel, and natural 

gas supply and rates were compared with other producing areas 

to highlight the challenges Maine faces.

The report also examines how fresh potato growers, repackers, 

and marketers in other parts of the country use cooperative 

marketing and supply control mechanisms, category 

management, and branding/promotional programs to enhance 

marketing effi ciency and performance, and how channel 

diversifi cation into processed market items, such as 

dehydrated products, starch, and plastics can help support 

fresh potato growers by creating alternative outlets for 

grade 2 and cull potatoes.

Background
3

Introduction

Potatoes are grown in several areas of Maine, but production 

is centered in the far north of the State, in sparsely populated 

Aroostook County. The growers in more southern Maine are 

able to sell to nearby population centers and use more direct 

marketing, roadside stands, and farmers markets, and 

engage in more diversifi ed production because those markets 

are available.

Figure 1. Plant Hardiness Zone Map of Maine1

1 Mark L. Kramer, Weather Mark LLC

Farmers in Aroostook County are not only farther from markets, 

but also have a shorter growing season and a colder and 

harsher climate (fi gure 1). They have fewer choices in crops, 

but are fortunate to have access to one of the larger agricultural 

production areas remaining in the eastern United States.
4

After preliminary discussions with the Maine Commissioner 

of Agriculture, members of the Maine Potato Board, the 

Agricultural Bargaining Council, the USDA State FSA Director, 

and representatives from the University of Maine’s Cooperative 

Extension Service, three important facts came to light, setting 

the tone for the work that followed:

1. Potato farmers, particularly tablestock producers, were 

in a poor fi nancial position; with little credit and few 

funds to invest, they were risk-averse.

2. Potato farmers generally preferred those alternative 

crops that did not interfere with potato production as 

their primary crop. Farmers who became serious about 

alternative crops often quit growing potatoes.

3. Tablestock potato production had always been an 

important income source for Maine farmers; it was 

diffi cult to imagine a healthy Maine farming industry 

without it.

We wanted answers to these questions about the importance of 

tablestock production to Maine agriculture: 

 What will happen if potato processors lower prices, 

decrease the volume of contracts, or cut out growers 

for some other reason? 

 How will growers deal with rising transportation costs 

reducing their already thin margins? 

 What leverage would farmers have if the processors 

control all the markets for potatoes?

In considering those questions, it appeared that a viable 

tablestock industry was one important way to balance the 

market power of potato processors and assure the fi nancial 

health of all industry participants. 

It also appeared that without a healthy potato farming industry 

in Maine, there was little need to identify other potentially 

profi table crops to grow in rotation with potatoes. So in the 

end, we decided to examine the Maine tablestock industry and 

see what could improve that market. 

After meeting with State offi cials, the USDA Farm Service 

Agency, and the Potato Board, several farmers were visited at 

their farms. There was a sharp contrast between growers that 

were producing potatoes for processing (largely profi table and 

interested in expanding their operations), those growing seed 

potatoes (somewhat concerned about declining sales), and 

growers of tablestock potatoes (very concerned with declining 

sales and low prices). All the farmers, regardless of their 

specialization, agreed on the importance of creating additional 

markets for tablestock potatoes as well as the urgent need for a 

market for lower grade potatoes.

AMS, ARS, and USDA Rural Development personnel talked 

to tablestock producers about the need for unifi ed or joint 

marketing. Consolidation in the food industry means fewer but 

larger potato buyers. Growers in other States (and Canadian 

Provinces) have responded to market trends by combining 

forces so they could serve large customers adequately, but 

Maine tablestock producers did not adopt unifi ed marketing 

strategies as quickly. Lacking the ability to leverage their 

production volume through cooperative marketing strategies, 

Maine growers are left with smaller segments of the fresh 

potato market.

Farmers also noted that buyer acceptance of tablestock 

potatoes from Maine may also be somewhat undermined by 

past dissatisfaction with the quality of the packout. Maine was 

later than some production areas to institute potato washing. 

Some farmers, faced with a dismal market for number two 

grade potatoes, may also have packed some lower graded 

potatoes as number ones. To alleviate concerns that tablestock 

potatoes from Maine’s growers and handlers were lower in 

quality than those from other States, Maine instituted a potato 

grade size slightly larger than the U.S. grade standard for 

products shipped outside the State. Wholesalers, retailers, and 

repackers gave generally positive responses when asked about 

the reputation of Maine potatoes, especially the larger “Chef’s” 

potatoes sold primarily to restaurants.
5

As shown in fi gure 2, potatoes are grown in most U.S. States and many Canadian Provinces, with production concentrated in the 

Pacifi c Northwest, the Upper Great Plains, and Maine.

Overview of the U.S. Potato Industry

Figure 2. Principal potato producing regions in the United States and Canada

Source: Robert Rhoades, World Geography of the Potato, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
6

Potato Consumption

U.S. potato consumption patterns are changing. At one time 

consumers bought most of their potatoes to prepare for home 

consumption. This encouraged the sale of round white, generalpurpose potatoes for home cooking. Round whites are the 

potato type that once predominated both on Maine farms 

and in the traditional Eastern consumer markets served by 

those farms.

Figure 3. U.S. expenditures for food prepared at home and away from home, as a percentage of total food purchases

Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefi ng/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table1.htm

For several decades there has been steady expansion of 

away-from-home food expenditures; today, nearly half the 

consumer’s food dollar is spent on meals consumed away 

from home (fi gure 3). Not only are potatoes eaten away from 

home, but increasingly they are consumed in the form of chips, 

fries, and other processed foods. However, in the wake of the 

current bleak economic climate, we may see a return to home 

preparation of foods and perhaps a growth in the purchase of 

tablestock potatoes, which are inexpensive.

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Home

Away
7

Potato Utilization

Today, more than half the potatoes grown in the United States 

are used for processing (see fi gure 4). Potatoes for processing

into french fries, chips, and other prepared products are grown 

to specifi c standards. French fry processors generally use Russet 

potato varieties, and chip makers require specifi c varieties of 

long white potatoes. Even more important to processors than 

varieties are the color, solids, and sugar standards requirements. 

Processors encourage such standards by paying premiums to 

only producers who meet or exceed them. The premiums may 

make the diff erence between whether the farmer earns a 

profi t or not.

Processing potato growers have learned that one of the best 

ways to earn these quality premiums is to construct and 

operate modern potato storage facilities. Potatoes are stored 

on-farm in storages owned, operated, and maintained by the 

farmers. Modern storage facilities, equipped with engineered 

ventilation systems and automated fans and louvers, are able to 

maintain the temperature of the potato pile at near-optimum 

levels until needed by the processors. Combined with modern 

handling equipment (which increases effi ciency and reduces 

tuber damage), these storage facilities allow farmers to deliver 

potatoes with fewer bruises, better color, and cuts spoilage 

losses nearly year-round.

The restaurants and food service establishments that feed 

customers away from home aff ect the way potatoes are grown, 

packaged, and marketed. Rather than buy more frozen potato 

products, commercial potato users demand larger versions of 

the standby round white potato. These “Chef’s” potatoes 

are large, round white potatoes and are easily turned into 

potato delicacies.

Figure 4. Utilization of potatoes in the United States 

Source: National Potato Council (NPC 2002)

Fresh, 28%

Seed, 15%

Frozen, 34%

Canned, 1%

Chipped, 12%

Dehydrated, 

10%
8

Trends

Several trends infl uenced potato marketing in recent decades. 

Chefs, chip makers, and home cooks have become increasingly 

interested in colorful potatoes. Reds, purples, and yellows 

are found in fancy restaurant servings, chip bags, and home 

pantries. “Fingerling” potatoes and “creamer” potatoes, 

marketed in clamshell packaging, are showing up in the produce 

aisle. Organic potatoes, many with the USDA organic logo, are 

becoming more popular. “Eco-labeled” or “IPM” (integrated 

pest management) potatoes grown with sustainable production 

methods are also entering the marketplace.

 

Fingerling 

These novelty potatoes are naturally smaller than conventional 

ones. They are elongated and knobby, with fi ngerlike shapes. 

Ronnigers seed catalog lists 10 varieties.2

 A wide range of waxy 

and starchy fi ngerling varieties appear in markets, ranging from 

creamy white to purple, suitable for a variety of dishes.

Some popular fi ngerling potato varieties include3:

 Banana

 Red Thumb

 French Fingerling 

 Ozette 

 La Ratte 

 Rose Finn Apple 

Creamer 

These potatoes are harvested before complete maturity to keep 

them small and tender. They may be of any variety, but are 

often Yukon Gold or Red potato varieties. Creamers are usually 

about 1 inch in diameter; larger diameter (2 inch) immature 

potatoes are sold as new potatoes.4

In the past, about 90 percent of U.S. potatoes were planted 

in the spring and harvested in the fall. Potatoes from storage 

were marketed until the following June (ERS 2008-1 Briefi ng 

Room). Maine traditionally marketed potatoes in this fashion, 

but growers in Florida, Virginia, California, Delaware, and other 

areas market “new” potatoes harvested earlier in the season 

and sold more or less immediately. With changes in consumer 

tastes, there may be an increased demand for these “off 

season” and new potatoes. 

2 http://www.ronnigers.com

3 Seed Savers. 2008 http://www.seedsavers.org/ and the Maine Potato Lady 

2008 https://www.mainepotatolady.com

4 Recipe.Tips.com glossary of cooking terms. http://www.recipetips.com/

glossary-term/t--35863/creamer-potato.asp
9

Sales of organic and sustainably grown vegetables, including 

potatoes, have risen dramatically in recent years. The Organic 

Trade Association (OTA) reports that sales of organic food 

have grown from $1 billion in 1990 to nearly $17 billion in 

2006, projecting $23.6 billion in 2008. In OTA’s Organic Trade 

Association’s 2007 Manufacturer Survey,5

 organic fruits and 

vegetables accounted for nearly $7 billion of the $17 billion total 

organic food and beverage sales.

Organic Prices

An article in the winter 2008 edition of Spudman6 pointed out 

that Canadian organic potato growers receive 1.5 to 2 times the 

conventional price, but marketable potatoes from organic farms 

yield only about half that of conventional. 

Organic retail, terminal market, and shipping point prices 

are now being reported by AMS in addition to the prices for 

conventionally grown. AMS price reports7

 often show higher 

prices for organic produce, including potatoes. However, 

data from these price reports must be examined carefully 

to determine if the potatoes compared are of similar size, 

condition, packaging, production area, and variety. In addition, 

historical price data for organics are limited. Other market 

conditions, such as a shortfall in supply, can also aff ect prices, 

so price diff erences between conventional and organic potatoes 

may be caused by other factors.

Organic price information from other sources sometimes 

is posted on the Internet. These prices are generally based 

on USDA data, as reported by AMS. Sometimes large price 

premiums are shown on these non-USDA Web sites. The 

authors urge caution in making business decisions based solely 

on prices quoted on such Web sites.

Organic Certifi cation

Growers of certifi ed organic products must adhere to strict 

requirements, which include prohibition of some substances 

used in conventional pesticides and fertilizers. These include 

limitations on the types of spray materials and fertilizer used 

and sources of seed potatoes. Conventional and organic 

products must be kept separate. There is a 3-year conversion 

period for cropland. Information on the USDA National Organic 

Program is available from AMS.8 Information on how to become 

5 www.OTA.com

6 http://spudsmart.ca/images/winter08.pdf (PDF)

7 http://www.ams.gov

8 http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop

certifi ed as an organic producer in Maine is available from Maine 

Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.9 Information 

on acceptable spray materials is available from the Organic 

Materials Review Institute.10

Organic Potato Varieties

Most conventionally grown tablestock potato varieties are also 

available organically grown. However, with organic products: 

 Seed potatoes must be certifi ed organic. 

 Customers may want something diff erent and special 

to justify the higher price for organic potatoes. 

 Farmers need to justify their higher production costs 

(and higher selling prices) by growing items not 

commonly available in local chain stores.

 Buyers for organic food outlets need a reason to justify 

selecting one farmer’s produce over another’s.

Some organic potato varieties for sale on the Internet include:

 Yukon Gold

 Swedish Peanut

 Rose Gold

 Rose Finn

 Reddale

 Red Cloud

 Onaway

 King Harry

 Island Sunshine

 Elba 

 Cranberry Red

 Carola

 Caribe

 Butte

 Russian Banana

 All Blue

Organic potato production is not risk-free. Diseases such as 

late blight can start in a home garden or on an organic potato 

farm and then spread to neighboring potato fi elds. When there 

is an outbreak, aff ected fi elds require treatment—either with 

chemical sprays, or by being plowed under. This point was 

brought up by members of the Maine Potato Board during our 

visits to Presque Isle and is an issue that all potato growers 

should keep in mind. 

More information about marketing organic potatoes is 

presented in a later section.

9 http://www.MOFGA.org

10 http://www.omri.org

The Increased Interest in Organic and 

Sustainably Grown Potatoes
10

Eco-Labeling

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) production, eco-labeling, 

and other formal and informal marketing schemes are ways 

producers can market their food as being produced using 

sustainable methods.

Sustainability has economic, community, and environmental 

components. It brings communities access to wholesome food, 

open spaces, and clean water and encourages economic growth 

that can persist over time. Other benefi ts include improved soil, 

water, and air, as sustainable farming operations do not degrade 

the environment.

Depending on how sustainable is defi ned, production methods 

could allow pesticides and fertilizers prohibited under organic 

regulations. But, although these operations might use some 

of these substances, they still could claim sustainable 

stewardship and responsibility by applying them only sparingly 

and prudently. 

IPM started more than 40 years ago with entomologists 

promoting the use of computer models, weather stations, fi eld 

scouts, and insect traps to identify threshold levels of insect 

presence that would cause economic harm to a crop. Because 

sprays were not used until this threshold was crossed, the oncetypical application of 13 separate sprays in apple orchards was 

cut in half. The use of IPM techniques on today’s farms is an 

example of an all-too-rare “win-win” situation. The farmers win 

by spending less time and money on spraying crops, and the 

environment wins because fewer chemicals are used.

Eco-labeling is a term for programs that use specifi c agricultural 

production methods designed to protect the environment, as 

well as the food produced, from harm. Red Tomato11 has an 

Eco Apple label on northeast-grown apples that appears to be 

succeeding in marketing apples to health-conscious consumers 

in stores such as Whole Foods Market. 

The Red Tomato/Eco Apple program is an IPM-based program 

with some additional limitations on what pesticides are allowed. 

According to the company’s Web site,12 “Some pesticides that 

are allowed in conventional production, such as neurotoxic and 

broadly toxic organophosphates, are prohibited altogether 

for the Eco Apple program.” Some organically acceptable 

materials are not allowed under the Red Tomato program 

because Red Tomato believes that less toxic conventional 

materials are available.

11 http://www.redtomato.com

12 http://www.redtomato.org

The Food Alliance,13 another example of eco-labeling, 

provides a certifi cation and third-party auditing program 

that allows farmers, ranchers, and food handlers to make 

claims of sustainability. The audit examines pesticide storage, 

record keeping, spray equipment calibration, and pesticide 

use and application, among other things; certifi cation limits 

the chemicals that operations may use. The audits also have 

sections on soil and water conservation and wildlife habitat.

Other groups that have eco-labeling initiatives include Core 

Values Northeast, Protected Harvest, and the University of 

Wisconsin’s Eco-Apple and Eco-Potato Programs.

The University of Wisconsin’s14 Eco-Apple and Eco-Potato 

programs assist growers in marketing sustainably grown crops. 

Apples grown and marketed under this program use an updated 

IPM system with baseline data from Wisconsin growers’ 

pesticide usage. The program calculates a weighted score for 

each farm, based on improvements in lowering overall toxicity 

to the fruit as well as the environment. 

Growers marketing potatoes under the Wisconsin Eco-Potato 

program’s Healthy Grown15 label must get a minimum score in 

each area: 

 IPM adoption

 Lowered toxicity 

 Natural community 

standard

To ensure credibility and 

transparency, the potatoes are 

certifi ed by Protected Harvest, 

an independent, non-profi t 

organization.16 According to 

Dr. Deana Knuteson, BioIPM 

Coordinator for the University of 

Wisconsin, the project has been 

successful in its ecological aims, 

but says “sales have been slow” 

and “we were ahead of our 

time” 17 (Houlihan 2008). 

13 http://www.foodalliance.org

14 http://www.thinkipm.org/apples/index.html

15 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/impact/2008/nri/06261_healthy_

grown.html

16 http://www.protectedharvest.org/

17 http://www.wisconsinpotatoes.com/_PDF/BadgerCommonTaterInterviews/

KnutesonInterview0908.pdf (PDF)
11

The Wisconsin Eco-Potato Program

The Wisconsin Eco-Potato program began in 1996 as a 

cooperative eff ort of the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable 

Growers Association (WPVGA), the World Wildlife Fund 

(WWF), and the University of Wisconsin IPM team to 

reduce the use of 11 high-risk pesticides that aff ect both 

humans and wildlife. It uses “Bio intensive” IPM as a basis 

for even further reducing the use of the pesticides beyond 

conventional IPM methods. Toxicity levels were reduced 

37 percent from the baseline values in the fi rst 4 years of 

the program. In addition to IPM, a wildlife/environment 

component requires farmers to restore and/or maintain 

selected privately owned nonagricultural parcels. The 

land is managed according to an annual plan and the hours 

and expenses invested are recorded and certifi ed as part of 

the program. 

The Natural Community Standard is part of the protocol 

farmers follow for certifi cation under the Wisconsin 

Eco-Potato program. It includes identifi cation of non-crop 

land near crop fi elds and the selection of management 

activities, such as prescribed burning and invasive species 

removal, which increases biodiversity. The program 

also requires farm monitoring to validate increased 

environmental services.

Niche Marketing

Niche marketing means supplying customers with the specifi c 

products they want. The diff erence between niche markets 

and the broader marketplace is that niche products are 

diff erentiated—by physical characteristics (color, fl avor, texture, 

protein level), place of origin (Grown in Maine), production 

method (organic, eco, IPM), packaging and labeling. 

AMS and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at 

North Dakota State University teamed up to research the 

logistics of serving several diff erent niche markets.18 The report 

examines three case studies involving diff erent niche markets 

for potatoes. These include:

 Organic Potatoes

 Dehydrated Potato Products

 GMO Tested Potato Products for Export

18 http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=STELPRDC5064

987

Heritage potatoes

Heritage potatoes, like other heritage or heirloom vegetables, 

are older varieties that are still grown. The Seed Savers 

Exchange defi nes heirloom vegetables as “any garden plant that 

has a history of being passed down within a family.”19

Sometimes individual families or small regions keep a variety 

growing, saving seed potatoes year after year, long after the 

old variety has been replaced in other growing areas. Only a 

few heritage varieties are widely grown commercially. Russet 

Burbank is a commercial mainstay despite its age, and Irish 

Cobbler is an old potato variety that remains popular because of 

its early maturity and reputation for good culinary qualities. 

An English farm, Carroll’s Heritage Potatoes,20 grows 

about 20 diff erent heritage potato varieties on 50 acres in 

Northumberland, England. Each variety has a historically 

relevant name, a date, and a “fascinating tale” describing its 

history. They are marketed through local shops and farmers 

markets. Not surprisingly, these particular heritage varieties 

claim to be unique and more fl avorful than most of today’s 

commercial varieties. 

Heritage Potato Varieties

Below is a list of some of the more common heritage potato 

varieties available for sale, with the year each was introduced, 

where available. Yukon Gold is not a particularly old potato, but 

is sometimes marketed as a heritage potato.

Some Heritage Potato Varieties presently being marketed on 

the Internet include:

 Dunbar Rover (1936) 

 Red Duke of York (1942) 

 Ratte (1872) 

 Epicure (1897) 

 Sharpes Express (1900)

 Witch Hill (1881)

 Mr. Little’s Yetholm Gypsy (1899)

 Shetland Black

 Salad Blue

 Highland Burgundy Red

 Edzell Blue

 Fortyfold

 Jersey Royal

 King Edward

 Yukon Gold 

19 http://www.seedsavers.org

20 http://www.heritage-potatoes.co.uk 
12

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada maintains seed banks 

in several locations in Canada, including holdings in New 

Brunswick of potato varieties that may be classifi ed as 

“heritage.” Agriculture Canada entertains requests for seed 

from this collection from the United States as well as Canadian 

entities. The list is posted on the Agriculture Canada Web site,21

and reproduced in appendix 7 of this report.

A comprehensive list of heritage potato varieties, including 

their sizes, color, taste, productivity, and disease susceptibility 

is maintained by the Irish Seed Savers22 in its potato seed 

catalog. The Irish Seed Savers also have performed taste tests 

of some heritage varieties. The results of one such test are 

shown in Table 1. Sharps Express, an early long white potato, 

was the clear favorite of the assembled potato growers. The 

table lists the early-season heritage potatoes grown by the Irish 

Seed Saver members, with a relative “score” assigned by the 

participants. A higher score means better fl avor. The authors of 

the article stated the results were useful for selecting heritage 

varieties to grow for market.

 Table 1. Irish Seed Savers list of heritage varieties 

 with taste scores

Sharps Express 141

Red Duke of York 118

Ballydoon 116

May Queen 100

Epicure 100

Ulster Sceptre 88

Land Leaguer 86

Irish Peace 46

 Source: Irish Seed Savers 23

21 http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/A47-8-8-2001E.pdf (PDF)

22 http://www.Irishseedsavers.ie

23 http://www.irishseedsavers.ie/article.php?artid=97

The heritage designation is no guarantee of quality or 

marketing success. It’s important to note that because a potato 

is classifi ed as a heritage potato doesn’t necessarily assure it is 

a good potato to grow, store, market, or eat. For example, the 

famine potatoes of Ireland were Black, Apple, Cup, and Lumper, 

with Lumper the most commonly grown. From all reports, 

Apple and some others were tasty, but Lumper was considered 

a potato that “pigs would not eat, if they had a choice.” (Fagan, 

2000) In desperate times, Lumper became the dominant 

variety due to its high yield. Unfortunately, this variety had 

little resistance to late blight and thus contributed to the Irish 

Potato Famine. Despite these serious limitations, it is ironic that 

“heritage” Lumper seed potatoes are available for planting from 

a certifi ed U.S. seed source,24 while other, tastier, old varieties 

remain unavailable. 

Growers should carefully study the heritage varieties listed in 

this document or on Web sites or seed catalogs before deciding 

to plant. Considerations include:

 Can they be grown under local conditions? 

 Is there an established market for the variety? 

 Is the yield reasonable? 

 Does it have remarkable size, shape, or color 

characteristic that is diff erent from other potatoes in 

the marketplace?

 Is certifi ed seed available?

24 http://tater-mater.blogspot.com
13

U.S. Potato Prices and Acreage

Recent statistical analysis suggests that, by and large, U.S. 

potato growers are not benefi ting from steady increases in 

retail potato prices. In absolute terms, U.S. retail potato prices 

have risen over time; fi gure 6 shows the average retail price of 

one pound of round white tablestock potatoes increased about 

50 percent, from $0.335 to $0.517, between January 1997 and 

January 2007. However, during the same period, the average 

price received by farmers rose from 5 cents per pound to only 

6.6 cents25 (see fi gure 7). 

In his 2001 book, Dr Joseph Guenthner of the University of 

Idaho (Guenthner 2001) argues that the relative weakness in 

farm returns from potato production is because potatoes have 

become an undiff erentiated commodity and, consequently, 

only increases in production and effi ciency will increase 

farmer returns.

According to ERS statistics, American potato farmers grossed 

about $2,000 per acre from potato sales (ERS 2008-2). With a 

U.S. average yield of 298 hundredweight per acre, this equates 

to about $0.07 per pound, or about 13 percent of the retail price. 

25 ERS 2008. Vegetable and Melons outlook. http://www.ers.usda.gov

26 Smith and Lin 2009.

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

reports similar results, estimating U.S. season average grower 

prices for all potatoes at 7.3 and 7.5 cents per pound in 2006 

and 2007, respectively. Combining 2006 and 2007, and dividing 

NASS estimates of the U.S. value of potato sales by acres 

harvested, a 2-year average revenue per acre yield of $2,706. 

During the same period, 2006–2007, NASS reports (NASS 

2009) an average price of 7.85 cents per pound in Maine for all 

varieties for all purposes.

Organic potato acreage has hovered around 7,000 acres 

since 2000, totaling about 0.4 percent of total U.S. potato 

acreage (Guenthner et al. 2007). The organic share of the U.S. 

fresh potato market is 0.8 percent and the premium paid by 

consumers for organic potatoes is reported by ERS as 62.2 

percent above conventional, the highest of all organic products. 

(Smith and Lin 2009). The same article notes that, even though 

organic potatoes pay growers the highest premium, organic 

potatoes have one of the smallest shares of the market, less 

than 1 percent of potato sales. Organic carrots, in comparison, 

carry a relatively small premium, but represent a respectable 

11.1 percent share of all carrot sales (see fi gure 5). 

Figure 5. Price premiums paid for organic produce26

Note: Organic produce are identifi ed by the presence of the USDA organic seal or organic-claim codes created by Nielsen

Source: Calculated by USDA, Economic Research Service using Nielsen Homescan Consumer Panel data, 2006

Potatoes

Grapes

Strawberries

Onions

Peppers

Bananas

Oranges

Tomatoes

Apples

Carrots

62.2

35.1

40.3

23.0

36.7

27.5

22.0

16.6

31.8

17.2

0.8

1.2

1.6

1.7

1.8

2.3

2.3

3.2

3.3

11.1

Organic share 

of sales (%)

Price 

premium (%)

Organic price premiums vary among fresh produce
14

Figure 6. Average retail price of round white potatoes 1997-2008

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Figure 7. Average price paid to U.S. farmers for fall potatoes, 1999-2007

Source: ERS Vegetable and Melons outlook http://www.ERS.USDA.gov

$0.30 

$0.35 

$0.40 

$0.45 

$0.50 

$0.55 

$0.60 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Price ($ per lb)

Year

$0.03

$0.04

$0.05

$0.06

$0.07

$0.08

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Price ($ per lb)

Year
15

Tablestock potato prices respond to weather, market 

conditions, and the availability of imported (e.g., Canadian) 

potatoes and potato products. Low potato prices at the 

beginning of this decade aff ected potato planting decisions, 

leading to substantial acreage reductions (fi gure 8). The 

acreage reduction may have been prompted by increases in 

grain and soybean prices, and assisted by acreage reduction 

strategies of the U.S. Potato Marketing Cooperative (see 

“supply management strategies” in a later section).

Tablestock potato prices generally are highest for the winter 

crop and lowest for fall potatoes, but these can vary. In 2007 the 

U.S. average price of fall potatoes was $7.05 per hundredweight, 

and $18.50 for the winter crop. Yet the yield for fall potatoes 

was 410 hundredweight per acre, and the yield for winter 

Figure 8. U.S. fall potato acreage 

Source: ERS Vegetable and Melons Outlook http://www.ERS.USDA.gov

potatoes was only 210 hundredweight per acre.27 The fall crop 

is the largest in terms of total production as well as yield, given 

the climatic conditions in many areas that limit off -season 

production. Other factors, such as varying yields, shipping 

losses, and repacking costs for new potatoes make returns 

similar regardless of the season produced. Prices for tablestock 

potatoes are traditionally higher than prices paid for processing 

potatoes, with prices nationwide from 2006 to 2008 between 

$2.00–$3.00 higher per hundredweight for tablestock over 

the average price paid for all potatoes including processing.28 

However, processing potatoes are grown under contract and 

the prices paid are more predictable than the more volatile 

tablestock prices. 

27 NASS, Quick Stats (Ag Statistics Database) http://www.nass.usda.gov/

Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp

28 ERS, Vegetable and Melon Outlook http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/

VGS/2008/12Dec/VGS330.pdf (PDF)

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

1,050

1,100

1,150

1,200

1,250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Thousands of acres

Year
16

Potatoes are grown throughout the world, and many countries 

participate both as exporters and importers. In the past, Russia 

and Poland led the world in potato production but, in recent 

years, China and India have the leading positions. 

Trade in potatoes comes in all forms—fresh, processed, frozen, 

and chips. However, fresh movements between countries 

are limited by phytosanitary concerns (disease, insects, etc.). 

Potatoes also have a relatively low value per ton (perhaps $200 

per ton), and the need for refrigeration and careful handling 

also deducts from their desirability as an international trade 

item. Higher value potato products such as fries and chips 

and such shelf-stable items as potato starch and fl our are 

more commonly traded. The cross-border trade between the 

United States and Canada incorporates every variety of potato, 

including fresh market, processing, seed, and tablestock.

Trade data show that “fresh potatoes” often refers to potatoes 

that are destined for processing in the receiving country or to 

shipments of seed potatoes. Seed potatoes are probably the 

most stringently examined fresh potatoes in the marketing 

chain because there is a risk that an infected or infested seed 

potato will be planted in the receiving county’s farmland, 

spreading disease and insect problems.

For a variety of reasons, the most popular product in 

international potato trade is frozen potatoes, especially 

french fries.

International Potato Trade

Fries are a leading export item

Since 2005, the U.S. potato industry has enjoyed a trade 

surplus in potatoes and potato products. Net export 

value (U.S. exports minus imports) of potatoes and potato 

products in 2007 totaled $224 million. Japan, Canada, and 

Mexico are the top three export markets; together, they 

account for two-thirds of total U.S. potato exports. Most 

exports consist of processed potatoes, such as frozen 

french fries, potato chips, and dehydrated potato products 

(e.g., potato fl akes, granules, and fl our). (ERS 2008)
17

Leading Potato Exporters

The United States is a major potato exporter, not because of 

its large fresh production, but because of its ability to produce 

frozen potato products. Canada, China, the European Union, 

and the United States account for nearly one-third of all potato 

exports to world markets. (FAS 2008) 

However, smaller countries (each with less than 1 percent 

market share) provide more than 57 percent of fresh potatoes in 

international trade. Each of the producing countries (the EU is 

often considered a single entity in the statistics) operates a little 

diff erently. For example, Canada is an export-based producer, 

but the United States and the EU may import nearly as many 

potatoes as they export.

Fresh potatoes are highly perishable and may contain insects or 

potato diseases. Perishable products that could inadvertently 

deliver diseases and insects to the receiving nation are a 

disincentive to trade. It is safer for a potato-producing nation 

such as Japan to import frozen potato products rather than 

fresh potatoes. 

“Fresh,” in the vocabulary of international trade, designates 

the potatoes were unprocessed at the time of shipping, even 

if intended for processing. Thus, imports and exports of fresh 

potatoes do not necessarily serve a “tablestock market,” but 

reach the retail outlet in processed form. Japan, for example, 

processes most fresh potatoes imported from the United States 

into chips. 

U.S. Imports of Fresh Potatoes 

Most U.S. potato imports are from Canada. Canada has an 

export-based potato industry, and the United States is its 

primary market. For years, the strength of the U.S. dollar aided 

Canada in competing in the U.S. market. Recent weakness in 

the dollar should enable U.S. producers to become more pricecompetitive and enable Maine-grown potatoes to replace 

some of the imported Canadian potatoes now entering the 

United States. 

U.S. Exports of Fresh Potatoes 

Figure 9 shows recent U.S. fresh potato exports. The value of 

those exports grew from $59 million in 1990 to $129 million in 

2007, more than doubling.

Most of these exports went to Canada, most likely destined for 

potato processing plants. The Canadian share of total exports 

fell slightly due to increased shipments to Mexico and the Far 

East. In 1990, exports to Canada represented 96 percent of total 

exports; in 2006 they represented 70 percent, with exports to 

Mexico responsible for the diff erence (1.7 percent of the total 

in 1990 and 16 percent in 2006). Figure 9 shows dollar levels of 

U.S. fresh potato exports to its major customers.

Source: ERS, Potato Statistics, Fresh Potato Exports http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/91011/Table077.xls

Figure 9. Value of U.S. fresh potato exports ($millions)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Others

Mexico

Canada
18

In 2006 and 2008 the Maine Potato Board commissioned 

two “Review(s) of the Industry” (MPB 2008) that describe 

the industry in those years and how it changed during the 

previous 10 years. Some of the information in those reports is 

summarized here.

Yields

Potato yields in Maine have remained relatively stagnant. In 

1950, Maine farmers harvested 288 hundredweight per acre; 

in 2007, they averaged 290 hundredweight per acre (NASS 

2008). The U.S. average was about 298 hundredweight per 

acre. Some irrigated Western U.S. farms may produce as much 

as 400 to 500 hundredweight per acre (ERS 2008-1), indicating 

that irrigation, which increased the yield for the Western United 

States, might also increase yields in Maine. However, irrigation 

has yet to be used in a signifi cant way in northern Maine. In the 

dry Western States, irrigation is a necessity, as normal rainfall is 

insuffi cient to grow potatoes. In Maine, irrigation acts more as a 

backup to rainfall, providing water in drought years and raising 

average yields by eliminating occasional poor harvests caused 

by drought.

Acreage

Total Maine potato acreage fell between 1980 and 2006 from 

more than 100,000 planted acres to about 60,000, consistent 

with a long-term trend that has seen potato production decline 

in the East and Midwest and increasing production in the West 

and Canada. Other traditional potato production areas such as 

Pennsylvania and Michigan have also suff ered large declines 

in potato acreage. Much of the decline has taken place in 

tablestock production, only part of which has been replaced 

with production destined for french fry and chip markets. 

Processing

Maine produces far more potatoes for processing today than 

in previous years. The construction and expansion of potato 

processing facilities in Maine and Connecticut benefi ts Maine 

farmers in two important ways: providing stable, predictable 

markets for Maine potatoes and increasing the number and 

quality of potato storage facilities on Maine farms.

Status of the Maine Potato Industry

Cull potatoes

There is a lack of markets in Maine for number 2 grade and 

cull potatoes. About 30–40 percent of Maine’s production is 

less than number 1 grade. Other production areas, which have 

similar or even higher cull rates, are able to use these “off grade” 

potatoes for canning, starch, dehydration, fl akes, meal, and 

plastics. The lack of a market for culls and low-grade potatoes 

encourages less stringent grading by farmers to improve their 

packout. According to the farmers we interviewed, Maine 

growers may be off ered only $1.00 per hundredweight for lower 

grade and cull potatoes, if they can be sold at all, compared with 

$7.26 (NASS 2009), the 6-year average price for Maine potatoes 

sold for processing and tablestock. 

Potato Grades

In the United States, the USDA, with industry 

participation, has instituted four distinct grading 

standards for potatoes: fresh market potatoes, potatoes 

for seed, processing potatoes, and chipping potatoes. 

Each standard has permitted conditions, defect levels, 

and minimum and maximum sizes that determine grade. 

Common to these standards is a quality grade (No. 1 or 

No. 2) and a size designation (creamer, Chefs, Size A, 

Size B, small, medium, or large). Potatoes in count boxes 

have separate weight standards.

The State of Maine has its own grade standards,29 based 

on the U.S. standard but slightly tougher. For example 

the “Maine Grade” round white potato must meet the 

U.S. Number 1 quality standard as well as the Size A size 

standard and have a minimum diameter of 2 inches, 

slightly larger than the U.S. Number 1 Grade. The “Maine 

Premium” Grade has a minimum diameter of 2.25 inches 

in addition to meeting all other size and quality criteria of 

U.S. Number 1. 

29 http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/01/chaps01.htm
19

Loss of Markets

Maine’s loss of its traditional markets to farmers in Canada 

and the Western United States means it has gradually lost its 

dominant position as the supplier of tablestock potatoes for 

Boston, New England, the Mid-Atlantic region, and North 

Carolina. There are several possible explanations for this, 

including the low cost of irrigation water in the Western United 

States; smart, aggressive marketing by Idaho; past defi ciencies 

in storage and packout quality in Maine; and perhaps the 

unwillingness of Maine producers to market cooperatively. 

The relative weakness of Canadian currency to the U.S. dollar 

has also aff ected Maine potato sales. Since the 1970s, the 

strong U.S. dollar and the relatively weak Canadian currency 

have allowed Canadian potatoes to compete strongly with 

those grown in Maine and in other U.S. production areas. After 

30 years of a weak Canadian dollar, the situation was reversed 

in the past couple of years. (The subject is discussed further in a 

later section, under “Canadian Competition.”)

Maine Potato Varieties

In the past, “round white” tablestock potatoes were the 

dominant Maine potato and, until recently, Katahdin and 

Kennebec were two favorites. Consumer acceptance of these 

varieties was good and their quality respected and consistent. 

These varieties, while still grown, have been replaced by newer 

“improved” varieties. Some of the farmers interviewed in 

Maine complained that, although superior in some aspects, 

these new varieties may lack consistent cooking results and 

fl avor. This appears to be at least partly due to the marketing 

of several potato varieties together as generic “round white 

potatoes.” These diff erent varieties naturally had somewhat 

diff erent results when prepared by consumers, and the farmers 

claimed the inconsistency led to consumer confusion and 

disappointment. The lack of consistency because diff erent 

varieties were marketed as generic round whites or baking 

potatoes suggests limiting each category to one variety. 

Several Maine potato growers and marketers told us the 

concept of identifying potatoes by variety and State of 

origin has proven diffi cult to sell to chain store buyers, 

erecting another barrier to proper product identifi cation. 

Representatives of supermarket chains with multistate 

operations, they said, resist attempts to identify the potatoes 

they purchase as Maine grown, out of concern it might alienate 

consumers in neighboring States that also grow potatoes. 

However, in our observation, large supermarket chains 

frequently carry branded potatoes that identify the variety 

and State of origin on potato bags. This argues for a more 

aggressive, united marketing eff ort by Maine growers. 

Farmers raising some potato varieties in Maine face technical 

diffi culties. Red potatoes are not suffi ciently colorful, Russets 

do not grow properly, and rocky soils damage potatoes, making 

harvesting of small potatoes problematic. Based on the results 

of these interviews, it would appear that further agronomic 

research is needed to identify the most promising potato 

varieties that would appeal to consumers and be suitable for 

northern Maine’s climate and soil. 
20

Canadian Competition

Increases in Canadian potato production directly aff ect Maine 

potato growers. Figure 10 shows the acreage planted in 

potatoes in Maine and the eastern Canadian Provinces of 

Prince Edward Island (PEI), New Brunswick (NB), and Quebec 

(Que). This region, traditionally the leaders in Canadian potato 

production, produces a high volume of potatoes, roughly 

equivalent to 15 percent of total U.S. production. 

Figure 10. Potato acres planted in Maine and nearby Canadian Provinces

Source: Cheng (2004 and 2005) and Maine Potato Board

Within the region, a signifi cant shift has occurred over the last 

several years. New Brunswick and Quebec production have 

remained fairly stable, rising just a few thousand acres between 

1980 and 2007, but Prince Edward Island potato acreage 

increased from about 60,000 acres in 1980 to 109,000 acres in 

1999. During the same period, Maine potato acreage dropped 

from 108,000 acres in 1980 to 60,000 acres today. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Acres

Year

ME

PEI

NB

Que
21

Currency Exchange Rates 

Any mention of international trade must include a discussion 

of relative currency exchange values. In September 2007, the 

Canadian dollar traded at par (equal) to the U.S. dollar for the 

fi rst time since 1976. After many weak years, the Canadian 

dollar’s value rose on the back of strong demand for its export 

commodities, such as copper, gold, wheat, oil, and potatoes. As 

shown in fi gure 11, the U.S. dollar lost value after 2003, when it 

traded for 1.54 Canadian dollars. By January 2008, this ratio was 

down to 1.01, or nearly even.

Maine potato growers believe the weak Canadian dollar prior 

to 2003 encouraged U.S. potato buyers to prefer Canadian 

potatoes over those produced in Maine. According to the 

Maine producers, this led to a decline in Maine acreage and 

corresponding increases in acreage in Prince Edward Island and 

other parts of Canada. The decrease in the value of the U.S. 

dollar that began in 2003 and continued through the 

beginning of 2008 (shown in fi gure 11) reverse this trend 

somewhat, encouraging an increase in sales of Maine potatoes 

to Canadian processors. 

 Figure 11. Decline in value of U.S. dollar against Canadian dollar 

Source: Bank of Canada (2008) http://www.bankofcanada.ca/cgi-bin/famecgi_fdps

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

U.S. dollar value in Canadian dollars
22

Canadian Subsidies

Coinciding with increased potato acreage in Canada during 

the 1980s and 1990s has been improved storage and packing 

facilities. During a tour of storage and packing sheds in 

Maine and Prince Edward Island by one of the authors in 1989 

(Berney), it was clear that Canadian facilities were far superior 

to many in Maine at the time. Some Maine farmers we spoke 

to in 2007 believed subsidies by Canadian government agencies 

helped construct them. A literature search reveals only a few 

examples of construction of storage facilities in Prince Edward 

Island with government support, so it is not clear that these 

claims are valid.

In 2004, the National Potato Board and Senators Susan Collins 

(R-ME) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) asked the U.S. Department 

of Commerce to investigate unfair trade practices in the potato 

industry by the Canadian and Provincial governments. Among 

the complaints cited were:

1. “New Technology Grants” to purchase potato handling 

and storage structures and equipment.

2. “Freight Assistance” subsidized transportation of 

potatoes, including to the U.S. market. (This program 

was said to have been phased out.)

3. “Net Income Stabilization Accounts (NISA)” that 

allowed potato farmers to deposit a percentage of 

sales into a NISA account and receive a matching 

contribution from the government, which could be 

saved or withdrawn as needed.

4. No-interest loans for potatoes in storage waiting to 

be sold.

The net eff ect of the report was limited. A full report of the 

investigation is available at the NPC Web site.30 The Canadians 

responded by reducing the scope of some programs and 

making counterclaims about some U.S. farm programs they 

considered unfair to Canadian farmers. Meanwhile, farmers in 

both countries have been hurt by the low potato prices of the 

early and mid-2000s and, since that time, have concentrated on 

improving product quality and marketing, and implementing 

acreage reduction programs. 

30 http://www.nationalpotatocouncil.org/NPC/p_documents/

document_010407021042.DOC
23

Electric rates shown in fi gure 12 are for the industrial sector, as 

agriculture falls under that category. (Residential rates usually 

follow similar patterns.) As of September 2007, the average rate 

in the United States was 6.55 cents per kilowatt-hour, the New 

England average was 12.23, the Maine average was 11.49, the 

Idaho average was 4.48, and the Washington State average 

was 4.78 (all in cents per kilowatt-hour). In other words, the 

electric rate in Maine was 2.5 times the rates in Idaho and 

Washington State.

Pennsylvania, a major destination for Maine tablestock 

potatoes, had industrial electric rates that were nearly half of 

what was paid in Maine, allowing Pennsylvania producers to 

store, pack, and process potatoes with lower operating costs. 

Energy Costs 

The rising costs of energy aff ect more than added 

transportation surcharges for Maine farmers. They aff ect nearly 

every area of production (e.g., fuel for equipment, price of 

fertilizer), as well as the cost effi ciency of storage, processing, 

and marketing potatoes.

During our discussions with potato growers in Maine, we 

heard comments that electric utility rates in the State are 

steep compared with those in other potato-growing regions, 

signifi cantly aff ecting businesses that use electricity for 

processing, heating, drying, and cooling. As illustrated by 

fi gure 12 and Appendix 4, Maine’s rates for electricity are well 

above the national average, higher than those in other potatoproducing States. However, the rates are comparable to the 

other New England States.

Figure 12. 2008 electric rates for industrial users in Maine and other potato-growing areas 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2008 http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

$0.00

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

$0.12

$0.14

U.S. Avg. New 

England

ME PA WI WA ID

Cost per KW-H
24

In the fresh potato industry, electricity is needed for processing 

and storing potatoes. Fans, conveyors, and equipment for 

washing, sorting, and packaging all run on electric power. In 

the potato processing industry, energy is required to freeze 

(electricity) and dehydrate (usually propane or natural gas). 

Other energy costs, such as diesel, natural gas, and heating oil, 

are also higher in Maine and New England than in other potatogrowing regions. Figure 13 provides a comparison of natural 

gas prices in Maine with other regions of the country. Appendix 

6 provides a detailed comparison of diesel fuel and gasoline 

prices. Higher energy costs contribute to the disadvantage that 

Maine potato growers face with their competitors.

The price of natural gas (fi gure 13) is an important consideration 

in selecting a site for potato processing and dehydration plants. 

It requires a minimum of 1,100 British Thermal Units (Btus) of 

heat energy to evaporate 1 pound of water. Potatoes are mainly 

water, averaging about 80 percent water and 20 percent solids. 

With an energy/heating value of 1,050 Btu per cubic foot, a 

minimum of 1 cubic foot of natural gas is required to remove a 

pound of water from any food product. 

As a location for a large-scale potato processing facility, Maine 

has some advantages and some disadvantages. It is near largescale potato production, low-cost land, and reasonable labor 

costs, but does not have access to inexpensive natural gas or 

electricity, limiting its ability to attract processing fi rms. The 

location of chipping facilities in Maine and Connecticut, frozen 

potato processing in Maine, and the recently upgraded frozen 

potato facility in New Brunswick shows the area is important to 

industry. However, other States and Provinces also desire such 

facilities, putting Maine in competition for them. 

McCain Foods (the largest french fry maker in the world, 

claiming 33 percent of the global market, according to an 

analysis by Potato Pro31) is headquartered in Florenceville, 

New Brunswick (NB), a few miles from Maine, and has long 

been a factor in the Maine potato equation. It was major 

news in August 2000, when McCain announced the imminent 

construction of another french-fry plant in Easton, ME, near 

its current location.32 It was mentioned at the time that 

McCain would receive a 90-percent rebate on taxes for 25 

years to help off set the cost of the plant. In 2006, rebuilding 

of the Florenceville plant was announced, and in 2008 a new 

Florenceville plant opened.33

31 http://www.potatopro.com

32 http://www.mccain.com/Newsroom/FAQ/Documents/MediaRelease/

MR_August_11_2000.pdf (PDF)

33 http://www.mccain.com/Newsroom/Announcements/Pages/Default.aspx

Figure 13. 2008 industrial price of natural gas 

Source: EIA 2008 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/natural_gas.html

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

U.S. Avg. ME PA WI WA ID

Price per 1,000 cu ft
25

Interest in Maine as a location for processing is not exclusive 

to McCain. Lamb Weston, the largest potato processor in the 

world, took an option on 150 acres near Limestone, ME, in 

2002, and again visited Aroostook County in 2008 to look at 

building sites. In a January 2009 interview, a spokesman for the 

Conagra subsidiary said it had been monitoring opportunities 

in Maine for 10 years and is always looking for production 

opportunities.34

McCain and Lamb Weston’s interest indicates Maine has some 

serious potential as a location for a new french fry facility, but in 

the competitive environment for siting new potato plants, it is 

only one of a number of possible locations.

On the other hand, frozen french-fry processing facilities still 

fail to solve the problem of what to do with the off -grade and 

cull potatoes.

Processing 

The limited market for low-grade and cull potatoes in Maine 

costs producers income and creates a waste management 

problem. Production of processed potato products, such as 

potato starch, fl akes, and granules could create a market for 

the low-grade and/or cull potatoes sorted in Maine packing 

sheds. A facility to process cull potatoes would help Maine 

tablestock producers and improve their profi tability. Maine and 

Pennsylvania are the only two Eastern States that have potato 

processing plants of any type. Besides french fry, chip, and 

frozen potato processing, Maine also has a small starch plant 

and Pennsylvania a large potato dehydration facility. In fact, 

many tablestock potatoes from Maine were being shipped to 

Pennsylvania for repacking and the cull potatoes processed into 

dehydrated potatoes in this plant. (A unique energy source—

methane gas generated underground by an old landfi ll—allowed 

the plant to produce high-quality dehydrated product at a 

reasonable cost.) 

34 Bangor Daily News January 8, 2009

Dehydrated Mashed Potatoes35

Generally made from cull potatoes, Russet Burbanks are most 

commonly used to manufacture dehydrated mashed potatoes 

because grading often eliminates as much as 50 percent of 

a Russet yield from being marketed as U.S. Number 1. The 

production of dehydrated mashed potatoes is a multi-step 

process in which potatoes are:

 Precooked and cooled

 Peeled by brushes

 Cooked again

 Mashed and dried

The resulting dried product has many uses in addition to instant 

mashed potatoes, including extruded food, snack food, animal 

feed, and as an ingredient in other food products such as ice 

cream, breading, and soup.

Dehydrated Potatoes 

The processing diff ers slightly from that for dehydrated mashed 

potatoes because they are not cooked prior to processing. 

Instead potatoes are:

 Steam-peeled

 Trimmed to remove bad portions 

 Diced or sliced 

 Blanched, dried, and sorted (if pieces)

 Treated with sulfi te (if sliced)

Diced products are used for canned food products, potato salad, 

hash-browns, and dry soup mixes. Slices (usually 3 millimeters 

thick) are used in retail and institutional casseroles and potato 

salads. Crushed or ground products are used in extruded 

snack pellets, as a thickener, in dumpling mixes and potato 

pancakes, and in dry soup mixes. Strips are used in restaurant 

hash browns. 

Potato Flour 

This traditional product is made from ground, dried potatoes. 

For centuries, it was a staple food, mixed with water to eat. 

Now it is used to improve texture and fl avor in bread making, 

cookies, and candies. Potato fl our may also be used as a 

thickener or breading agent. 

35 Much of the following information on dehydrated potato products, fl our, 

and starch is excerpted from Potandon Produce’s “Green Giant” Web site at 

http://www.potandon.com.
26

Potato Starch 

First produced in Germany in the late 1700s, it became 

popular in the United States by the late 1800s, but most plants 

producing it have since disappeared because it is diffi cult 

to dispose of potato starch waste. The competitive pricing 

of imported food-grade potato starch from Holland and 

Germany, where the industry is considered an integral part 

of potato production and receives government subsidies, is 

another factor. Consequently, there is only one conventional 

potato starch plant left in the United States —which is located 

in Maine—down from 21 in Maine alone as recently as 1962 

(Treadway 1962). Conventional starch plants use whole 

potatoes and pieces to make starch. 

However, starch modifi cation plants that convert by-product 

starch generated in french fry and other potato processing 

facilities still exist in this country. The resulting starch is used 

primarily by the paper industry. This type of starch recovery 

reduces the cost of effl uent waste treatment for the fry plants 

and this helps justify their operation. Zuckerforschung Tulln, 

an Austrian research fi rm, has an excellent online description 

of potato starch plants and how they operate.36 The cell walls 

of the tuber are physically damaged, allowing the “juice” to be 

separated from the pulp. It is then dried to form a powder. 

Because of the recent increase in the use of corn for ethanol 

production and other corn-derived ingredients, it is possible 

there will be a renewed interest in potato starch as a substitute 

for corn starch in the domestic market. An increase in the 

demand for potato starch has already occurred in the global 

marketplace, leading to the construction of new potato starch 

plants in several nations, especially China. Two new plants in 

China were under construction in 2008 by China Essence, which 

reported a 65-percent increase in income for the year ending 

in March 2008. The new plants are expected to increase China 

Essence’s annual production of starch from 180,000 metric tons 

to 260,000 metric tons by 2010. In what is perhaps a related 

move, the Chinese government placed tariff s of between 17 and 

35 percent on European starch entering the Chinese market 

(Partos 2008).

36 Potato Starch Extraction. Zuckerforschung Web site. http://

www.zuckerforschung.at/inhalt_en.php?titel=STARCH%20

TECHNOLOGY&nav=nstaerkeinfo_en&con=cigs_en

Plastics From Potatoes

Making plastics from potatoes has become one of the 

latest “earth friendly” concepts—replacing the oil-produced 

polyethylene fi lms with plastic made of polylactic acids from 

potatoes. Polylactic acid (PLA) can be made from such plant 

starches as corn or potatoes. It is used to manufacture plastic 

fi lms, resins, and fi bers. 

In June 2007, the University of Maine generated a short 

feasibility paper on the cost of producing PLA directly from 

potatoes in Maine (Dickerson and Rubin 2007). The paper 

reported that PLA could be produced from fresh potatoes, 

potato starch, or corn starch and that a plant located in Maine 

could produce PLA in usable amounts and at a price competitive 

with the pilot plant located in Germany. PLA-based plastic cups 

and fi lms would be biodegradable, and could be composted in 

about 9 months in a home composting operation. 

A Cargill subsidiary, Natureworks LLC, is the main U.S. producer 

of PLA for plastics. Natureworks makes PLA out of corn starch. 

Small plants in Japan, Europe, and China also produce PLA. A 

recent article in Plastics Technology37 describes PLA as ready for 

commercial use; its only stumbling block is the price is not yet 

competitive with polyethylene. Depending on the direction of 

fuel costs and corn costs, the availability of low-cost potatoes as 

feedstock may eventually make PLA extracted from potatoes 

cost-competitive. The price target for competitive PLA is 

around $1 per pound; if that target is reached, PLA may be a 

viable industrial product.

37 http://www.ptonline.com
27

Are Maine Farmers Receiving 

Different Potato Prices Than 

Farmers in Canada or Idaho?

It is often suggested by members of the Maine potato industry 

that Maine potatoes are at a price disadvantage compared 

with potatoes grown in Maritime Canada or the Western United 

States. A typical comment is, “If only Maine could get the 

prices that growers in other areas receive.” We decided to look 

at this issue and determine the validity of the premise that 

Maine potatoes are sold at lower prices than Idaho or Canadian 

potatoes.

Initially, we wanted as many comparisons as possible. We 

wanted to look at round whites, Russets, and red potatoes from 

New Brunswick, Maine, Wisconsin, and Idaho in the Boston, 

New York, and Baltimore Markets. However, because of the 

lack of data, reasonable comparisons could be made in these 

markets only for round whites and Russets from Maine, Canada, 

and Idaho. 

Our investigation showed that Idaho producers receive a higher 

price all season long in most markets than Maine producers for 

Russet-type potatoes, but that Maine round white potatoes 

brought roughly the same price as Canadian or Idaho round 

whites, except in New York, where Maine round whites brought 

signifi cantly lower prices.

To undertake the study, we relied on data collected by

AMS Fruit and Vegetable Program Market News reporters 

at production points and urban wholesale markets. Fruit 

and Vegetable Program economists examined price data 

to determine if there were any consistent patterns of price 

premiums or penalties for Maine-origin potatoes compared 

with the same varieties of potatoes originating from other 

production regions.

Two tables were prepared from Market News price data 

showing the prices paid for potatoes from Maine compared 

with potatoes from competing sources. The types of potatoes 

selected for analysis were Russet Norkotah and Round White 

potatoes; data for other types of potatoes were too sporadic 

to make meaningful comparisons. For Russet Norkotah, the 

competing source for which price data were most readily 

available was Idaho. For round whites, Canada was the most 

representative competing source. All potatoes were grade 

Number 1, and the Canada Number 1 grade was assumed to be 

equivalent to U.S. Number 1 potatoes.

Price data were examined over a 7-year period, from marketing 

seasons 2001/2002 to 2007/2008. Average weekly prices 

were computed by averaging fi ve daily prices; each daily 

price was the midpoint between the high and low price. Price 

diff erences were computed by subtracting the average weekly 

price for Idaho or Canadian potatoes from the Maine potato 

average price for each week in which both Maine and Idaho (or 

Canadian) prices for the specifi c grade, package type, and size 

were reported in the terminal market. 
28

Round White Potato Prices

Overall, Maine round white potatoes received comparable 

prices in the Boston and Baltimore wholesale markets, but 

lower prices in New York. The number of weekly comparisons in 

diff erent seasons ranged from 10 to 39. Averaged across each 

season, the average price diff erence ranged from a premium 

(higher price) of $1.23 for Maine potatoes (50-pound sacks) 

to a discount (lower price) of $1.29. On average, large-size 

Maine potatoes got $0.08 less per 50-pound sack than potatoes 

from Canada. Round white size A Maine potatoes yielded, on 

average, $0.23 less per 50-pound sack. 

Figure 14 shows a typical year, 2006/2007, in the Boston market. 

For most of the season, the Canadian grown potatoes received a 

slightly higher price but, during November, the Maine potatoes 

received almost a dollar premium per 50-pound sack.

Less information was available for “baled 10-5 pound fi lm 

bags, 2-inch minimum” round white potatoes sold in Boston. 

However, potatoes from Maine packed this way received on 

average $0.88 less per bale than the comparable Canadian 

Figure 14. Boston (Quincy) Terminal Market—potato prices for Maine and Canadian Number 1 round white tablestock 

potatoes in 50-pound paper sacks, fall 2006–spring 2007

Source: USDA Market News http://search.ams.usda.gov/mnsearch/MNSearch.aspx

potatoes. Over the seasons studied, Maine whites in baled poly 

bags were discounted an average of $0.33 to $1.19 per 50-pound 

bale from the same pack of potatoes from Canada.

For the Baltimore market, there were suffi cient data for price 

comparisons for each of the seven seasons analyzed but, with 

price premiums in some years and price discounts in others, 

the average price diff erence between Maine and Canadian 

round white potatoes was close to zero. On average, buyers 

in Baltimore appear to value Maine and Canadian round white 

potatoes about equally.

Although much less data was available for the New York market 

(only 2 to 7 weeks per season), it appears that Maine round 

white potatoes were at a greater disadvantage in New York 

than in the other eastern wholesale markets; an average price 

discount of $1.09 was received relative to Canadian potatoes 

(50-pound sacks, Size A). Of the fi ve seasons for which price 

comparisons were possible, the average of each season’s largest 

price discounts for Maine potatoes relative to Idaho was $2.32 

for round white number 1’s in 50-pound paper sacks.

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Price per 50lb sack

Month

Maine Canada
29

Russet Norkotah Potato Prices 

Idaho received a higher price than Maine in most markets. 

The price diff erences for Russet Norkotah in all three terminal 

markets show Maine Russet Norkotah potatoes received 

substantially lower prices than Idaho potatoes. The price 

diff erences were considerably greater than the price diff erences 

between Maine and Canada round white potatoes. Based on 

four seasons with comparable data, with the number of weeks 

with measurable price diff erences ranging from 2 to 10 weeks, 

the average discount for Maine Russet Norkotah potatoes sold 

in Boston (baled 10 5-pound fi lm bags, size A) was $3.67.

There were fi ve useable seasons in both the Boston and New 

York markets (with the number of weekly comparisons per 

season ranging from 2 to 26) for which there were suffi cient 

data to compute average seasonal price diff erences for Russet 

Norkotah potatoes (50-pound cartons of size 90). In the Boston 

market, the seasonal averages ranged from a premium of $1.36 

for Maine potatoes relative to Idaho (in 2004/2005) to a sharply 

lower price ($9.40 discount per carton in 2006/2007). The overall 

average for the fi ve seasons was a price discount for Maine 

potatoes of $3.69 in the Boston market when compared with 

Russet Norkotah potatoes from Idaho.

Figure 15. Russet potato (50 lb) prices in the New York Wholesale Market, 2006/2007, 

for potatoes shipped from Maine and Idaho

 Source: AMS Market News http://search.ams.usda.gov/mnsearch/MNSearch.aspx

Note that in fi gure 15, during most of the 2006/2007 potato 

marketing year, Maine potato prices were considerably lower 

than Idaho’s. In fact, in the New York market, the overall 

average of the fi ve seasonal averages showed a price discount 

of $2.12 for 50-pound, 90-count cartons of Russet potatoes from 

Maine relative to Idaho potatoes. For large-size potatoes, the 

price diff erential was even greater, $3.44 per 50-pound carton. 

In the Baltimore market, in which there were only enough 

relevant data points on Russets for the 2007/2008 season, 

Maine-origin potatoes received, on average, $2.45 less per 

50-pound, 90-count carton when compared with Idaho Russets.

Why did Russet potatoes from Idaho have such a superior 

position in the marketplace? In the absence of defi nitive 

information, it is diffi cult to speculate, but four factors emerged 

as possibilities from conversations with wholesale dealers: 

 Superior market promotion 

 Larger sizes

 Better grading and condition

 Better packaging

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

$15

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Price per 50lb carton

Month

Maine Idaho
30

As an introduction to an exploration of potential new marketing 

directions for Maine fresh potato growers, we examined 

successful marketing strategies and promotion programs being 

undertaken by diff erent segments of the U.S. potato industry, 

and evaluated the relevance of these programs to the Maine 

marketing situation. After conducting a broad literature search 

of potato marketing activities, we decided to focus on the 

following critical issues:

 National marketing programs 

 Category management

 Potato repackers activities

 Grower-shipper roles

 Eff ectiveness of State and regional branding/

promotion eff orts

 Cooperatives and their marketing programs

 Eff ectiveness of supply management

 Maine’s support of its potato industry compared with 

eff orts elsewhere

National Marketing Programs

The United States Potato Board (USPB) was established in 1971 

by potato growers to promote the eating of potatoes. Through 

a consumers’ Web site (http://www.healthypotato.com) and 

a producers’ Web site (http://www.uspotatoes.com), USPB 

off ers public relations, nutrition education, retail programs, 

foodservice marketing, and export programs to educate 

consumers, retailers, and culinary professionals about the 

convenience, good nutrition, and versatility of potatoes.

Market Promotion Programs

The USPB actively educates health care professionals, the 

media, and consumers about the dietary value of the vitamins 

and minerals found in potatoes, including the refrain “potatoes 

have more potassium than a banana.” Posted below are some 

of the more prominent advertising logos (fi gure 16). The phrase 

“We’re here to help” refers to the support the U.S. Potato 

Board provides to members of the U.S. potato industry, 

especially marketers. 

Mac Johnson of the U.S. Potato Board has performed a variety 

of research and analyses on marketing potatoes. His work 

shows there may be some market fl exibility in increasing the 

price of potatoes at the retail level due to the relative inelasticity 

in consumer demand, the lack of consumers’ familiarity with 

potato prices, and low prices for potatoes compared with other 

vegetables and substitute goods.

USPB prepared a lengthy marketing toolkit38 for “reinventing” 

the potato that answers questions such as:

 Who are the consumers?

 What sort of products they are looking for?

 What price levels do they require? 

The toolkit also has information on the low calorie count and 

high vitamin content of potatoes.

The USPB also off ers a Guide to Category Management of 

Potatoes. Much of the Board’s research information is online at 

http://www.uspotatoes.com/271research.html

38 http://www.uspotatoes.com/downloads/Reinventingthepotato.pdf (PDF)
31

Category Management

Category management is a watchword in potato marketing 

today. It is defi ned very well on the USPB site as a way for 

potato suppliers to more eff ectively work together with retailers 

to manage and sell the entire category of potatoes, not just 

a single potato variety or brand. Its basic assumption is that 

profi ts to both buyers and sellers can be increased through 

carefully examining customer needs, sales and scanner data, 

product selection and display, and advertising and promotion, 

and sharing the results with suppliers. When wholesalers and 

retailers provide these services, and suppliers are sensitive 

to real-time customer data, all can share the benefi ts from 

increased retail sales.

Category management strategies are being employed by 

growers-shippers, repackers, private label manufacturers, 

and farm cooperatives. Whatever their particular business 

arrangements, each organization is using a well-thought-out 

plan to provide:

 The types of potatoes desired by retailers 

 Attractive packaging 

 Consistent high quality

 Available as closely as possible to year-round 

The USPB has developed information on how to implement 

portions of a category management strategy that includes 

suggestions for product selection and variety, store placement, 

pricing, and in-store promotion.

Potato Packers and Repackers

Potato packers and repackers have been in business for many 

decades, but the size and scope of services they provide today 

has expanded. In today’s marketplace, packers and repackers 

receive previously washed and graded potatoes in 2,000-pound 

totes, which they then regrade and pack to suit specifi c 

customer demand. 

There are several reasons why repacking potatoes remains an 

important intermediary function in the supply chain:

 Potatoes often sustain damage from vibration or 

compression during shipment, requiring damaged 

tubers be removed. 

 New potatoes from Florida, Virginia, Delaware, 

California, and other areas are highly susceptible to 

bruising and often are repacked before sale. 

 Many repackers want to fulfi ll most, if not all, of the 

potato needs of a customer, which requires them to 

provide customized packing services.

 Customers want to deal with as few suppliers as 

possible, and large potato packer/repackers are able 

to source potatoes from across the country and, on a 

nearly year-round basis, provide potatoes of uniform 

size and quality. 

Potato repackers, such as Masser Potato Farms (PA), Bushwick 

(NY), Hapco (NY), and Russet Potato Exchange (WI), source 

potatoes both locally and from around the country. Figure 

17 shows the wide variety of potatoes, colors, and packaging 

available from repackers such as Masser.

Figure 17. Repackers provide a wide variety of potatoes year round39

39 Photos courtesy of Masser Potato Farms http://www.masserspuds.com
32

Masser off ers nearly all popular varieties of fresh potatoes 

consumed in the United States—Russets, round whites, reds, 

fi ngerlings, and Yukon Gold. They come packaged in paper, 

polyethylene bags, individually wrapped microwavable 

packages, and in clamshells, and are available in 1-, 5-, 10-, and 

50-pound packages, either U.S. Grade 1 or 2 (unclassifi ed). 

Masser and the large repackers use attractive color-coded 

packaging as a marketing tool to increase consumer 

awareness of the diff erent potatoes available, and thereby 

increase retail sales. 

Like Masser Produce, the Russet Potato Exchange (RPE)40 uses 

category management as a marketing strategy. RPE has a 

state-of-the-art facility in Bancroft, WI, that markets a full line of 

high-quality potatoes in the eastern and midwestern markets. 

Among the full line of potatoes is an extra-large Russet potato 

named “Biggins” that is marketed both as singles and in 

polyethylene bags. 

40 http://www.rpespuds.com

Figure 18. Some of Russet Potato Exchange’s potato off erings41

 

 41 http://www.rpespuds.com

Biggins

Disneygarden Naturally 

Nutritious

Mr. Tasty
33

Green Giant Fresh42 is the largest seller of fresh tablestock 

potatoes in this country and, with a Canadian partner, in 

Canada. It is not part of the food processing fi rm Green Giant, 

but negotiated the use of the brand name to market potatoes. 

42 http://www.greengiantfresh.com/

The organization is growing so rapidly it is diffi cult to count 

the fi rms and cooperatives it currently represents (at least six) 

or how many acres of production it manages (at least 26,000). 

Green Giant Fresh is one of the few national potato brands that 

always identifi es potatoes by variety and State of origin.

Figure 19. Green Giant Fresh branded potatoes are identifi ed by variety 

and place of origin (Idaho)

Figure 20. Green Giant Fresh brand baking potatoes have 

become a fi xture in many U.S. grocery stores

Source: Green Giant Fresh

Source: Green Giant Fresh
34

Grower-Shippers

Grower-shippers are producers that ship their own crops to 

market. There are many such producers in Maine and in other 

potato-growing areas of the United States. Not only do they 

grow, store, pack, and ship potatoes but, as they become 

larger, some begin packing and marketing potatoes for other 

farmers. One leading grower-shipper in the U.S. potato 

industry is Idaho’s Larsen Farms.43 Started in 1970, Larsen now 

encompasses 40,000 acres, operating in Idaho, Nebraska, and 

Colorado. The largest potato farm in the United States, Larsen 

is now a vertically integrated operation that grows potatoes, 

harvests, packs, markets, and ships fresh and dehydrated 

potatoes around the world. Larsen owns and operates the 

entire operation, from growing seed potatoes and owning its 

own dehydration plant to operating its own fl eet of delivery 

vehicles and repacking facilities in cities around the country. 

Grower-shippers have several marketing advantages over 

standard producers, insofar as they are able to eliminate one 

layer of marketing costs, have direct contact with grocery 

chain buyers, and maintain more control over the quality of the 

product that customers receive. However, they do face some 

greater marketing challenges, as well. By defi nition, growershippers bear the costs and problems associated with operating 

a packing facility and maintaining a marketing and logistics 

staff to pack, market, and deliver potatoes. Furthermore, in the 

face of increased levels of concentration in the U.S. retail food 

industry, many of these grower-shippers have been obliged 

to expand their volume of business activity in order to satisfy 

customer demands Given their limited access to capital, most 

tablestock potato producers in Maine, primarily smaller scale 

growers, do not have the option of expanding their production, 

and thus may be left out of many markets unless they band 

together in some fashion with other producers. 

43 http://www.larsenfarms.com
35

Many States have implemented State brands for their 

agricultural products, including potatoes. In some of the 

large potato-producing States, branding and State marketing 

programs have been undertaken by State departments of 

agriculture, commodity marketing boards, and private fi rms.

The Idaho Potato Commission has long had a serious and 

eff ective campaign to market Idaho® potatoes to consumers, 

particularly Russets. As a result, Idaho has become well known 

as a geographic area where Russet baking potatoes are grown.

In Pennsylvania, the “Pennsylvania Preferred” program44 is a 

Department of Agriculture program that identifi es producers 

of agricultural products “substantially grown or manufactured 

in Pennsylvania using Pennsylvania farm items.” Many potato 

producers and repackers in the State use the “Pennsylvania 

Preferred” logo to market as a “locally grown” supplier.

Figure 21. State branding logos

44 http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/papreferred/site/default.asp

State Branding and Promotion Programs

Other States, including Colorado and Washington, sponsor 

marketing and grower assistance programs for their potato 

growers. One of the most prominent is the grower assistance 

program in Washington that provides State and Federal 

support for a fl eet of railcars that could be used by the potato 

industry to move product to Eastern markets.45 (This and other 

rail transportation issues are discussed in more detail in the 

transportation section on page 44.) 

Cooperatives

One question asked by Maine farmers was, “Are there 

any successful potato grower marketing cooperatives?” 

Fortunately, we can report that there are successful potato 

marketing cooperatives across the United States that help 

farmers market their crops with several diff erent strategies. 

Some of them market potatoes collectively under the 

cooperative’s name, others also operate their own packing 

facilities, and still others concentrate principally on sales staff 

to sell potatoes packed independently by individual cooperative 

members. A handful of potato marketing cooperatives even use 

the powerful tool of “supply management” to keep prices at a 

profi table level for growers.

United Potato Growers is a cooperative under U.S. law. Its 

operation and those of its affi liated state and Canadian 

organizations are described in a following section “Supply 

Management Strategies.”

45 Senator Patty Murray Discusses Rail Car Pool. Chef2Chef Web site. http://

chef2chef.net/news/foodservice/Press_Releases-Associations/Senator_Patty_

Murray_Discusses_Rail_Car_Pool.htm
36

Some important potato marketing cooperatives in the 

United States:

 Associated Potato Growers, Grand Forks, ND46

 Basin Gold Cooperative in Pasco, WI, markets potatoes 

and onions for Oregon and Washington producers.47

 Center Potato Growers Cooperative, Center, CO, and 

Saginaw Bay are exporters of U.S. potato products. 

 Chief Wabasis Cooperative48 is a potato grower 

cooperative of modest size in McBride, MI. It has a 

relationship with the Pro Fac cooperative that supplies 

vegetables to Birds Eye Foods.

 Kern Produce Shippers Association, Irvine, CA, which 

represents nearly 15,000 fresh potato acres and 

20 growers

 Maine Potato Growers, Presque Isle, ME

 Newell Potato Cooperative Inc., Tulelake, CA

 Pennsylvania Co-Operative Potato Growers,49

Harrisburg, PA, is a “non-profi t organization serving 

as a vital link between the State’s potato growers 

and buyers.” 

 Saginaw Bay Potato Cooperative, Munger, MI, markets 

“new” fresh summer potatoes, mainly the Onaway 

variety, marketed fresh from the fi eld in early July. 

 Southern Idaho Potato Cooperative (SIPCO), Meridian, 

ID, founded in 1997, is the bargaining unit for 

Idaho potato growers producing for the frozen 

processed market.

 Sun Fresh of Florida Marketing Cooperative50 is a sixgrower cooperative that markets SunLiteTM all-natural, 

low-carbohydrate potatoes. It is located at the Blue 

Sky Farms packing facility in Elkton, FL.

 Sun Valley Potatoes51 of Paul, ID, claims to be the only 

grower cooperative in Idaho that owns and operates its 

own packing and marketing facility.

46 http://www.apgspud.com/aboutus.htm

47 http://www.basingold.com

48 http://www.chiefwabasis.com

49 http://www.pacooppotatoes.com

50 http://www.sunfreshoffl orida.com

51 http://www.idaho-potatoes.com

Figure 22. Logos for some of the important U.S. potato 

marketing cooperatives – Sun Valley (Idaho), Basin 

Gold (Wisconsin), Chief Wabasis (Michigan) and Maine 

Potato Growers

 

 

 
37

Figure 23. Chief Wabasis Potato Cooperative of Michigan received a Cooperator Award from the large Pro Fac Cooperative, 

headquartered in New York
38

A graph from United’s Web site (fi gure 24) illustrates claims of 

how grower profi tability has increased since the inception of 

its potato marketing strategy. In 2004/2005, the profi tability of 

growing potatoes had dropped signifi cantly, illustrated by the 

red grower-return line with a value of $2.85 for the 2004/2005 

crop year. At the same time, total U.S. shipments were up to 

107 million hundredweight, illustrated by the blue bar with a 

value of 107,368. As the chart shows, after United instituted 

an acreage program reduction of 5 million hundredweight 

in 2005/2006, the grower return index more than doubled to 

nearly $7.00. 

Source: Potato Growers of America53

53 http://www.unitedpotatousa.com

Supply Management Strategies

Supply or acreage limitation strategies are used by United 

Potato Growers of America (United),52 United Potato Growers of 

Canada, and some smaller groups (Potato Growers of Idaho and 

Red River Valley Potato Producers Cooperative). These potato 

growers’ cooperatives represent the majority of potato acreage 

in the United States and Canada. Currently, neither Maine nor 

Michigan participates in these programs. 

To enhance grower returns, each group employs several 

strategies, including marketing data and intelligence and 

reducing acreage. Acreage reduction is based on projected 

harvests, prices, and need. Growers who voluntarily reduce 

acreage below a predetermined historical average are paid 

around $200 for each acre removed from production. 

52 www.unitedpotatousa.com

Figure 24. U.S. fresh potato shipments by year, with the Idaho grower return index (GRI)

$4.45

$3.57

$2.85

$6.98

$6.50 $6.35

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Idaho GRI

Total U.S. fresh shipment (1,000 CWT)

Year

Total U.S. Fresh Shipments Idaho GRI
39

Marketing Strategies Used in 

Maine for Tablestock Potatoes

The Maine Potato Board and the Maine Department of 

Agriculture are the principle organizations assisting farmers 

marketing Maine tablestock potatoes. The Agricultural 

Bargaining Council54 represents Maine potato growers and 

negotiates prices with the processors. Their eff orts are 

supported by Maine Cooperative Extension, University of Maine, 

and ARS. Indirectly, tablestock producers are aided by McCain 

Foods in eff orts to improve potato quality for processing 

potatoes. AMS55 provides potato price and marketing data, 

inspection services, third-party auditing services for good 

agricultural practices (GAPs), and technical assistance. 

Bag and Label 

The Maine Potato Board and Maine Department of Agriculture 

have developed a generic “Maine” white paper window bag 

for potatoes. A “get real, get Maine!” label is also available 

to producers of all agricultural products grown in the State, 

targeting both the consuming public and food retailers 

(fi gure 25).

Figure 25. Maine’s “get real, get Maine!” logo

Higher Grade Standard 

Maine assists tablestock growers by implementing a Maine 

Number 1 Grade that maintains higher standards of quality than 

U.S. Number 1 Grade for potatoes shipped out of State. It also 

publicizes this higher grading standard. (Anecdotally, we were 

told not all potatoes leaving Maine are graded to this standard.) 

54 http://www.pmana.org/abc.htm

55 http://www.ams.usda.gov

Improved Storage and Handling

The State of Maine helps fresh potato growers by loaning 

money for potato storage at very low rates. The program, 

The Potato Marketing Improvement Fund (PMIF),56 provides 

fi nancing to Maine potato growers and packers to construct 

new storages, modernize existing storages, and purchase 

packing lines. PMIF is part of the industry’s plan to improve the 

quality and marketing of Maine potatoes. It provides long-term, 

fi xed-rate loans at low interest rates for the construction of, or 

improvements to, storage and packing facilities. Funds cannot 

be used for working capital, refi nancing, or non-project-related 

equipment. PMIF funds may be used only for permanent 

fi nancing after a project is completed. The Potato Marketing 

Improvement Fund consists of two programs: Storage Retrofi t 

Fund and the New Facilities Fund, so both new and existing 

facilities are eligible for fi nancing. 

McCain Assistance 

McCain indirectly assists tablestock growers by providing 

engineering and technical assistance to encourage the 

construction and proper operation of improved storage facilities 

and packing lines, which can increase effi ciency, reduce losses, 

and improve product quality.

Potato Dealers

Maine potatoes have been marketed through a dealer system 

for more than 100 years. Many Maine tablestock potato 

marketers are well known. Some heavily involved in selling 

potatoes grown and packed in Maine include the following:

MPG Fresh is the marketing division of the Maine Potato 

Growers Cooperative (MPG)57 based in Presque Isle, ME. MPG 

mainly serves as a purchasing cooperative for inputs for Maine 

potato farmers. However, the Fresh Division does sell a limited 

amount of their members’ tablestock potatoes and is interested 

in expanding that part of its business.

Figure 26. Maine Potato Growers logo

56 http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/mpd/business/pmif/index.html

57 http://www.mpgco-op.com/potatoes/index.html
40

H. Smith Packing and Smith Farm of Presque Isle is 

known nationwide as a progressive grower and marketer of 

quality broccoli and potatoes. The company ships potatoes 

from Maine and Florida and broccoli from Maine. Potatoes are 

sold under several labels including the well-known Stag brand.58

Guerrette Sales of Caribou, Maine, along with Bushwick 

Commission Company, brokered a deal with Wal-Mart to sell 

Maine Potatoes and support the “get real, get Maine!” program.

What Improvements Could 

Be Made?

Maine has only a meager budget to fi nance tablestock potato 

marketing strategies; these funds could be applied to develop a 

marketing organization that:

 Employs a unifi ed, joint marketing strategy, probably 

through a cooperative or other formal marketing 

structure. Pooling resources, both potatoes and 

capital, could help growers increase returns and/or 

volume of potatoes marketed.

 Hires professional sales staff dedicated to moving 

Maine potatoes. Sales staff who sell potatoes from 

competing areas during the same marketing season 

will not benefi t Maine producers.

 Adopts the “buy local” movement by employing 

marketing strategies that identify the product as local 

and regional (Maine) and includes the ideas of the 

healthy land, air, and water in Maine. 

 Increases the diversity of potato sizes, colors, and 

varieties, with packaging and promotion to match.

 Improves packaging to make it part of the selling 

strategy. Includes more Maine-inspired themes: pine 

trees, healthy air and water, farmer stories, etc.

 Maintains the high quality of potato production so 

customers would be more than satisfi ed with the size 

and quality of Maine potatoes. Financial incentives, 

such as those currently used by potato processors 

to encourage quality, could be employed to induce 

growers to maintain high standards.

 Seeks or develops markets for unwanted lower grade 

potatoes, including dehydrated fl akes, meal, plastics, 

and starch. A commitment to quality will increase the 

need for markets for lower-graded potatoes.

 Works to improve existing rail and water transportation 

systems to lower shipping costs to major East 

Coast markets.

These marketing, production, and logistical solutions have been 

successfully applied in other production areas. They may 

not all work in Maine, but some can be adapted to Maine’s 

unique situation.

58 http://www.smithsfarm.com/fresh_produce.asp. 
41

Larger, higher quality potatoes with superior appearance 

generate, as one might expect, higher prices in the marketplace. 

Potato quality is most strongly infl uenced by variety, followed 

by such environmental and growing conditions as weather, soil 

texture, and fertility. Other factors include disease-free seed, 

a deep seedbed, proper soil pH, freedom from disease and 

insects, adequate heat and moisture, and suffi cient fertility. 

The timing of rain and the use or lack of irrigation are important. 

Rain during the growing season is good, but rain during the 

harvest tends to impede tuber quality.

Improving Quality

The quality of Maine potatoes could be improved by:

Using the Finest Soils

Appearance is vital for tablestock potatoes. Fine-textured 

soils with few rocks produce the most attractive potatoes 

with the fewest blemishes. The best soils should be reserved 

for tablestock potatoes. Coarser and rockier, but otherwise 

productive, soils should be used for processing and seed 

potatoes, where minor cosmetic defects are of less importance. 

Irrigating

In the past, consistent rainfall allowed good yields and generally 

made the purchase of expensive irrigation systems uneconomic. 

Today, long-term weather trends indicate that Maine can expect 

drier growing seasons and wetter winters. Potatoes need ample 

water during the growing season, and it makes sense to irrigate 

the fi elds with fi ne soil to grow the cosmetically desirable 

tablestock potatoes the market demands. Where sources for 

irrigation are scarce, water may be stored during the rainy 

winter season for use during the growing season. 

Preventing Bruises

Maine Extension’s bruise-prevention program for fresh potatoes 

is a model for the Nation. Bruising may be caused by 

dropping more than a few inches, landing on hard surfaces, 

vibration during transport, or piling too deep. The damage 

from rough handling may not become apparent until later—in 

storage, or after the potatoes are sold. A research/education 

program to control potato bruising will help continue improve 

potato quality.

Quality and Postharvest Handling of Maine Potatoes

Improving Storage

Potatoes in Maine generally spend some time in storage 

before being shipped. Although many storage structures have 

been built or improved in the last 20 years, not all meet the 

high standard needed to ensure the highest quality potatoes 

are being shipped. Storage facilities should ensure proper 

ventilation with appropriate temperature controls to maintain 

the best storage temperature of the potato pile. Properly sized 

variable frequency drive (VFD) fan motors allow the fan speed 

to be altered automatically, allowing the most energy-effi cient 

operation of the ventilation system. With Maine’s high electrical 

rates—which will probably climb yet higher—VFDs are a wise 

investment. Excessive ventilation may lead to overly cooled 

potatoes in winter or to moisture loss. Low ventilation rates 

or poor air distribution cause “hot spots” and spoilage. Proper 

placement of ductwork in the pile allows good distribution of air 

to all tubers in storage. 

Traditionally, refrigeration has not been employed in potato 

storage to control climate. However, refrigerated storage 

facilities may be useful, especially in repacking operations 

where potatoes have been washed and dried with heat. The 

benefi ts must be weighed against the increased energy costs. 

Large repacking operations, such as those employed by RPE 

in Wisconsin and Masser in Pennsylvania, use state-of-the-art 

refrigerated storage facilities to keep potatoes at optimum 

temperatures after washing and grading regardless of 

outside conditions. Such refrigerated storage would 

allow Maine producers to lengthen the period for the highest 

quality potatoes.

Improving Washing and Drying

Almost all tablestock potatoes in commerce today are washed 

before they are sold. This was not true in Maine a short time 

ago, when unwashed tablestock potatoes were sold. Unwashed 

potatoes were believed to keep better in storage, which may, 

in fact, be true, as microbial spoilage is enhanced at higher 

moisture levels. However, the marketplace now requires 

washed potatoes.

In Maine, washed potatoes are dried with sponge drying 

rollers. In modern facilities in other parts of the United States 

and Canada, washed and sponged potatoes are dried further 

with heated air. Warmed potatoes need cooling, which is 

accomplished with ventilation air or refrigerated air. Potatoes 

that are air-dried and cooled have a longer shelf life than those 

put in storage either warm or slightly wet. Future high-end 

repacking facilities should have equipment for washing, roll 

drying, heated air drying, and refrigeration. 
42

Packaging

Consumer packaging for potatoes has several purposes beyond 

only preventing the potatoes from rolling around. It protects 

the potatoes from physical damage, shades them from 

damaging sunlight, and supports advertising, identifi cation, and 

portion control. Five- and ten-pound paper and polyethylene 

bags are popular retail packaging for most potatoes. Smaller 

bags and clamshells are most often used for specialty potatoes. 

Many buyers require the greater volume and lower unit-cost of 

50-pound paper sacks.

To make potato packaging more consumer-friendly, some 

larger fi rms in tablestock potato marketing, such as Green 

Giant, Masser, and RPE, use colorful packaging to entice retail 

buyers and consumers, describe the distinctive characteristics 

of their products, and diff erentiate their potatoes from generic 

commodities. This is a fi rst step to enhance buyers to purchase 

Maine potatoes through attractive packaging. Adding graphics 

showing popular images associated with Maine itself—old 

fashioned Yankee values, lobsters, canoes, moose, clean air 

and water, pine trees— could generate appeal, if used 

properly, as could popular potato-related images such as 

Hasbro’s Mr. Potato Head. Other ideas for innovative packaging 

might include:

 Single potatoes marketed for cooking in the microwave

 Recipes and storage tips 

 “Homespun” stories about the farmers who raised the 

potatoes

 Photos of farms and farmers

Telling farmers’ stories through packaging and point-of-sale 

materials has been a real boon for many locally grown products 

sold on retail shelves in recent years; adding some of those 

elements to potato packaging and displays could probably 

boost retail sales and brand development/loyalty. Examples of 

such ideas can be found in the AMS publication, Supply Chain 

Basics: The Dynamics of Change in the U.S. Food Marketing 

Environment (Tropp, Ragland, and Barham, 2008).

Preventing Damage

Insects, nematodes, and disease organisms can damage tubers 

directly, or indirectly, by sapping the strength of the growing 

plant. Some of the more important problems that reduce the 

marketability of potatoes include:

Early Blight

Late Blight

Wilts

Black Scurf

Black Leg

Soft Rot

Dry Rot

Ring Rot

Common Scab

Silver Scurf

Greening

Hollow Heart

Golden Cyst Nematode

Potato Cyst Nematode

Colorado Potato Beetle

Preventing these diseases and eliminating pests requires 

good agronomic practices, appropriate spray materials, crop 

rotations, proper storage, eff ective use of quarantine measures, 

and a bit of luck. Engaging in risky activities, such as acquiring 

used farm equipment or seed potatoes from areas with disease 

or pest problems, is counterproductive. Protecting Maine’s 

potato industry from potentially disastrous outbreaks should 

be of prime concern to Federal offi cials, potato seed and 

equipment suppliers, and all farmers in the State.
43

Maine—especially Aroostook County—encounters diffi culties in 

accessing densely populated urban markets in the Northeast, 

despite being located in the Northeast. Examination of Table 

2 shows how far Aroostook County is from major markets. 

Hunt’s Point in New York City is 600 miles away, Boston is 400, 

Baltimore, 800, and Philadelphia, 700. Maine’s competitors in 

Harrisburg, PA, are closer to Boston than is Presque Isle!

Truck Transportation

Over time, the inherent fl exibility and low cost of trucking 

has allowed trucking to supplant rail for moving Maine 

potatoes to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and 

Washington. However, fuel costs and other factors—such 

as truck shortages and lack of backhaul opportunities—have 

pushed up trucking costs. Transport by truck from Presque Isle 

Logistical Challenges and Opportunities

to a major customer in Central Pennsylvania was $80 per ton 

($4.00 per hundredweight) in 2007, nearly equal to the price 

paid to farmers for the potatoes. Transportation was roughly 45 

percent of the cost of the raw product.

AMS Fruit and Vegetable Market News59 reported in 2007 that 

Maine potatoes encountered fuel surcharges of 9–18 percent, 

in addition to the base shipping rate, to major destinations. In 

the second half of the 2007 shipping season, fuel surcharges 

reached 18 percent. 

Table 2 contains truck shipping costs from Maine to its major 

markets. Farmers in northern Aroostook County told us in 2007 

that an additional 25–50 cents penalty for moving potatoes 

out of the St. John’s River Valley was regularly added per 

hundredweight. This additional cost was not included in table 2.

59 http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=STELPRDC50672

95

Table 2. Distance, time, and estimated cost for transporting Maine potatoes to various eastern markets by truck

Source: AMS F&V Market News (2007) and Google Maps

City Distance/Time Base Cost (per 

hundredweight)

Price with fuel 

surcharge

Boston 390 miles / 6.5 hours $2.40 $2.60 - $2.83

New York 600 miles / 10.0 hours $3.00 $3.27 - $3.54

Philadelphia 700 miles / 12.0 hours $3.50 $3.82 - $4.13

Baltimore (Jessup) 800 miles / 13.5 hours $3.75 $4.09 - $4.43
44

Rail Transportation

Rail moves many potatoes in the United States. With recent fuel 

price increases, the cost savings aff orded by rail compared with 

trucks may off set its lack of fl exibility. Other issues, however, 

must be considered: service, reliability, and the availability of 

refrigerated railcars.

The number of refrigerated railcars in service in the United 

States dropped from an all-time high of 183,000 in 1930 to a 

low of 8,000 in 2001. Since then, the number of refrigerated 

railcars has rebounded to 25,000. Transport availability is often 

a problem during busy shipping seasons, so some shippers in 

Washington State now have access to State-purchased railcars 

dedicated to moving potatoes (see Railcars in Other States on 

page 47).

Rail Movements of Potatoes from the 

Northeast

Extrapolation of 2005 waybill sample data reveales that about 

520 carloads (11,200 tons) of potatoes were hauled by rail from 

the northeastern61 States in ’05, with most destinations in the 

upper Southeast.62

What is a Waybill?

A waybill is a document issued by carriers containing 

details and instructions relating to the shipment of a 

consignment of goods. It generally shows the names 

of the consignor and consignee, the point of origin, 

the destination, route, method of shipment, and the 

amount charged. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Surface 

Transportation Board, Offi ce of Economics, 

Environmental Analysis, and Administration maintains 

a database of railroad waybills—the waybill fi le. A 

statistical sample of these waybill data (3 percent) is 

available to the public, then these raw sample data 

must be extrapolated for developing meaningful 

total estimates. 

60 AAR, 2006 Freight Commodity Statistics

61 Northeastern States include the New England States and PA, NY, and NJ.

62 Southeastern States include DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, and FL.

In 2006, United States Railroads:

 Carried 18,782 railcars of potatoes 

 Originated 9,723 railcars of potatoes

 Carried 1,165,179 tons of potatoes

 Carried about 62 tons of potatoes per average 

railcar

 Generated $69,088,669 in revenue from 

potatoes—about $3,678 per railcar60

The average cost of moving potatoes from the Northeast by 

rail was $42.26 per ton. Movements were likely made on fl at 

cars—probably in refrigerated truck trailers (trailer on fl at car, or 

TOFC) or containers loaded onto fl at cars (container on fl at car, 

or COFC). Standard refrigerated railcars, which hold 60 or more 

tons of potatoes, were not noted in the waybill data for the 

Northeast. (However, site visits to Boston, MA, and to Jessup, 

MD, revealed Idaho potatoes being unloaded from refrigerated 

railcars.) Potatoes from the Northeast that were shipped by 

rail mostly went to the Southeast. A small percentage of the 

shipments remained in the Northeast, with the largest number 

of trips being less than 1,200 miles regardless of destination. 

Individual shipments were generally small, usually between 

10 and 26 tons per railcar, confi rming the use of trailers and 

containers (TOFC and COFC) rather than traditional refrigerated 

railcars which have a much higher carrying capacity.

Maine’s Rail System

Maine has had railroads since the early twentieth century. 

They were primarily built to move forest and farm products 

(lumber, paper, potatoes, etc.) from rural areas to markets in 

Portland and the coast, farther south to Boston and New York, 

or west to Canada and the Midwest. Along with the entire rail 

industry, Maine’s railways suff ered from competition from 

trucks, declines in profi tability, and changes of ownership. 

Examination of fi gure 27 shows that tracks are owned by several 

diff erent entities, forcing potatoes and other fresh produce 

from northern Maine to travel over trackage owned by several 

entities before being able to leave the State. This adds to 

cost, time, and the probability of a refused load. Maine is at a 

disadvantage in this respect.
45

Figure 27. Ownership of rail infrastructure in Maine

Source: Maine DOT http://mainegov-images.informe.org/mdot/utilities/pdf/railmap.pdf (PDF)
46

Source: Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic Railway63

Figure 28 shows rail trackage in northern Maine operated by the 

Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic (MM&A) Railway. MM&A tracks 

serve potato farmers in Aroostook County. 

Pan Am Railways (PAR)64 is a holding company that owns and 

operates a Class II regional railroad in northern New England. 

The primary subsidiaries of PAR are the Maine Central (MEC), 

the Boston and Maine (B&M), and Springfi eld Terminal 

Railways. Pan Am purchased the name, colors, and logo of Pan 

American airlines in 1998.

A survey of rail users in Maine (Argus 2008) found that Pan 

Am, the largest operator of rail in the State, received most 

complaints for poor service (68 percent of the business, but 86 

percent of the complaints). 

63 http://www.mmarail.com/downloads/mma_rail_map.pdf (PDF)

64 http://www.panamrailways.com

Figure 28. Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic Railway trackage in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont

To complicate the situation further, Pan Am rail announced 

an operating agreement with Norfolk Southern to improve 

rail service from New York State into Boston. This will allow 

Western United States potato producers better access to the 

Boston market, but will do little to increase the ability of Maine 

growers to ship potatoes outside the State. Figure 29 shows 

that Pan Am’s service from Schenectady, NY, to Boston, MA, 

will help potato shipments from Railex’s new potato handling 

facility in Rotterdam, NY, be sent to Boston.
47

Railcars in Other States

The State of Washington developed a program in the summer of 

2006 to provide railcars to Washington potato shippers, leasing 

31 refrigerated railcars from Rail Logistics Cold Train. The 

newly created Washington Produce Rail Car Pool was funded 

by Federal monies. The rail car pool idea was introduced by 

the Washington State Potato Commission in 2001. Congress 

provided $2 million as startup for the project, with the 

Washington legislature providing funds for startup operations 

and contract monitoring. Lease payments are $1,000 per 

month. In return, the Rail Logistics program rebates $750 for 

each shipment from a Washington shipper. 

Railex65 is a privately owned rail fi rm that ships apples and 

potatoes (and other products) from Wallula, WA, and Delano, 

CA, to Rotterdam (Schenectady), NY. Trains are operated by 

Union Pacifi c and CSX railroads. Each end of the rail line is 

built specifi cally for handling refrigerated railcars. The cost of 

moving one carload of potatoes on Railex, approximately $7,000 

in 2008, is more expensive than conventional rail transport 

65 http://www.railexusa.com/

Source: Pan Am Railways (http://www.guilfordrail.com/Maps/map.htm)

Figure 29. Pan Am Railway system in New England

(roughly $4,000), but less expensive than trucking. Trucks can 

carry about 20 tons of potatoes per load, compared with the 

large Railex cars, which can carry 50 tons. Trucks moving spuds 

from Washington to Albany cost a little more than $5,000 per 

trailer load in 2008—about $13,000 for a 50-ton shipment. 

The advantage of the specialized Railex service is its speed. 

Weekly service, with a fi ve-day transit time, provides much 

faster service than conventional point-to-point rail service, 

nearly equaling the speed of trucking. The rail movements are 

made up of 55 rail cars. Each car is a newly built, refrigerated 

65-footer. The quick transit time is explained by the cars 

remaining as a “unit,” with cars linked together from origin to 

destination, bypassing traditional rail yards and stopping only to 

fuel and change crews. 

Since Railex is associated with Hapco produce and AMPCO 

Distribution Services, it is in the produce business as well as 

providing transportation services. As mentioned previously, this 

state-of-the-art facility is ideally located for repacking potatoes 

from Washington to serve the Boston market using the Pan Am/

Norfolk Southern joint venture that provides rail service from 

Rotterdam, NY into Boston. 
48

Water Transportation

Potatoes are not limited to transport by truck or rail. 

Refrigerated containers of potatoes may be exported to foreign 

customers or transported from one U.S. location to another 

via barge or container vessel or even combinations of barge, 

container ship, rail, and truck. Potato exporters from western 

production areas use such ocean ports as Portland, OR, to 

ship spuds overseas. Consequently, it seemed appropriate to 

examine how this system works for Western potato shippers 

and what the possibilities in Maine might be for the water 

shipment of Maine potatoes.

Water Transportation on the 

Columbia River

For comparison, let’s look at transportation on the Columbia 

River. The Columbia fl ows along the border of Oregon and 

Washington in the Pacifi c Northwest, providing waterborne 

transportation for import and export cargo. Barge 

transportation moves commodities from as far north as 

Lewiston, ID, 365 miles upriver, and ocean-going vessels 

approach such ports as Portland, OR, Vancouver, WA, and 

Kalama, OR—more than 100 miles from the Pacifi c Ocean. 

Potato exporters in the Pacifi c Northwest use the Columbia 

and Snake Rivers to access ocean-going vessels at the port 

of Portland. Because barge transportation off ers the most 

cost-effi cient method to move cargo, barge operators on the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers install generator power to keep 

refrigerated containers at consistent temperatures during 

transit. Barge rates for moving these refrigerated containers 

range from $110 to $115 for a 20-foot container and $210 to 

$215 for a 40-foot container. 

The Columbia River has a channel depth of 40 feet. The 

increasing draft of container ships has caused several large 

ocean shipping lines to discontinue vessel calls at the Port 

of Portland, forcing potato exporters to truck their products 

farther north to larger ports, such as Seattle and Tacoma, 

WA. Ocean shipping lines use Seattle and Tacoma that 

accommodate their deeper draft vessels instead of ports on 

the Columbia River. Seattle and Tacoma exported 69 percent 

of U.S. containerized refrigerated potatoes in 2006—up from 

53 percent in 2004. Portland exported only 4 percent in 2006—

down from 27 percent in 2004. Deepening the Columbia River 

channel to 43 feet, as proposed by the ports on that river, might 

bring potato export shipments back to the Columbia River ports.

These fi ne West Coast ports present a great resource for 

Western potato exporters and off er an interesting model for 

Maine to consider with its inland potato producers and deep 

water and river ports. 

Maine’s Ocean Ports

The major water ports in Maine are Portland, Searsport, 

Bucksport, Eastport, and Bangor. Domestic waterborne 

commerce through these ports consists of petroleum products 

and a few shipments of gravel and cement. The State imports 

almost four times as much as it exports to neighboring 

States via these ocean ports—shipping out mostly raw 

materials, such as paper and wood pulp, and bringing in various 

petroleum products. 

The Port of Portland is the largest port in the State. Its naturally 

deep water provides service for all types of water craft, 

including container ships and tankers as well as ferries and 

leisure craft. Portland does not off er direct access to foreign 

markets, but provides feeder vessel service to such larger East 

Coast ports as Boston and New York/New Jersey. In Auburn, 

only 45 minutes north of Portland, the St. Lawrence and Atlantic 

Railroad operates an intermodal freight transfer facility (IFTF) 

with connections to Canadian National Railroad (CN). CN 

provides direct access for Maine shippers to Midwest and West 

Coast destinations. The IFTF off ers freight handling capabilities 

to transfer containers from trucks to rail. 

Farther up the Maine coast is the Port of Searsport, located in 

Penobscot Bay at the mouth of the Penobscot River. Searsport 

moves dry and liquid bulk cargo, including concrete, coal, pulp, 

and paper. According to the Montréal, Maine & Atlantic Railway 

Web site, Searsport is served by daily freight rail service from 

Madawaska in northern Aroostook County, which could move 

containers of potatoes from Madawaska to Searsport by rail for 

water transport to the south.

The ports of Bucksport and Bangor are north of Searsport on 

the Penobscot River. The Port of Bucksport provides service 

for ocean-going tankers and fuel barges, handling mostly 

liquid bulk commodities. The Port of Bangor, located at the 

northernmost navigable portion of the River, services fuel 

barges and other shallow-draft vessels.

Eastport,66 the easternmost port in the United States, is a deep, 

natural harbor with a mean low depth of 64 feet at one terminal 

and 42 feet at the other, with approach depths of 100 feet each. 

Eastport has two terminals and the ability to accommodate 

ships up to 900 feet long. 

The water ports in Maine currently do not handle domestic 

refrigerated products for export. However, short-sea shipping 

opportunities for containers at the port of Portland are 

becoming more common. Portland currently serves containeron-barge movements to and from New York/New Jersey, which 

is likely to become a viable alternative as congestion worsens on 

I-95 and other popular north-south corridors. 

66 www.portofeastport.org
49

Despite some setbacks in the potato marketplace, Maine 

has had several marketing successes in recent years, and the 

State’s potato farmers have strengths that could lead to further 

opportunities. Some better-known successes of the Maine 

tablestock potato industry are:

 Local organic potato production

 Chef’s potatoes

 “Get Real, Get Maine” State branding and promotion 

program

 Marketing Maine potatoes through Wal-Mart. 

Other advantages that may help Maine potato farmers include 

proximity to several major U.S. markets, the weakness of the 

U.S. dollar relative to Canadian currency, the high cost of such 

corn and corn products as cornstarch, the growing consumer 

trend to “buy local,” and the strong market appeal of anything 

associated with the clean air and pine trees of Maine. 

Another opportunity for Maine producers is the railroads’ 

growing need to increase traffi c in Northern Maine. Because the 

lumber and paper businesses are slow, railroads are becoming 

more interested in moving potatoes. Rail is an economical way 

to move bulk items. If equipment and scheduling challenges 

could be met, the competitiveness of Maine potatoes would 

improve in markets served by rail. When contacted by AMS, 

MM&R sales staff expressed great interest in providing service 

to Maine potato growers.

Some other opportunities include:

 Potatoes for plastics and other industrial uses

 The “buy local” food program promotions of Whole 

Foods Market and other retailers.

Some common threads run through all these success stories 

and opportunities. For example, organic potatoes and Chef’s 

potatoes are examples of high-quality products. The increased 

consumer interest in buying local is demonstrated by local 

organic production and Maine potatoes in local Wal-Marts. 

All three are examples of niche marketing, and also show the 

benefi ts of combined marketing programs—the potatoes 

come from many farms, yet are marketed under one 

combined umbrella. 

Marketing Successes and Opportunities for Maine

Organic Production 

Jim and Megan Gerritsen, owners of Wood Prairie Farm,67 are 

well-known organic potato producers and marketers from 

Aroostook County. They (and the other organic producers 

that grow for them) have a thriving mail-order business to 

individuals, and sell wholesale to stores such as Whole 

Foods Market. 

It should be noted, however, that most potato farmers we 

visited were strongly opposed to organic production in their 

region. They view organic fi elds as potential reservoirs of late 

blight, a serious potato disease and the cause of the infamous 

Irish potato famine. If left unchecked, late blight has the 

potential to destroy the entire Maine potato crop. Conventional 

growers worry about organic growers’ ability to control late 

blight without pesticides as well as the opposition of organic 

producers to widespread aerial application of fungicides to 

conventional potato fi elds.

The conventional growers we interviewed told us that they are 

not interested in growing organic potatoes. Some growers, 

especially small producers, they pointed out, can benefi t from 

the higher prices they can charge for organics. In addition, if 

small producers are successful in this niche market, they don’t 

have to compete against high-volume commodity production. 

Larger potato growers, however, wouldn’t see much benefi t 

from the extra time and labor, greater risk, and higher 

production costs required in organic production. 

Chef’s Potatoes

These large white potatoes are often sold in 50-pound sacks 

for institutional and restaurant use. Larger sizes are more 

effi cient for preparing in the kitchen, as the amount of peeling 

per unit weight decreases with larger sizes. Maine-produced 

Chef’s potatoes have been a hit with buyers. This specialized 

extra-large sizing/marketing strategy parallels the success of 

the Biggins brand of Russet baking potatoes marketed by the 

Russet Potato Exchange (RPE). 

67 www.woodprairie.com
50

Get Real, Get Maine!

Get Real, Get Maine! is a promotional campaign developed and 

operated by the Maine Department of Agriculture to increase 

the sales of Maine-grown and Maine-caught products including 

blueberries, salmon, apples, potatoes, and Christmas trees, to 

name only a few. Events, media advertising, point of source 

materials, and an attractive logo are part of the program. With 

the increased awareness of the popularity of locally produced 

foods, the program was focused on Wal-Mart stores as a large 

potential outlet for Maine potatoes.

Wal-Mart Local Food Initiative

The State of Maine recently announced that the Maine Potato 

Board, Wal-Mart Supercenters, Bushwick Potato Company, 

and Guerrette Farms have embarked on a campaign to bring 

fresh tablestock potatoes to Maine consumers. Wal-Mart 

Supercenters across the State will feature 10-pound bags of 

potatoes with the “Get real, get Maine!” logo. Although the 

program was touted originally as an eff ort to sell to consumers 

only in the State, Maine potatoes with the “Get real, get Maine!” 

logo have appeared in Wal-Mart stores in many other States.

Figure 30. “Get Real, Get Maine” program

Potatoes to Plastics

Earth-friendly, bio-based plastics have been available for 

many years, but most were made from cornstarch. Today’s 

higher corn prices, driven up by the demand for ethanol, 

make potatoes a viable alternative starch source. Some 

manufacturers are considering Maine potatoes as a possible 

source of starch for plastics production.

NatureWorks® LLC,68 a joint venture between Cargill and the 

Japanese fi rm Teijin Limited, is the world’s leading provider 

of PLA-based plastics. Its Web site says: “Our manufacturing 

facility, located in Blair, Nebraska, United States, has a name 

plate (annual) capacity of 300 million pounds (140,000 metric 

tons) of polymer. Our plant came online in 2002. In 2003, 

NatureWorks built the world’s largest lactic acid manufacturing 

facility to feed our polymer plant. In 2005, NatureWorks 

purchased Renewable Energy Certifi cates (green energy) 

to off set all non-renewable energy used for our entire 2006 

production, making NatureWorks biopolymer the fi rst 

commercially available polymer with signifi cantly reduced 

greenhouse gas emissions.” 

NatureWorks does business in North America, Europe, and Asia 

Pacifi c. It works with brand owners and retailers around the 

world to help introduce NatureWorks biopolymer and IngeoTM 

fi ber products into the plastic and synthetic fi bers marketplace.

68 www.natureworksllc.com
51

Whole Foods Market and “Local 

Production” Opportunities

Whole Foods Market promotes its policy of buying locally, even 

off ering “infrastructure loans” to farmers. The loans are limited 

to $50,000, with a maximum period of 10 years and interest 

rates of 4–10 percent. Most producers under this program are 

organic operations, but not all. Whole Foods Market employs 

regional “foragers” who promote local purchasing. “Local” has 

diff erent defi nitions depending on the location. Sometimes 

Whole Foods Market managers consider “local” to be within 25 

miles of a store; other times it can be as much as a 7-hour drive 

from the retail site. Because Boston is 7 hours and Portland, 

ME, is more than 5 hours away from potato production areas in 

extreme northern Maine, using a yardstick of 7 hours for “local” 

would identify Keith Masser in Sacramento, PA, as a “local” 

processor for Boston, rather than Luke Derosier, a grower in 

St. Agatha, ME.

We met the Whole Foods Market forager responsible for the 

northeastern region of the country. It was an encouraging 

meeting from the small-grower perspective. Whole Foods 

Market already works with hundreds of small growers in this 

region and many more in other regions. For small growers, 

long-term relationships with relatively large grocery chains 

are benefi cial for fi nancial and stability reasons. As long as 

producers can meet the chain’s high production standards 

required, they can rely on consistent markets for at least some 

of their products.

Whole Foods Market already buys organically grown potatoes 

from farmers in the Presque Isle area and showed little 

interest in sourcing conventionally produced generic round 

white tablestock potatoes from Maine. The fi rm is primarily 

interested in obtaining novelty and unusual products that can 

help distinguish Whole Foods from other food retailers. The 

potato growers in Maine would benefi t if they followed a similar 

strategy of producing and marketing products that can be 

distinguished from their competitors, potatoes or other food 

products produced in Maine.

The Whole Foods Market regional foragers’ offi ce in Boston 

works with 300 producers, whose farms range in size from 2 

to 800 acres, to supply the 30 Whole Foods Market stores in 

the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. The company, in 

its own words, does everything it can to work with farmers 

in a mutually benefi cial manner. To accommodate the needs 

of small-scale growers, Whole Foods Market tries to provide 

backhaul for local growers to their distribution center when it 

is convenient to their store delivery routes. Also, rather than 

assuming all farmers have access to e-mail, Whole Foods Market 

relies on faxes, which virtually all farm businesses have.

Whole Foods Market advises farmers to approach company 

representatives when they are likely to have free time to discuss 

new business—in mid-winter, rather than during the busy 

holiday retail season of October through December. Farmers 

are encouraged to meet with buyers beginning in January to talk 

about their upcoming season and discuss varieties to plant in 

the coming year.

An encouraging sign for small farmers is that other large grocery 

chains in the region also recognize the increasing demand 

for locally grown food, and are focusing more and more on 

local growers.

Heritage Potatoes

As with local production and eco- and organic labeling, heritage 

potatoes fi ll a niche market that some Maine producers might 

be able to enter. The market for heritage potatoes in the United 

States is not well developed, unlike those for heritage tomatoes 

and apples, but Whole Foods Market may be a possible outlet 

for this novelty item. 

“Eco-Labeled” Potatoes 

Another possible marketing strategy for Maine potatoes is ecoor IPM-labeling, which has been tried in Wisconsin with 

modest success. However, consumers may be uncertain about 

what an “eco” labeled potato is, and why there is a need for such 

a product. 

The Wisconsin Eco-Potato Partnership69 has been 

promoting environmentally friendly, ecologically sound, and 

economically viable 

potato production 

for more than 10 

years. Project 

partners believe 

that “biointensive” 

IPM is the surest 

way to sustain 

profi table agriculture 

while enhancing 

environmental quality and reducing risks associated with 

agricultural production systems.

69 ipcm.wisc.edu/ProgramInfo/EcoPotato/tabid/87
52

Maine has been—and probably will continue to be—an 

important potato production area for the United States. For the 

industry to operate properly and effi ciently, it needs to include a 

viable tablestock component. 

This report contains suggestions and ideas from other 

production areas and other commodities. Here is a summary of 

those suggestions and ideas:

 Develop a unifi ed joint marketing strategy, probably 

through a cooperative or other formal marketing 

structure. Pooling resources, including both potatoes 

and capital, could help growers increase returns and 

volume of potatoes marketed.

 Develop an even stronger commitment to quality 

to maintain customer satisfaction with the size and 

quality of Maine potatoes. Financial incentives, 

such as those currently used by potato processors to 

encourage quality, could be incentives to maintain 

high standards.

 Take advantage of the “buy local” movement with 

marketing strategies that identify the product as local 

and regional (Maine) and that emphasizes the healthy 

land, air, and water of Maine.

 Continue investigating markets for unwanted lower 

grade potatoes, including dehydrated fl akes, meal, 

plastics, and starch. A commitment to quality will 

increase the need to develop markets that can 

accommodate lower graded potatoes.

 Establish a professional sales staff dedicated to 

marketing Maine potatoes.

 Investigate the possibility of marketing a greater 

diversity of potato sizes, colors, and varieties, with 

packaging and promotion to match.

 Actively work to improve existing rail and water 

transportation systems to reduce shipping costs to 

major East Coast markets.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In addition to these marketing ideas, some production and 

postharvest changes would improve the sales of Maine 

tablestock potatoes. They include:

 Encourage planting in fi ne-textured soils with few rocks 

that will cause the least abrasion, producing tablestock 

potatoes with fewer cosmetic defi ciencies. 

 Install irrigation systems. Irrigated potato land in the 

West produces larger and more consistent crops than 

those grown in Maine.

 Continue Maine Extension’s bruise prevention program 

for fresh potatoes, which is a model for the nation. 

Don’t forget the lessons learned.

 Continue to improve potato storage. Use energyeffi cient ventilation systems and VFD fan drives to 

improve quality and save storage costs. 

 Consider refrigeration, especially in repacking facilities. 

The best repacking operations, such as those employed 

by RPE in Wisconsin and Masser in Pennsylvania, 

use state-of-the-art refrigerated storage facilities 

after washing and grading to keep potatoes at 

optimum temperatures. 

 Improve washing and drying procedures. Almost all 

tablestock potatoes in commerce today have been 

washed. Future Maine high-end repacking facility 

should incorporate washing, drying rollers, heated-air 

drying, and cold air/refrigeration. 

 Improve packaging. Consumer packaging for potatoes 

has several purposes beyond merely containing the 

potatoes. Packages should be colorful to entice 

retail buyers and consumers, educate them about 

the distinctive characteristics of their products, 

and diff erentiate Maine potatoes from generic 

commodities. Using some of the popular images 

associated with Maine itself—old-fashioned Yankee 

values, lobsters, canoes, moose, clean air and water, 

and pine trees—could be expected to generated 

substantial appeal among buyers and consumers. 

Other considerations for innovative packaging 

might include:

 Conveniently packaged single potatoes for 

cooking in the microwave

 Recipes and storage tips 

 “Homespun” stories about the farmers who 

raised the potatoes 

 Photos of farms and farmers

 The farmer’s story

54

AAR. 2008. AAR Statistics. American Association of Railways. http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/

Statistics.pdf (PDF).

AMS. 2007. Marketing U.S. Potatoes: 2006 Crop. AMS F&V Market News. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=S

TELPRDC5067295.

Anchor, T. 2007. Standards for the management of natural areas on Wisconsin vegetable farms. Invited talk, School of Natural

Resources, University of Missouri. May 3, 2007.

Argus. 2008. “Maine considers ousting regional rail carrier,” Argus Rail Business, March 10, 2008. http://www.argusmediagroup.

com.

Bank of Canada. 2008. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en.

Berney, G. 1989. Trip Report: University of Maine Presque Isle Potato Conference.

Chase, R.W. 2001. North American Potato Variety Inventory. Potato Association of America. http://http://www.umaine.edu/paa.

Cheng, H. 2004. Maine’s Position in the Northeastern America Potato Production Region: A Report to the Research and Product 

Development Committee of the Maine Potato Board. University of Maine. http://www.mainepotatoes.com/pdf/mainsposition

(PDF).

Cheng, H. 2005. Competitive relationships among potato production areas in Northeastern America. Journal of Food Distribution 

Research, 36 (1).

Dickerson, K, and J. Rubin. 2007. Potatoes to Plastics. University of Maine. http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/reports/potatoesRpt.pdf 

(PDF) .

Draper, M, G. Secor, and H. Lamey. 1994. Management of Potato Diseases in the Home Garden. North Dakota State University 

Extension Service. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/pp756w.htm. 

EIA. 2008. The Energy Information Administration Offi cial Energy Statistics Web site

http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html.

ERS. 2008-1. Potatoes: Background. Briefi ng Rooms http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi ng/Potatoes/Background.htm.

ERS. 2008-2. Potato Outlook, October. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi ng/Potatoes/PDF/PotatoOutlook.pdf (PDF).

Fagan, Brian. 2000. The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850.

Basic Books, New York.

FAS. 2008. World Markets and Trade: Fresh Potatoes http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/2008_Potatoes.pdf (PDF)

Guenthner, J. 2001. The International Potato Industry. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, England.

Guenthner, J, K. Esplin, J. Miller, and G. Greenwayet. 2007. Organic Potato Markets http://www.pesticide.org/ogmarket.pdf (PDF).

Houlihan, T. 2008. Common Tater Interview with Deana Knuteson. 

http://www.wisconsinpotatoes.com/_PDF/BadgerCommonTaterInterviews/KnutesonInterview0908.pdf (PDF).

Lisinska, G. and W. Leszczynski. 1989. Potato Science and Technology. Elsevier, London.

Maine Cooperative Extension Service. 2008. Personal Communication with University of Maine Potato Extension Specialists.

Mariash, C. “An Organic Opportunity.” Spudsmart, Winter, 2008. http://spudsmart.ca/images/winter08.pdf (PDF).

References
55

MPB. 2008. A Review of the Industry. Maine Potato Board. Presque Isle, ME. http://www.mainepotatoes.com/pdf/MPB%20IR%20

08%20web.pdf (PDF).

NASS. 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov.

NASS. 2009. Maine Potatoes 2008 Crop Acreage, Yield, Size, and Grade. New England Agricultural Statistics, Concord, NH. http://

www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/08potsg.pdf (PDF).

NPC 2002. Potato Production. National Potato Council 

http://www.nationalpotatocouncil.org/NPC/potato_potatoproduction.cfm.

Kish, S. 2008. The Healthy Grown Label: Healthy Food and Healthy Land. CSREES. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/

impact/2008/nri/06261_healthy_grown.html.

Partos, L. 2008. “Sales soar for Chinese potato starch supplier.” Internet News Article, May 29, 2008. http://www.dairyreporter.

com.

Ronniger. 2008. Ronniger Potato Farm Web site. http://www.ronnigers.com.

Smith, T., and B-H. Lin. 2009. “Consumers willing to pay a premium for organic produce.” Amber Waves. March 2009. http://

www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Findings/OrganicProduce.htm.

Smith, T, B-H. Lin, and C. L. Huang. 2008. Organic Premiums of U.S. Fresh Produce. Proceedings of the NCCC-134 Conference on 

Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management. St. Louis, MO. http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/

nccc134.

Solomon, L. and D. Paisely. 2001. Agricultural subsidies in Canada 1991-2000. Urban Renaissance Institute. http://www.urbanrenaissance.org. 

State of Maine. 2005. Railway Map. http://mainegov-images.informe.org/mdot/utilities/pdf/railmap.pdf (PDF).

Statistics Canada 2008. Canadian Potato Production: Statistical tables.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/22-008-x/2009001/part-partie2-eng.htm. 

Stewart, H. “How Low Has the Farm Share of Retail Food Prices Really Fallen?” ERS Web report. http://www.ers.usda.gov/

Publications/err24/err24_reportsummary.htm. 

Treadway, R. 1962. “The Potato Starch Industry in the USA.” Starch – Starke, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp. 212–218.

Tropp, D., E. Ragland, and J. Barham. 2008. Supply Chain Basics: The Dynamics of

Change in the U.S. Food Marketing Environment. AMS. www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingServicesPublications.

Van Wechel, T, K. Vachal, and M. Berwick. 2007. Supply Chain Basics: Niche Agricultural Marketing, The Logistics. AMS. http://www.

ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=STELPRDC5064987.

Waybill data. 2006.70

Zuckerforschung Tulln. 2008. http://www.zuckerforschung.at. This Austrian research fi rm has an excellent online description of 

potato starch plants and how they operate.

70 Each year, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) (http://www.AAR.com) provides to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) a 3-percent stratifi ed sample 

of the rail traffi c across all the commodity segments. This annual Public Waybill sample has approximately 500,000 records of data and spans several commodity 

segments. The data is available from several third parties in searchable format.
56

Energy Information Agency. The Energy Statistics Web site has costs and prices for all forms of energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/

fuelelectric.html.

Irish Seed Savers. Taste trials of heritage potatoes. http://www.irishseedsavers.ie/article.php?artid=97.

Maine Potato Board. Links to most of the important potato information Web sites. www.Mainepotatoes.Com

Masser Potato Farms. Pennsylvania grower and category management marketer. www.masserspuds.com.

National Potato Council Web site. http://www.nationalpotatocouncil.org/NPC/potato_potatoproduction.cfm.

Russet Potato Exchange. Uses category management as a marketing strategy. Also uses modern postharvest handling and 

storage. www.rpespuds.com.

Seed Savers Exchange. Sells heritage and unusual potato varieties and USDA Certifi ed Seed Potatoes. http://www.seedsavers.

org/Items.aspx?hierId=88

Spudsmart. An online Canadian potato magazine. http://www.spudsmart.ca.

USDA AMS Market News. http://www.marketnews.usda.gov/portal/fv0.

USDA National Organic Program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0.

United Potato Growers of America. A potato growers’ cooperative that attempts to keep prices and income up by controlling 

acreage. http://www.unitedpotatousa.com. 

Additional Resources
57

Masser Potato Farms (http://www.masserspuds.com) is a grower, packer, and repacker of potatoes in Pennsylvania. Note that 

Masser sources round white, Russet, and Chef’s potatoes from Maine and other areas, as well as from Pennsylvania.

Appendix 1: Typical Potato Packaging and Sources

Item May/June July/Aug Sept/Oct Nov/Dec Jan/Feb Mar/Apr

5 lb. Country 

Style Reds FL NC, MN WI, NY ND, NY ND, NY ND, NY

5 lb. Masser 

Golden FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA, NY PA, NY PA, NY

5 lb. Blue Denim 

Poly White FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

5 lb. Blue Denim 

Paper White FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

10 lb. Blue Denim 

Poly White FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

10 lb. Blue Denim 

Paper White FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

5 lb. Masser 

Russet ME NC, CA, VA WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI

10 lb. Masser 

Russet ME NC, CA, VA WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI

15 lb. Masser 

Russet ME NC, CA, VA WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI

50 lb. Blue Denim 

Paper FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

50 lb. Blue Denim 

Paper Chefs FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

50 lb. Masser 

Size B FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA PA, ME PA, ME

50 lb. Masser 

Russet FL NC, MN WI, NY, MN ND, NY ND, NY ND, NY

50 lb. Red Barn 

Red Size A FL NC, MN WI, NY, MN ND, NY ND, NY ND, NY

50 lb. Red Barn 

Red Size B FL NC, MN WI, NY, MN ND, NY ND, NY ND, NY

50 lb. Masser 

Yellow Size A FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA, NY PA, NY PA, NY

50 lb. Masser 

Yellow Size B FL NC, VA, NJ PA, NJ PA, NY PA, NY PA, NY

50 lb. Masser 

Russet Counts ME NC, VA, CA PA, NJ WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI WI, ME, MI
58

The Mack Point Marine Intermodal Cargo Terminal at Searsport, ME (http://www.mackpoint.com). Notice the covered food grade 

warehouse with rail connection.

Appendix 2: Mack Point Marine Intermodal Cargo 

Terminal

Source: Sprague Energy Corporation
59

Average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by State, 

September 2007 and 2006

(cents per kilowatt/hour)

Census Division 

and State

Residential Commercial1 Industrial1 Transportation[1] All Sectors

Sep-07 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-06

New England 16.46 16.44 14.96 14.99 12.23 11.47 8.85 12.02 14.98 14.75

Connecticut 18.5 18.64 14.9 14.97 12.13 12.18 13.94 15.29 15.75 15.84

Maine 15.23 13.74 12.5 11.52 11.49 7.92 -- -- 13.18 10.92

Massachusetts 16.24 16.59 15.86 16.33 13.28 13.09 -- -- 15.5 15.75

New Hampshire 14.67 14.39 13.91 13.55 11.1 10.91 -- -- 13.64 13.36

Rhode Island 15.47 15.33 14.23 13.48 12.84 12.16 -- -- 14.54 13.94

Vermont 14.28 13.73 12.19 11.67 8.87 8.42 -- -- 12.01 11.45

Middle Atlantic 14.59 14.3 13.87 13.58 8.06 7.87 12.21 11.26 13 12.62

New Jersey 15.61 13.85 14.71 12.83 11.88 10.35 13.05 10.12 14.72 12.79

New York 17.16 17.92 16.13 16.6 9.33 10.02 13.92 12.54 15.73 16.3

Pennsylvania 11.31 10.55 9.17 9.06 6.86 6.58 6.72 6.78 9.15 8.67

East North Central 9.99 9.59 8.46 8.28 6 5.53 7.04 6.21 8.07 7.59

Illinois 10.68 9.21 8.64 8.39 6.75 5 6.62 5.83 8.72 7.49

Indiana 8.4 8.49 7.38 6.99 5.25 4.94 10.89 10.81 6.77 6.44

Michigan 10.16 9.94 8.43 8.56 6.27 6.26 9.09 10.56 8.25 8.08

Ohio 9.95 9.89 8.67 8.48 5.78 5.58 11.2 10.49 8.04 7.75

Wisconsin 10.84 10.81 8.92 8.52 6.25 6.3 -- -- 8.55 8.34

West North Central 8.51 8.64 6.9 6.84 5.23 5.18 8.67 8.65 6.98 6.93

Iowa 9.68 10.53 7.35 7.93 5.07 5.43 NM 7.05 7.14 7.6

Kansas 8.63 9.07 7.04 7.38 5.19 5.49 -- -- 7.06 7.36

Minnesota 8.87 8.7 7.3 6.98 5.66 5.22 9 9.35 7.27 6.9

Missouri 7.77 7.81 6.42 6.08 4.98 4.81 8.38 7.95 6.69 6.48

Nebraska 8.75 8.51 6.85 6.59 4.99 4.95 -- -- 6.86 6.65

North Dakota 8.24 8.25 6.95 7.12 5.49 5.29 -- -- 6.86 6.88

South Dakota 8.74 8.31 6.86 6.78 5.23 4.89 -- -- 7.2 6.92

South Atlantic 10.38 10.25 8.7 8.71 5.9 5.66 9.8 9.59 8.98 8.82

Delaware 13.68 13.62 11.29 11.85 9.12 8.63 -- -- 11.7 11.61

District of Columbia 12.22 11.39 12.73 12.92 -- -- 11.5 12.15 12.55 12.78

Florida 11.28 11.47 9.57 9.9 7.82 7.96 9.64 10.15 10.37 10.59

Georgia 9.59 9.21 7.86 7.72 5.59 5.27 6.83 6.54 8.09 7.78

Maryland 13.26 11.06 11.71 11.76 9.86 8.38 10.82 9.84 12.18 11.11

North Carolina 9.6 9.68 7.62 7.43 5.88 5.53 50 2.78 8.19 7.99

South Carolina 9.2 9.29 7.88 7.76 5.2 5.04 -- -- 7.47 7.32

Virginia 9.13 8.87 6.58 6.29 5.1 4.73 6.83 6.61 7.37 6.99

West Virginia 6.88 6.77 5.81 5.63 4.05 3.8 5.32 5.1 5.4 5.14

East South Central 8.22 8.43 7.91 7.95 5.08 4.97 8.55 11.58 7.04 7.01

Alabama 9.25 9.13 8.6 8.42 5.32 5.22 -- -- 7.66 7.49

Kentucky 7.16 7.24 6.66 6.4 4.33 4.1 -- -- 5.73 5.45

Mississippi 9.35 9.56 8.69 8.92 6 5.94 -- -- 8.19 8.31

Tennessee 7.56 7.91 7.8 8.02 5.35 5.36 8.55 11.58 7 7.14

Appendix 3: U.S. Retail Electric Rates 
60

West South Central 11.4 12.08 9.4 9.56 7.08 7.15 8.59 8.73 9.58 9.86

Arkansas 9.02 9.51 6.97 7.35 5.51 5.74 -- -- 7.29 7.61

Louisiana 9.25 9.7 8.75 9.25 6.47 7.01 11.75 16.45 8.26 8.71

Oklahoma 9.72 9.85 8.11 8.1 5.37 5.26 -- -- 8.03 7.96

Texas 12.5 13.25 10.01 10.07 7.82 7.71 8.37 8.47 10.47 10.69

Mountain 9.77 9.4 7.92 7.84 6.14 5.84 7.56 8.34 8.15 7.83

Arizona 10.16 9.89 8.68 8.53 6.19 6.04 -- -- 9.12 8.83

Colorado 9.1 9.07 7.23 7.46 5.9 5.84 6.84 7.83 7.55 7.57

Idaho 6.78 6.22 5.24 4.94 4.48 3.61 -- -- 5.36 4.7

Montana 9.15 8.83 7.97 7.62 6.06 5.37 -- -- 7.65 7.11

Nevada 11.88 11.04 10.13 10.25 9.57 9.21 10.13 10.9 10.62 10.16

New Mexico 9.2 9.27 7.55 7.67 5.62 5.76 -- -- 7.48 7.49

Utah 8.43 7.77 7.13 6.56 5.07 4.58 7.8 7.92 6.91 6.29

Wyoming 8.26 8.43 6.29 6.41 4.08 4.06 -- -- 5.28 5.37

Pacifi c Contiguous 13.06 12.43 12.21 12.58 8.64 8.45 8.34 7.53 11.77 11.6

California 14.97 14.57 13.99 14.57 10.92 10.9 8.37 7.56 13.78 13.85

Oregon 8.78 7.68 7.23 6.79 5.24 5.06 6.79 6.23 7.17 6.55

Washington 7.61 7.11 6.52 6.65 4.78 4.63 5.65 6.12 6.43 6.22

Pacifi c Noncontiguous 20.65 21 17.47 17.73 16.52 16.95 -- -- 18.12 18.47

Alaska 15.39 15.31 12.17 11.66 11.86 11.89 -- -- 13.05 12.84

Hawaii 23.51 24.22 21.4 22.37 18.21 18.55 -- -- 20.87 21.5

U.S. Total 10.94 10.94 9.88 9.89 6.55 6.37 10.67 10.11 9.44 9.32

[1] See Technical notes for additional information on the Commercial, Industrial and Transportation sectors.

R = Revised. 

NM = Not meaningful due to large relative standard error or excessive percentage change. 

Notes: See Glossary for defi nitions. Values for 2006 are fi nal. Values for 2007 are preliminary estimates based on a cutoff model sample. See 

Technical Notes for a discussion of the sample design for the Form EIA-826. Utilities and energy service providers may classify commercial and 

industrial customers based on either NAICS codes or demands or usage falling within specifi ed limits by rate schedule. Changes from year to 

year in consumer counts, sales and revenues, particularly involving the commercial and industrial consumer sectors, may result from respondent 

implementation of changes in the defi nitions of consumers, and reclassifi cations. Retail sales and net generation may not correspond exactly for 

a particular month for a variety of reasons (i.e., sales data may include imported electricity). Net generation is for the calendar month while retail 

sales and associated revenue accumulate from bills collected for periods of time (28 to 35 days) that vary dependent upon customer class and 

consumption occurring in and outside the calendar month. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-826, “Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report.”
61

U.S. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Prices, 01/18/10

Gasoline (Dollars per Gallon) Diesel Fuel (Dollars per Gallon)

01/18/10 Change from 01/18/10 Change from

 Price Week Ago Year Ago Price Week Ago Year Ago

United States 2.739 -0.012 0.892 United States 2.870 -0.009 0.574

East Coast 2.751 0.006 0.941 East Coast 2.923 0.001 0.546

New England 2.775 0.006 0.974 New England 3.065 -0.003 0.452

Central Atlantic 2.774 -0.001 0.960 Central Atlantic 3.023 -0.003 0.509

Lower Atlantic 2.726 0.010 0.916 Lower Atlantic 2.867 0.003 0.570

Midwest 2.681 -0.045 0.807 Midwest 2.834 -0.010 0.570

Gulf Coast 2.617 0.001 0.888 Gulf Coast 2.831 -0.015 0.604

Rocky Mountain 2.617 0.039 1.010 Rocky Mountain 2.827 0.013 0.578

West Coast 2.953 -0.013 0.924 West Coast 2.947 -0.024 0.609

California 3.026 -0.020 0.962 California 3.008 -0.024 0.689

Source: Energy Information Agency (EIA) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

Appendix 4: U.S. Fuel Prices 
62

 Angelina Mahoney’s Blue 

 Banana 

 Blue Shetland 

 British Columbia Blue 

 Cain’s Irish Rocks 

 Calico 

 Candy Cane 

 Congo 

 Corne de Mouton 

 Crotte d’ours 

 Fingerling 

 Fortyfold 

 Garnet Chili

 Haida 

 Houma

 Jogeva Yellow Estonian

 Kifl i 

 La Veine Rose/La Belle Rose 

 Lumpers 

 Macintosh Black 

 Marc Warshaw’s Quebec

 Mcintyre Blue 

 Mrs. Moehrle’s Yellow Fleshed

 Myatt’s Ashleaf 

 Northern White 

 Nova Scotia Blue 

 Pink Fir Apple 

 Purple Chief 

 Rambling Rose 

 River John Blue 

 Royal Kidney 

 Ruby Pulsiver’s Bluenoser

 Sharon’s Blue 

 Siberian 

 Skerry Blue 

 Slovenian Crescent 

 Straight Banana 

 White Rural New Yorker 

 Yam

Source: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/A47-8-8-2001E.pdf (PDF).

Appendix 5: Heritage Potato Varieties in 

Agriculture Canada’s Collection
63

Appendix 6: Summary of Recommendations

We recommend that Maine tablestock potato growers consider 

these modifi cations to their current marketing practices to 

improve profi tability and regain market share.

1. Develop a unifi ed, joint marketing strategy, probably 

through a cooperative or other formal marketing 

structure. Pooling resources, including both potatoes 

and capital, could help growers increase returns and/or 

volume of potatoes marketed.

2. Develop a stronger commitment to quality so 

customers are more than satisfi ed with the size and 

quality of Maine potatoes. Financial incentives, 

such as those currently used to encourage quality by 

potato processors, could be employed as incentives to 

maintain high standards. 

3. Take advantage of the “buy local” movement with 

marketing strategies that identify the product as local 

and regional (Maine) and include the ideas of the 

healthy land, air, and water in Maine.

4. Continue to develop markets for lower grade potatoes, 

such as dehydrated fl akes, meal, plastics, and starch. A 

commitment to higher quality will increase markets for 

lower grade potatoes.

5. Establish professional sales staff dedicated to 

marketing Maine potatoes.

6. Investigate the possibility of marketing a greater 

diversity of product sizes, colors, and varieties, with 

packaging and promotion to match.

7. Use packaging as a way to tell the story of Maine and 

its potatoes.

8. Actively work to improve existing rail and water 

transportation systems in order to reduce shipping 

costs to East Coast markets.
64

AAR Association of American Railroads

AMS USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service

ARS USDA’s Agricultural Research Service

B&M Boston and Maine Railway

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

Btus British Thermal Units

COFC Container on Flat Car

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

ERS USDA’s Economic Research Service 

FSA USDA’s Farm Service Agency

IFTF Intermodal Freight Transfer Facility

IPM Integrated Pest Management

MEC Maine Central Railway

MM&A Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway

MPG Maine Potato Growers Cooperative

NASS USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service

NB New Brunswick 

NISA Net Income Stabilization Accounts

OEEAA Offi ce of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration

OTA Organic Trade Association

PAR Pan Am Railways

PEI Prince Edward Island 

PLA Polylactic acid

PMIF Potato Marketing Improvement Fund

QUE Quebec 

RPE Russet Potato Exchange

STB Surface Transportation Board

TOFC Trailer on Flat Car

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USPB United States Potato Board

VFD Variable Frequency Drive

WPVGA Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association

WWF World Wildlife Fund

Appendix 7: Abbreviations Used in This Report
65

Photo Credits

Front cover

©Wisconsin Potato 

& Vegetable Growers 

Association

Front cover

USDA

Front cover

Page 53

USDA

Front cover

Page ii

©Wikimedia 

Commons

Front cover

Andrew Mooers 

Houlton, ME

Front cover

Geerlofs 

Refrigeration 

Company

Page 34

©Wikimedia 

Commons

Page 22

©Frank Lambert

SpiveyFarms.com

Page 8

©Wikimedia 

Commons

Page 16

©StockXchng

Page 40

©Wikimedia 

Commons