Effects of Tree Structure on Damage to Apples During Mechanical Harvesting

Markwardt, E. D.; Maynard, H. A. Longhouse and J.

doi:10.13031/2013.39410

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4), emphasizing the need to reduce the height of the fruit bearing zone in mechan ically harvested trees as found by Cain (3). Thus, it appears that the most important effect of open center conversion pruning is simply to reduce the height of the fruit zone and remove the "top center" fruit (10). Fruit height distributions indicated that only 2% of the open center fruit was found above 2.5 m (8 ft) compared to 20% of the central leader fruit.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1975 preliminary studies compared the mechanical harvestability of the tree forms using a portable 2.6 x 3.7 m decelerator frame, 0.48 m high, with 3 layers of staggered decelerator plastic strips (10) and a padded tarp to collect the fruit. One-half of each tree was hand picked, then the other half was shaken off with an inertial trunk shaker (Gould model HVS-M) at a frequency of 7 hertz for a 2 sec burst.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within-tree damage occurs before the fruit reaches the catching surface. Markward et al (10) recorded damage occurring in the periphery of the tree and in the top center. They found excessively high damage to fruit falling through the center of the tree.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…Shake-catch harvesters harvesting traditionally-trained large trees cause excessive fruit damage. This damage results from predetachment punctures and bruises during shaking and from fruit hitting on limbs as they fall through the tree canopy (5,14,28). Fruit should be positioned on the tree so that they can be removed quickly and have an unobstructed path to the collecting surface of the harvester.…”

Section: Cultural Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Modifications of Deciduous Tree Fruits for Mechanized Production

Peterson

1985

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree fruit production is a labor intensive operation requiring an average of over 300 manhours/ha (38), which represents the largest single production cost (15). Most of this labor is seasonal, with hand pruning and harvesting accounting for 30% and 50%, respectively, of the total cost (6, 17, 34). The supply of skilled domestic workers to perform necessary operations usually does not meet the seasonal labor requirement. Substantial numbers of undocumented aliens are employed to reduce this shortage; but they represent an unstable supply (29, 33). Increased mechanization is one option for alleviating this labor shortage. Increased importation of low priced foreign fruit and fruit products is another justification for increased mechanization to reduce costs and keep American orchardists competitive (33).

show abstract

“…Initial efforts focused on harvesting conventional low-density spreading trees 4 to 6 m high or more. Various prototype harvesters were developed to remove and collect fruit from these large or standard-sized trees (Diener and Adams, 1974;Markwardt et al, 1966;Millier et al, 1973;Whitney et al, 1963). Damaged fruit, primarily with severe bruises, cuts, or punctures, often exceeded 40% of the apples harvested when these machines were tested on large trees.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting Semidwarf Freestanding Apple Trees with an Over-the-row Mechanical Harvester

Peterson¹,

Miller²,

Whitney³

1994

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three years of mechanical harvesting (shake and catch) trials with two freestanding apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) cultivars on a semidwarf rootstock (M.7a) and two training systems (central leader and open center) yielded 64% to 77% overall harvesting efficiency. Mechanically harvested `Bisbee Delicious' apples averaged 70% Extra Fancy and 10% Fancy grade, while two `Golden Delicious' strains (`Smoothee' and `Frazier Goldspur') averaged 40% Extra Fancy and 13% Fancy grade fruit. Mechanically harvesting fresh-market-quality apples from semidwarf freestanding trees was difficult and its potential limited. Cumulative yield of open-center trees was less than that of central-leader trees during the 3 years (sixth through eighth leaf) of our study. `Golden Delicious' trees generally produced higher yields than `Delicious' trees.

show abstract

Effects of Tree Structure on Damage to Apples During Mechanical Harvesting

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Conversion of Central Leader Apple Trees for Improved Mechanical Harvest1

Conversion of Central Leader Apple Trees for Improved Mechanical Harvest1

Cultural Modifications of Deciduous Tree Fruits for Mechanized Production

Harvesting Semidwarf Freestanding Apple Trees with an Over-the-row Mechanical Harvester

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About