The Crop Booster field was reported to produce 32.29% higher potato yield than the control.

The supplied case identifies a 32.29% yield difference between the KPCB-treated potato field and the control field. Because the underlying harvested weights, field areas, and yield-per-area measurements are not included in the source, the percentage is preserved as a source-reported result rather than independently recalculated.

The source reports a 32.29% increase in potato yield for the KPCB-treated field compared with the control field. However, it does not provide the harvested weight of either field, field area, yield per hectare, number of sampled plants, individual tuber counts, tuber weights, tuber-size distribution, or statistical analysis. The 32.29% result therefore cannot be independently verified from raw values and is presented as source reported. The original source also lists the control as having a “0% yield increase.” Because no previous control baseline is supplied, that does not represent a separately measurable result and has been omitted from this updated comparison. The source states that the producer had faced severe environmental problems in the past and that the increased production helped overcome previous environmental damage across the operation. The specific environmental stress, affected acreage, baseline damage, recovery metric, and yield history are not supplied, so no quantified environmental-recovery claim is made here. No Brix, dry matter, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticide, production-cost, or economic-return data were supplied.

Why this matters for potato growers: This Santa Cruz field comparison reports a 32.29% higher potato yield in the Crop Booster treatment compared with a control field. While the raw yield values are not available for independent recalculation, the case provides another commercial field observation of potato production under Crop Booster treatment.