1 / 15

Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges. Timothy M. Spann Michelle D. Danyluk , Robert C. Ebel and Jacqueline K. Burns. Does mechanical harvesting increase the debris in loads of fruit?. Potential for damage to processing equipment

jena
Download Presentation

Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges Timothy M. Spann Michelle D. Danyluk, Robert C. Ebel and Jacqueline K. Burns

  2. Does mechanical harvesting increase the debris in loads of fruit? • Potential for damage to processing equipment • Economic costs of transporting debris instead of fruit

  3. Objectives • How much debris is actually entering the processing stream? • Is there more debris as a result of MH? • How can debris be reduced or eliminated?

  4. Harvest Methods Sampled • All methods were sampled on 3 separate dates, 20 samples per date • Valencia in spring 2008 • Hamlin Winter 2008-09 • Hand Harvest (control) • Oxbo 3220 with & without destemmer • Oxbo 3210 with hand pickup • Oxbo 3210 with Oxbo 3200 pickup unit (only 1 sampling date)

  5. Sampling Method • All harvest systems have one common element • Transfer of fruit from the “goat” to the trailer • 50 – 60 kg samples are collected as the goat dumps fruit into trailer • Sample is weighed, debris is removed, sorted, weighed, dried and weighed

  6. Valencia Debris

  7. Hamlin Debris

  8. What about sand?

  9. Can the use of the abscission agent 5-chloro-3-methyl-4-nitro-pyrazole (CMNP) reduce the amount of debris from mechanical harvesting?

  10. CMNP Trials • Parson Brown • December 2007 and January 2008 • Harvest w/ and w/o CMNP • Valencia • Two trials April 2008 • 300 ppm CMNP @ 0, 100, 200 and 300 GPA • May 13 and 27, 2008, May and June 2009 • Speed (0.5 and 1.0 mph) × CPM (145 and 185) × CMNP (+ or −) • March and April 2009 • Shaker frequency x CMNP rate • Hamlin • December 2008 and January 9 and 30, 2009 • Shaker frequency x CMNP rate • Data collected was the same, except debris was separated into adhering (attached to fruit) and loose (not attached)

  11. Parson Brown – Jan 2008

  12. Hamlin – January 2009

  13. Valencia – March 2009

  14. Conclusions • Mechanical harvesting increases debris 2x over hand harvesting • Leaves are the largest debris component (60%) followed by small stems (38%) • The use of the abscission compound CMNP can reduce debris to levels equivalent to or below hand harvesting • Due to reduction in adhering debris

More Related