SLIDE 1 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
SLIDE 2 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
SLIDE 3
- 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
SLIDE 4
SLIDE 5 BEI harvesters (past, present, and future?)
SLIDE 6 Harvest-aid equipment
Workers must lean
fruit Possible to use pneumatic devices Unless canes are pushed outward, ground loss can
SLIDE 7
SLIDE 8 Machine Harvest vs. Hand Harvest
- Cost and Labor: > 500 man-h/a with hand
- r > $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
SLIDE 9 SHB and NHB blueberry production in the Southeast
Production (acre) MH acreage (%)z
< 5
1
20
Data provided by Bill Cline, NCSU
SLIDE 10
Findings from our mechanical harvesting research with SHB and rabbiteye blueberries
SLIDE 11 Some Issues with Machine Harvesting Blueberry Plants
MH fruit contain more green and red berries and soft fruit - Reduce harvest efficiency and pack-
SLIDE 12 Internal Bruise
M H
Hand Harvest
SLIDE 13 After 24 h at room temperature
After 1 week in cold storage
After 24 h at room temperature
SLIDE 14 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’
SLIDE 15 Change in fruit firmness during cold storage
Fruit firmness (g/mm)
160
80 120 160 200 240 280 CRISPY MELTING H M
SLIDE 16 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 1 2 3 Removal (weeks) Firmness (g/mm)
Machine Hand HAND MACHINE
SLIDE 17 17
“SMART BERRY”
3 Accelerometers
Y
SLIDE 18 Blueberry Bruising: Drop Test
18
Drop height (cm)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Impact (g)
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Drop height (in) 12 24 36
Impact data from BIRD
0 12 24 36 48
SLIDE 19
SLIDE 20 20
Rotary harvester
SLIDE 21 21
Time (s) Impact (g) 100 200 300 400 500 600
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
0.7 2.2 6.9 7.3 4 6
Time (s) 0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708 Impact (g) 100 200 300 400 500
Fall Catch plate Conveyor belt Lug
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Drop height (cm)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Impact (g)
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
SLIDE 22 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
SLIDE 23 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
SLIDE 24
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.
SLIDE 25
GROUND LOSS can be > 20% of crop
SLIDE 26
CATCH PLATE DESIGN
SLIDE 27
HARVESTER DESIGN
SLIDE 28
SLIDE 29 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
ect ne next t yea ear. . Af Afte ter r two
ars, , crown
restrict striction ion reduce uced d ground
loss!
SLIDE 30
Packing House Evaluation
SLIDE 31 vs.
BIRD sensor development New sensor is size of medium-size blueberry 1st generation
SLIDE 32 BIRD sensor evaluation of packing houses
- 7 in Michigan: Grand Junction and
Holland
- 4 in Georgia: Alma and Baxley
SLIDE 33
Ballinger et al. (1973)
“The total distance dropped is the critical factor that determines a blueberry’s shelf life”
SLIDE 34
SLIDE 35 Packing Line #1
Time (s) Impact (g) 100 200 300 400 500 600
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
0.7 2.2 6.9 7.3 4 6
Time (s) 0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708 Impact (g) 100 200 300 400 500
100 200 300 Impact (g)
SLIDE 36 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
SLIDE 37
Example of fruit dropped 48 inches onto a catch plate
Not Dropped Dropped 48 inches
SLIDE 38 Control (Not dropped) 48 h at room temperature dropped 24 inches
sliced after 24 h
SLIDE 39 ‘Examples from another NHB blueberry cultivar
22244 inch 4 inch
Control 24 inch 48 inch
SLIDE 40 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
SLIDE 41 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
SLIDE 42 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
SLIDE 43
Field to Packing House Transportation Method
SLIDE 44 Up-and-down motion and compression force
SLIDE 45 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
SLIDE 46 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
SLIDE 47
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.
SLIDE 48
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.
SLIDE 49
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
SLIDE 50
Thank you for your attention QUESTIONS? Contact Information Fumi.Takeda@ars.usda.gov 304 725 3451 x212
