Mechanical Harvesting of C lif i California Black Ripe ...
56
Mechanical Harvesting Mechanical Harvesting Mechanical Harvesting Mechanical Harvesting Mechanical Harvesting Mechanical Harvesting of of C lif i C lif i Mechanical Harvesting Mechanical Harvesting of of C lif i C lif i California California Black Ripe Table Olives Black Ripe Table Olives California California Black Ripe Table Olives Black Ripe Table Olives Black Ripe Table Olives Black Ripe Table Olives Black Ripe Table Olives Black Ripe Table Olives Louise Ferguson Uriel Rosa, Jacqueline Burns, Sergio Castro Kitren Glozer, Neil O’Connell, Bill Krueger, Soh Min, JX Guinard John Ferguson, Peter Kaleko, Paul Vossen Jaime Ortiz, Jorge LaDux, Fabricio Fernandez Peter Searles and Cecelia Rosseaux Searles and and Dave and Karen Smith of DSE Rocky Hill Ranch and Burreson Ranch Bell Carter Olives and Musco Family Olive Company Fi L B ll dM T Finca La Bella and MaqTec Erick Nielsen, Matt Coe, Don Mayo
Transcript of Mechanical Harvesting of C lif i California Black Ripe ...
Mechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical Harvestingofof
C lif i C lif i
Mechanical HarvestingMechanical Harvestingofof
C lif i C lif i California California Black Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table Olives
California California Black Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table Olives
Louise Ferguson Uriel Rosa, Jacqueline Burns, Sergio CastroKitren Glozer, Neil O’Connell, Bill Krueger, Soh Min, JX Guinard
John Ferguson, Peter Kaleko, Paul VossenJaime Ortiz, Jorge LaDux, Fabricio FernandezPeter Searles and Cecelia Rosseaux Searles
andandDave and Karen Smith of DSE
Rocky Hill Ranch and Burreson Ranch Bell Carter Olives and Musco Family Olive Company
Fi L B ll d M TFinca La Bella and MaqTecErick Nielsen, Matt Coe, Don Mayo
47% of Gross Return
Objectives: 1996 Objectives: 1996 -- 20092009
Economically feasible mechanical harvesting:g– for existing orchards– future orchardsfuture orchards
Major Factors: 1996 Major Factors: 1996 -- 20092009
Final goal: – commercially competitive productcommercially competitive product
Develop picking method:Develop picking method:– harvester second
How must orchards change?g
Evaluated Existing Mechanical Harvesters
Evaluated Existing Mechanical HarvestersHarvesters
2006, 2007, 2008Harvesters
2006, 2007, 2008Canopy Contact
DSE DSE Harvester
2006 7 82006,7,8
Commercially Marketable Processed Olives
DSE 006, 007 and 008DSE 006, 007 and 008
DSE 008 Results: 2006, 2007, 2008DSE 008 Results: 2006, 2007, 2008
Final Efficiency: 57.8% (44.1 – 77.6%)% Cannable: 88*** vs 96% Cannable: 88 vs 96Adj. value/Ton ($): 1,013*** vs. 1137
DSE 008 Research Conclusions: DSE 008 Research Conclusions: DSE 008 Research Conclusions: 2006, 2007, 2008DSE 008 Research Conclusions: 2006, 2007, 2008
Canopy contact head is viable– marketable processed olivesmarketable processed olives
The harvester is marginalslow and inefficient– slow and inefficient
Evaluated Existing Mechanical Harvesters
Evaluated Existing Mechanical HarvestersHarvesters
2006, 2007, 2008Harvesters
2006, 2007, 2008MaqTec Colossus
ArgentinaArgentina
Portugal
2008
Commercially Marketable Processed Olives
Rabodoa, Portugal: September Rabodoa, Portugal: September 2008 2008
Hand Harvest 24 hours Machine Harv
MacTeq Research Conclusions: MacTeq Research Conclusions: MacTeq Research Conclusions: Argentina and Portugal, 2008MacTeq Research Conclusions: Argentina and Portugal, 2008
Colossus is very efficient:– > 90% efficiency 90% efficiency
Fruit damage is unacceptablebut it could be improved – but it could be improved
Evaluated Existing Mechanical Harvesters
Evaluated Existing Mechanical HarvestersHarvesters2007, 2008Harvesters2007, 2008
Trunk Shakers
ENEENE
COE
OMC
Spanish pWraparound
2007 2008Commercially Marketable Processed Olives
2007, 2008
Training Harvest % Can. Adj/ton Handg Harvest Eff. %
% Can. Adj/ton Hand
ConvenConventional 100% 97.1 1,035 HandFreeEsp. 100% 96.3 1,042 HandWovenEsp. 100% 94.4 1,031 HandTied Esp. 100% 92.8 1,101 HandEsp. 100% 92.8 1,101 Hand
Training Harvest % Can. Adj/ton Shakerg Harvest Eff. %*
% Can.NSD
Adj/tonNSD
ShakerHand
Conven 67 4 95 0 974 ShakerConventional
67.4100
95.097.1
9741,035
ShakerHandSFree
Esp.63.100
96.496.3
8721,042
ShakerHand
WovenEsp.
65.3100
95.394.4
9631,031
ShakerHand
Tied Esp.
69.4100
96.192.8
1,1311,101
ShakerHandEsp. 100 92.8 1,101 Hand
Trunk Shaker Research Trunk Shaker Research Trunk Shaker Research Conclusions: 2008Trunk Shaker Research Conclusions: 2008
Trunk damage is unacceptableHarvest efficiency is marginalHarvest efficiency is marginalFruit quality is excellent
Summarized Harvester Research Summarized Harvester Research Summarized Harvester Research Conclusions: 2006 - 2008Summarized Harvester Research Conclusions: 2006 - 2008
Canopy and Trunk Harvesters– fruit damage is not limiting factorfruit damage is not limiting factor– harvest efficiency remains low
Major Factors: 1996 Major Factors: 1996 -- 20092009
Final goal: – commercially competitive productcommercially competitive product
Develop picking method first:Develop picking method first:– harvester second
How must orchards change?g
Harvester Evaluations: 2009Harvester Evaluations: 2009
Canopy Contact– Coe
A i ht– Agright
Trunk ShakersENE – ENE
Small Orchard Prototypes – AH RakeAH Rake– WHK Wheel Rake– CSU Chico Air Pulse Harvester
COE HarvesterCOE Harvester
AgRight Olivia
ENE Trunk ShakerENE Trunk Shaker
ENE Trunk ShakerENE Trunk Shaker
AH RakeAH Rake
WH Krueger WheelrakeWH Krueger Wheelrake
OXBOOXBO
Questions?Questions?Questions?Questions?
Groups ucanr edu/olive harvestGroups.ucanr.edu/olive_harvest
![[XLS]pulse.sgcib.com · Web viewRX LIF REXAM RY LIF ROYAL & SU RZ LIF RANDGOLD LIF STNDRD LIF LIF SMTH & NPH LIF SMITHS GRP S3 LIF STND CHRTD S4](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5aadecb77f8b9a59478b658c/xlspulsesgcibcom-viewrx-lif-rexam-ry-lif-royal-su-rz-lif-randgold-lif-stndrd.jpg)
