Mechanical Harvester for Fresh Market Quality Blueberries

Peterson, Donald L.; Brown, G. K.

doi:10.13031/2013.27566

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ground losses during harvest accounted for 35% of the loss, whereas harvest of nonmarketable berries accounted for 10% loss. Peterson and Brown (1996) reported that mechanical harvesting of blueberry decreased marketable yields by 36% compared with hand harvesting, with nonmarketable berries accounting for 20% loss and ground loss during harvest accounting for 16% loss. Preharvest ground losses were not quantified for any research cited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although mechanical harvesting of grafted blueberry in our research did not reduce preharvest fruit losses or decrease the percent of unripe or damaged berries that were harvested compared with mechanical harvesting of own-rooted plants, ground losses during harvest were significantly reduced in grafted vs. own-rooted blueberry. In mechanical harvesting of conventional blueberry plantings, ground losses range from 10% to 50% of the potential yield Peterson and Brown, 1996). Thus, grafted plants have potential to significantly decrease yield loss of mechanical harvested berries by decreasing ground losses during harvest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, unpredictable labor supplies affect a large number of specialty crops, and are becoming a major issue in blueberry production (Zhang and Wilhelm, 2011). To decrease harvesting costs in blueberry production, mechanical harvesters have been developed, tested, and manufactured since the late 1950s (Hedden et al, 1959;Peterson and Brown, 1996;Takeda et al, 2008Takeda et al, , 2013van Dalfsen and Gaye, 1999), but have been primarily used to harvest berries for processing or at the end of the harvest season (Williamson et al, 2012;Yu et al, 2012). However, growers' concerns about handharvesting costs and labor availability have increased interest in adopting mechanical harvesters for fresh market blueberries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harvest losses may also occur due to the design of the machine, which allows berries to fall to the ground because the catch plates do not fit closely around the multicaned crown of the bush. Estimates of ground losses from mechanical harvesting range from 10% to 50% of the total fruit harvested Peterson and Brown, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanical Harvesting and Postharvest Storage of Two Southern Highbush Blueberry Cultivars Grafted onto Vaccinium arboreum Rootstocks

Casamali¹,

Williamson²,

Kovaleski³

et al. 2016

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The profitability of the fresh market blueberry industry in many areas is constrained by the extensive use and cost of soil amendments, high labor requirements for hand harvesting, and the inefficiencies of mechanical harvesters. Vaccinium arboreum Marsh is a wild species that has wide soil adaptation and monopodial growth habit. It has the potential to be used as a blueberry rootstock, expanding blueberry production to marginal soil and improving the mechanical harvesting efficiency of cultivated blueberry. The objectives of this research were to compare yield, berry quality, and postharvest fruit storage of own-rooted vs. grafted southern highbush blueberry (SHB) cultivars (Farthing and Meadowlark) grown on amended vs. nonamended soil and either hand or mechanical harvested. Yields of hand-harvested SHB during the first two fruiting years were generally greater in own-rooted plants grown on amended soil compared with own-rooted plants on nonamended soil or grafted plants on either soil treatment. However, by the second fruiting year, hand-harvest yields of grafted SHB were ≈80% greater than own-rooted plants when grown in nonamended soil. Yields of mechanical-harvested SHB grafted on V. arboreum and grown in either soil treatment were similar to yields of mechanical-harvested own-rooted plants in amended soil the second fruiting year, and greater than yields of own-rooted plants in non-amended soil. In general, mechanical harvesting reduced marketable yield ≈40% compared with hand harvesting. However, grafted plants reduced ground losses during harvest by ≈35% compared with own-rooted plants for both cultivars. Mechanical-harvested berries had a greater total soluble solids:total titratable acidity ratio (TSS:TTA) than hand-harvested berries, and berries harvested toward the end of the harvest season had a greater TSS:TTA than those from early-season harvests. As postharvest storage time increased, berry appearance ratings decreased and berry softness and shriveling increased, particularly in mechanical-harvested compared with hand-harvested berries. Firmness of mechanical-harvested berries decreased during storage, whereas firmness of hand-harvested berries remained relatively stable. However, fruit quality at harvest and during postharvest storage was unaffected by V. arboreum rootstocks or lack of pine bark amendment. This study suggests that using V. arboreum as a rootstock in an alternative blueberry production system has the potential to decrease the use of soil amendments and increase mechanical harvesting efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanical Harvesting and Postharvest Storage of Two Southern Highbush Blueberry Cultivars Grafted onto Vaccinium arboreum Rootstocks

Casamali¹,

Williamson²,

Kovaleski³

et al. 2016

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, there has been research to determine the effect of modifying fruit catching surfaces on blueberry quality. The team led by Peterson [13,14] designed a blueberry harvester called the V45 blueberry harvester, which had two shaker drums that were angled 45 • from horizontal and a prow at the front of the harvester. With this design, the fruit-laden canes were pushed away from plant's crown and the shaking tines engaged the plants from the top.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying New Technologies to Transform Blueberry Harvesting

Takeda

Yang

et al. 2017

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The growth of the blueberry industry in the past three decades has been remarkably robust. However, a labor shortage for hand harvesting, increasingly higher labor costs, and low harvest efficiencies are becoming bottlenecks for sustainable development of the fresh market blueberry production. In this study, we evaluated semi-mechanical harvesting systems consisting of a harvest-aid platform with soft fruit catching surfaces that collected the fruit detached by portable, hand-held, pneumatic shakers. The softer fruit catching surfaces were not glued to the hard sub-surfaces of the harvest-aid platform, but suspended over them. Also, the ergonomic aspect of operating powered harvesting equipment was determined. The pneumatic shakers removed 3.5 to 15 times more fruit (g/min) than by hand. Soft fruit catching surfaces reduced impact force and bruise damage. Fruit firmness was higher in fruit harvested by hand compared to that by pneumatic shakers in some cultivars. The bruise area was less than 8% in fruit harvested by hand and with semi-mechanical harvesting system. The percentage of blue, packable fruit harvested by pneumatic shakers comprised as much as 90% of the total, but less than that of hand-harvested fruit. The ergonomic analysis by electromyography showed that muscle strain in the back, shoulders, and forearms was low in workers operating the light-weight, pneumatic shakers that were tethered to the platform with a tool balancer. The new harvesting method can reduce the labor requirement to about 100 hour/hectare/year and help to mitigate the rising labor cost and shortage of workers for harvesting fresh-market quality blueberries.

show abstract

Bruise Damage Susceptibility of Blueberry and Strawberry

Sharma,

Venugopal

2023

Mechanical Damage in Fresh Horticultural Produce

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanical Harvester for Fresh Market Quality Blueberries

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Mechanical Harvesting and Postharvest Storage of Two Southern Highbush Blueberry Cultivars Grafted onto Vaccinium arboreum Rootstocks

Mechanical Harvesting and Postharvest Storage of Two Southern Highbush Blueberry Cultivars Grafted onto Vaccinium arboreum Rootstocks

Applying New Technologies to Transform Blueberry Harvesting

Bruise Damage Susceptibility of Blueberry and Strawberry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About