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 Data provided by Bill Cline, NCSU • • State Production (acre) MH acreage (%) z • • Florida 3,800 < 5 • Georgia 2,250 1 • N. Carolina 5,500 20 • Mississippi ???? ???
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 24 h at room temperature After 1 week in cold storage
Harvesting method affects QUALITY US #1 (%)* No significant Crispy Machine Hand difference between harvest methods in *** Sweetcrisp 78.5 84.3 Farthing 80.1 84.3 NS Crispy cultivars, but FL 98-325 88.8 89.8 NS a significant effect in FL 05-290 74.0 71.3 NS Melting cultivars *** Melting NS *** Star 54.0 86.3 *** Primadonna 64.5 86.8 ‘Indigo Crisp’ *** Scintilla 72.0 88.0 *** FL 05-486 49.8 77.8 *mean of 4 repetitions ( P <0.001)
160 Change in fruit firmness during cold Fruit firmness (g/mm) 80 120 160 200 240 280 storage MELTING CRISPY M H
Changes in firmness during storage 270 Across all y = 1.946x + 229.71 R 2 = 0.7661 cultivars, HAND 250 machine Firmness (g/mm) 230 harvested Machine fruit lost 210 Hand firmness during 3 190 weeks of y = -4.128x + 205.4 MACHINE 170 storage, while R 2 = 0.9253 hand harvest 150 remained 0 1 2 3 constant. Removal (weeks)
“SMART BERRY” Y 3 Accelerometers 17
Blueberry Bruising: Drop Test 900 800 Impact data from BIRD 700 Impact (g) 600 500 400 12 24 36 300 200 0 0 12 24 36 48 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 18 Drop height (in) Drop height (cm)
Rotary harvester 20
600 500 Fall Phase 1 900 Catch plate Phase 2 400 500 800 Conveyor belt Phase 3 300 Impact (g) 700 Phase 4 Lug Impact (g) 200 600 400 100 500 Impact (g) 0 400 300 300 0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708 Phase 4 200 Phase 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (s) Drop height (cm) 200 Phase 2 Phase 3 100 0 0.7 0 2.2 4 6.9 7.3 6 Time (s) 21
Engineering and horticultural assessment: BIRD impact values and fruit bruising in three SHB genotypes (fruit with >25% bruised). Bird impact Surface and Scintilla Sweetcrisp FL 05-528 (g) height (in) (%) (%) (%) Hard - 24 557 44 22 19 Hard - 48 834 76 68 31 Soft - 24 199 21 22 1 Soft - 48 360 26 25 5
Quality of hand- and machine-harvested fruit of rabbiteye blueberry (cv. Brightwell) Harvest Bloom Split fruit Mean Internal bruise method (%) (%) (% of cut surface) Hand 76 3 < 10 V45 * 61 7 < 25 Sway 54 > 25 24 * Pruned plants
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. 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
GROUND LOSS can be > 20% of crop
CATCH PLATE DESIGN
HARVESTER DESIGN
No o effect ect ne next t yea ear. . Af Afte ter r two o year ars, , crown own restrict striction ion reduce uced d ground ound lo loss! Cultivar Treatment Ground loss (g/plant) 215 Premier Control 173 Crown Restriction Crown Restriction 159 and Y-Trellis 141 Brightwell Control 80 Crown Restriction Crown Restriction 61 and Y-Trellis
Packing House Evaluation
BIRD sensor development 1 st generation vs. New sensor is size of medium-size blueberry
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”
300 Impact (g) Packing Line #1 200 100 600 500 Phase 1 Phase 2 400 500 Phase 3 300 Impact (g) Phase 4 200 400 100 Impact (g) 0 300 0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708 Time (s) 200 100 0 0 0.7 2.2 4 6.9 7.3 6 Time (s)
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 Dropped 48 inches Not Dropped
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 Control 24 inch 48 inch 4 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
Single or multiple drop test on ‘Bluecrop’ blueberry Dropped once from 16-inch height Dropped 5 times from 4-inch height 5 times from 10 cm height
Padding? 24 inch drop to hard surface 8 inch drop 8 inch drop Hard surface Effect of padding 24 inch drop to padded Padded surface 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.
Recommend
More recommend
