Apple Harvesting With an Inertial vs. Impulse Trunk Shaker on Open-Center and Central-Leader Trees  Part II

Pellerin, R. A.; Millier, W. F.; Lakso, Alan N.; Rehkugler, G. E.; Throop, J. A.

doi:10.13031/2013.35139

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sweet cherry cultivars exhibit natural variability in the detaching force, also referred to as pedicel-fruit retention force (PFRF), between pedicel and fruit ranging from 4.5 to 9.0 N (Smith and Whiting, 2010). Past studies show that shaking trees for a longer duration to detach immature fruit might induce more fruit damage because of the increased occurrence of fruit-to-fruit and/or fruit-to-tree impacts (Pellerin et al, 1979). Selective harvesting to remove only mature fruit offers a potential to improve the uniformity of fruit maturity level and reduce harvest-induced fruit damage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Multipass Mechanical Harvesting on ‘Skeena’ Sweet Cherries Trained to Y-trellis

He¹,

Zhou²,

Zhang³

et al. 2015

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study on multipass harvesting using a mechanical harvesting prototype was proposed for mechanical harvesting of fresh market sweet cherries. Fruit damage rate, fruit removal rate, and fruit maturity level were three of the measures used to compare the performance of the multipass harvesting method against single-pass harvesting. The multipass harvesting was conducted in four consecutive days with short duration of 2.5 seconds at each day, while the single-pass harvesting was one-time harvesting with long duration of 10 seconds at a single day. To generate baseline information for comparison, single-pass harvestings were performed on the first and the last days of the multipass harvesting. Fruit maturity level was determined by comparing the fruit skin color against a standard color chart with seven color levels. Field test results showed that the percentage of under-mature fruit (maturity levels ≤ 5) was substantially lower with multipass harvesting than that with day 1 single-pass harvesting. Similarly, the percentage of over-mature fruit (maturity level 7) was noticeably lower with multipass harvesting than that with day 4 single-pass harvesting. Multipass harvesting achieved a fruit removal rate of 83.4% ± 10.3% and a harvest-induced fruit damage rate of 5.0% ± 4.4%. The corresponding fruit removal rates from single-pass harvesting tests were 48.0% ± 16.1% on day 1 and 66.7% ± 16.2% day 4. Harvest-induced fruit damage rates with single-pass harvesting were 20.1% ± 9.9% on day 1 and 11.8% ± 6.0% on day 4. The results supported the hypothesis that multipass of short-duration shaking offer a potential to achieve a higher overall harvesting efficiency with better fruit quality, and therefore could lead to an optimal solution for mechanical harvesting of fresh market sweet cherries. It is noted that comprehensive economic analysis will be necessary to establish commercial viability of the system in comparison with single-pass solutions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Multipass Mechanical Harvesting on ‘Skeena’ Sweet Cherries Trained to Y-trellis

He¹,

Zhou²,

Zhang³

et al. 2015

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two pendulum methods used a 120.1 kg weight raised to 56° or an 82.2 kg weight raised to 67°, both giving approximately equal impact energy. An engineering analysis of the shake methods has been published (12).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversion of Central Leader Apple Trees for Improved Mechanical Harvest1

Lakso

Millier

Pellerin

et al. 1978

J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight-year-old, semi-standard ‘McIntosh’ apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) were converted from central leader trees to open center trees by removal of the central leader. The productivity of the converted trees was not reduced in the first year due to better fruit set and size, and flowering and yield of the open center and central leader trees were similar in the second year. Open center trees resulted in less damage to the fruit during mechanical harvest, primarily due to reduction in fruit zone height.

show abstract

“…However, trunk shaker with different vibratory patterns for mechanized apple harvesting would produce inevitable fruit damage to some extent. For example, a pendulum type of impulse trunk shaker compared with inertial trunk shaker on open-center and central-leader trees for apple harvesting, the impulse trunk shaker caused more apple damage than the inertial trunk shaker [95,96] . Besides, a spring activated trunk shaker with either double-impact or recoil-impact mode was studied to harvest semi-vigorous open-center apple trees.…”

Section: Trunk Shaking System (Tss)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent progress and future prospects for mechanized harvesting of fruit crops with shaking systems

Pu¹,

Wang²,

Yang³

et al. 2023

International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanized harvesting technologies with shaking systems for fruit industry have been widely investigated and significantly developed over the past several decades which were presented by a large amount of literature. This paper reviews the research and development progress of mechanized harvesting of fruits systematically with a focus on the theoretical study, fruit crop variety, shaking system categories, abscission chemical agents, and their actual applications. Based on the comprehensive review, mechanized harvesting systems for different fruit crops appear multifarious shaking modes with various vibratory mechanisms and structural dimensions. Major advantages in the development of fruit mechanical harvesting with effective vibratory patterns and catching frames provide a series of economic and agronomic benefits, such as reducing labor costs, promoting standardized planting, and increasing productivity. However, fruit injury and tree damage are the main reasons why mechanical shaking systems are rarely used for fresh fruit harvesting because of tenderness and frangibility of the fruit crops. Therefore, more efforts should be concentrated on the innovative shake-and-catch system with suitable frequency and amplitude to achieve low fruit damage or even nondestructive harvesting for fresh fruit market. This overview summarized the advantages and bottlenecks of these shaking systems for fruit harvesting and proposed the challenges and some constructive prospective viewpoints aimed at the major issues of mechanical harvesting techniques. In addition, employing sorting technologies to classify the postharvest fruits provide a new direction for the further development of mechanized harvesting in high-value fruit crops, as well as bring more benefits to growers and increase their interest in equipment investment on the mechanical shaking harvester for the fruit industry.

show abstract

Apple Harvesting With an Inertial vs. Impulse Trunk Shaker on Open-Center and Central-Leader Trees Part II

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of Multipass Mechanical Harvesting on ‘Skeena’ Sweet Cherries Trained to Y-trellis

Evaluation of Multipass Mechanical Harvesting on ‘Skeena’ Sweet Cherries Trained to Y-trellis

Conversion of Central Leader Apple Trees for Improved Mechanical Harvest1

Recent progress and future prospects for mechanized harvesting of fruit crops with shaking systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Apple Harvesting With an Inertial vs. Impulse Trunk Shaker on Open-Center and Central-Leader Trees  Part II

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of Multipass Mechanical Harvesting on ‘Skeena’ Sweet Cherries Trained to Y-trellis

Evaluation of Multipass Mechanical Harvesting on ‘Skeena’ Sweet Cherries Trained to Y-trellis

Conversion of Central Leader Apple Trees for Improved Mechanical Harvest1

Recent progress and future prospects for mechanized harvesting of fruit crops with shaking systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Apple Harvesting With an Inertial vs. Impulse Trunk Shaker on Open-Center and Central-Leader Trees Part II