MACHINE HARVESTING BLUEBERRIES FOR FRESH MARKET · 2014-02-28 · MACHINE HARVESTING BLUEBERRIES...
Transcript of MACHINE HARVESTING BLUEBERRIES FOR FRESH MARKET · 2014-02-28 · MACHINE HARVESTING BLUEBERRIES...
MACHINE HARVESTING
BLUEBERRIES FOR FRESH
MARKET
Fumiomi Takeda, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV
Gerard Krewer º
Changying Li “
º Horticulture (retired), University of Georgia, Tifton, GA
“ College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Acknowledgement
• Funded by USDA-NIFA Specialty Crop
Research Initiative
Project title: “Advancing Blueberry Production
Efficiency by Enabling Mechanical Harvest, Improving
Fruit Quality and Safety, and Managing Emerging
Diseases”
Award No. 2008-51180-19579 (2008 – 2013)
Project Director: Dr. Harald Scherm, UGA
Participants: UGA, UFL, MSU, NCSU,
and USDA-ARS
• US Highbush Blueberry Council
Project Title:
Improving blueberry mechanical harvest
efficiency: Quantifying with blueberry impact
recording device (BIRD) and develop
information to assist in reducing soft berries in
machine harvested blueberries
Project Director: F. Takeda, USDA-ARS
BEI harvesters
(past, present,
and future?)
Harvest-aid equipment
Workers must lean
over to hand-remove
fruit
Possible to use
pneumatic devices
Unless canes are
pushed outward,
ground loss can
occur
Machine Harvest vs. Hand
Harvest
• Cost and Labor: > 500 man-h/a with hand
or > $5,000 /acre/year
Blueberry harvesting research:
G. Brown and D. Peterson in Michigan
K. van Dalfsen in BC, Canada
M. Mainland and R. Rohrbach in North Carolina
B. Strik in Oregon
F. Takeda and G.Krewer in Georgia
• < 50 man-h/a by machine
• >> $120,000 for a new O-T-R harvester
SHB and NHB blueberry
production in the Southeast •
• State Production (acre) MH acreage (%)z
•
• Florida 3,800 < 5
• Georgia 2,250 1
• N. Carolina 5,500 20
• Mississippi ???? ???
Data provided by Bill Cline, NCSU
Findings from our mechanical
harvesting research with SHB
and rabbiteye blueberries
Some Issues with Machine
Harvesting Blueberry Plants
MH fruit contain more green and red berries and
soft fruit - Reduce harvest efficiency and pack-
out
Internal Bruise
M H
Hand Harvest
After 24 h at room temperature
After 1 week in cold storage
After 24 h at room temperature
Harvesting method affects QUALITY No significant
difference between
harvest methods in
Crispy cultivars, but
a significant effect in
Melting cultivars
Crispy Machine Hand
Sweetcrisp 78.5 *** 84.3
Farthing 80.1 NS 84.3
FL 98-325 88.8 NS 89.8
FL 05-290 74.0 NS 71.3
Melting *** NS
Star 54.0 *** 86.3
Primadonna 64.5 *** 86.8
Scintilla 72.0 *** 88.0
FL 05-486 49.8 *** 77.8
*mean of 4 repetitions (P <0.001)
US #1 (%)*
‘Indigo Crisp’
Change in fruit firmness during cold
storage F
ruit firm
ness
(g/m
m)
160
80
120
160
2
00
2
40
280
CRISPY
MELTING
H
M
Changes in firmness during
storage
Across all
cultivars,
machine
harvested
fruit lost
firmness
during 3
weeks of
storage, while
hand harvest
remained
constant.
y = 1.946x + 229.71
R2 = 0.7661
y = -4.128x + 205.4
R2 = 0.9253
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
0 1 2 3
Removal (weeks)
Fir
mn
ess (
g/m
m)
Machine
Hand
HAND
MACHINE
17
“SMART
BERRY”
3 Accelerometers
Y
Blueberry Bruising: Drop Test
18 Drop height (cm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Impa
ct (
g)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Drop height (in)
12 24 36
Impact data from BIRD
0 12 24 36 48
20 Rotary harvester
21 Time (s)
Imp
act
(g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
0.7 2.2 6.9 7.30 4 6
Time (s)
0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708
Imp
act
(g)
0
100
200
300
400
500 Fall
Catch plate
Conveyor belt
Lug
Phase 1
Phase 2 Phase 3
Phase 4 Drop height (cm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Imp
act
(g
)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Engineering and horticultural assessment:
BIRD impact values and fruit bruising in three
SHB genotypes (fruit with >25% bruised). Surface and
height (in)
Bird impact
(g) Scintilla
(%)
Sweetcrisp
(%)
FL 05-528
(%)
Hard - 24
Hard - 48
Soft - 24
Soft - 48
557
834
199
360
44
76
21
26
22
68
22
25
19
31
1
5
Harvest
method
Bloom
(%)
Split fruit
(%)
Mean Internal bruise
(% of cut surface)
Hand 76 3 < 10
V45 * 61 7 < 25
Sway 54 24 > 25
Quality of hand- and machine-harvested
fruit of rabbiteye blueberry (cv. Brightwell)
* Pruned plants
Bruising (%)
Harvest Storage None
Hand 9 d Cold 95
V45 9 d Cold 83
Rotary 9 d Cold 47
Hand + 42 d CA 95
V45 + 42 d CA 84
Rotary + 42 d CA 50
Fruit internal bruising of machine harvested
‘Elliott’ blueberry after 9 days at 0 °C, and after 9
days at 0 °C followed with 42 days in Controlled
Atmosphere storage.
GROUND LOSS can be > 20% of crop
CATCH PLATE DESIGN
HARVESTER DESIGN
Cultivar Treatment Ground loss (g/plant)
Premier Control 215
Crown Restriction 173
Crown Restriction
and Y-Trellis 159
Brightwell Control 141
Crown Restriction 80
Crown Restriction
and Y-Trellis 61
No effect next year. After two years, crown
restriction reduced ground loss!
Packing House Evaluation
vs.
BIRD sensor development
New sensor is size of medium-size blueberry
1st generation
BIRD sensor evaluation of packing
houses
• 7 in Michigan: Grand Junction and
Holland
• 4 in Georgia: Alma and Baxley
Ballinger et al. (1973)
“The total distance dropped is the
critical factor that determines a
blueberry’s shelf life”
Packing Line #1
Time (s)
Imp
act
(g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
0.7 2.2 6.9 7.30 4 6
Time (s)
0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708Im
pac
t (g
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
100
200
300
Impact (g
)
Cultivars and parameters used in
drop tests
Cultivars Test parameters
– Elliott * Hand picked (9 am to noon)
– Jersey * Temperature (64-69 F)
– Draper * Held at 68 F for 24 hours
– Aurora * Dropped on BEI catch plate
– Nelson * Heights of 24 and 48 inches
– Legacy * Held at 68 F for 24 hours
– Brigetta * Each fruit sliced through the
– Liberty * equator and
– Bluecrop * photographed for image analysis
* Fruit samples obtained from one farm in Grand Junction, MI
Example of fruit dropped 48
inches onto a catch plate
Not Dropped Dropped 48 inches
Control (Not dropped)
48 h at room temperature
dropped 24 inches
onto catch plate, and
sliced after 24 h
‘Examples from another NHB blueberry cultivar
22244 inch
4 inch Control 24 inch 48 inch
Fruit Firmness (g/mm) after 24 h Cultivar Drop height
Not dropped 24-inch 48-inch
Aurora 184 160 141
Bluecrop 178 164 140
Brigetta 212 173 148
Draper 237 213 183
Elliott 178 155 137
Jersey 208 163 149
Legacy 209 193 172
Liberty 200 163 154
Nelson 199 182 155
5 times from 10 cm height
Single or multiple drop test on ‘Bluecrop’
blueberry Dropped once from 16-inch height
Dropped 5 times from 4-inch height
Effect of padding
Padding? 24 inch drop to hard surface
24 inch drop to padded
surface
8 inch drop 8 inch drop
Hard surface
Padded surface
Field to Packing House
Transportation Method
Up-and-down motion
and
compression force
SUMMARY
• H-H fruit of crispy type had higher firmness than
H-H conventional type
• During storage, H-H fruit of crispy type remained
firm while H-H conventional type softened.
– In both types, M-H produced softer fruit and
lost firmness more rapidly in cold storage
– Mold developed faster in M-H fruit
Achieved quantitative measurements of
interactions between FRUIT (sensor) x PLANT x
HARVESTERs
“SMART BERRY” revealed that the CATCH PLATES
created the largest impact on the fruit
Measures for reducing bruise damage?
Reduce drop height and/or pad the surface
Comparison of harvesters:
Rotary detachment mechanism creates fewer and lower
magnitude of impacts than the slapper mechanism
The blueberry industry will continue to use
machines for harvesting of blueberries for fresh
market.
Crispy-type blueberry can withstand physical
impacts of MH.
Physical impacts on fruit does not just lead to a
cosmetic problem, but they alter the functioning of
fruit cells that culminates in internal bruise damage
(e.g. water soaked and darkened tissues) and fruit
softening.
SUMMARY The blueberry industry will move towards
mechanical harvesting of blueberries for fresh
market.
Crispy type blueberry can withstand physical
impacts of MH better than non-crispy type.
Physical impacts on fruit does not just lead to a
cosmetic problem, but they alter the functioning of
fruit cells that culminates in internal bruise damage
(e.g. water soaked and darkened tissues) and fruit
softening.
SUMMARY
Development of 2nd and 3rd generation BIRD
sensor (“SMART BERRY”) is underway with
financial support from USHBC
Sensor technology (ST) will aid
growers/manufacturers select the right
harvester/cultivars and improve harvester design
to improve fruit quality and production efficiency
ST will also help growers identify potential problem
areas in equipment and handling method
Thank you for your attention
QUESTIONS?
Contact Information
304 725 3451 x212