Mechanical Harvester for Fresh Market Quality Blueberries

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 823-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Peterson ◽  
G. K. Brown
1994 ◽  
Vol 119 (6) ◽  
pp. 1114-1120 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.L. Peterson ◽  
S.S. Miller ◽  
J.D. Whitney

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.


1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fumiomi Takeda ◽  
Donald L. Peterson

There is increased interest in growing blackberries in the United States for the fresh fruit market. For fresh market blackberry production, >350 h/acre (900 h·ha-1) of work is required to hand pick blackberries over a season that lasts 5 weeks with harvest every 2 days. Existing bramble mechanical harvesters can detach fruit from plants trained on a vertically oriented I trellis and harvest more cheaply than when harvested by hand, but the harvested fruit does not have fresh-market quality. We developed a cane training and trellis system for semierect blackberries to orient canes horizontally with the fruit positioned below the canes. Also, we developed an over-the-row mechanical harvester that uses vibrating nylon rods on a drum to shake fruit from horizontally trained canes onto a moving fruit-catching surface directly under the canopy to minimize impact damage to fruit. A new trellis design, new cane training practices, and new harvesting technologies have allowed fruit to be removed efficiently and be acceptable for fresh-market sales. This production system has been evaluated economically and appears to be profitable. It could overcome the high cost of handpicking, which has limited the expansion of fresh-market blackberries.


1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 0517-0519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne LePori and Price Hobgood

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Peterson ◽  
S. D. Wolford ◽  
E. J. Timm ◽  
F. Takeda
Keyword(s):  

1989 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald L. Peterson ◽  
Stephen S. Miller
Keyword(s):  

Agriculture ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Wasko DeVetter ◽  
Wei Qiang Yang ◽  
Fumiomi Takeda ◽  
Scott Korthuis ◽  
Changying Li

Improved blueberry mechanical harvesting (MH) equipment that maintains fresh market quality are needed due to rising costs and decreasing availability of laborers for harvesting by hand. In 2017, a modified over-the-row (OTR) blueberry harvester with experimental catch surfaces and plates designed to reduce fruit bruising was evaluated. The catch surfaces were made of neoprene (soft catch surface; SCS) or canvas (hard catch surface; HCS) and compared to hand-picked fruit (control). Early- and early/mid-season ‘Duke’ and ‘Draper’, respectively, were evaluated in Oregon, while late-season ‘Elliott’ and ‘Aurora’ were evaluated in Washington. Harvested berries were run through commercial packing lines with fresh pack out recorded and bruise incidence or fresh fruit quality evaluated during various lengths of cold storage. The fresh pack out for ‘Duke’ and ‘Draper’ were 83.5% and 73.2%, respectively, and no difference was noted between SCS and HCS. ‘Duke’ fruit firmness was highest among MH berries with SCS, but firmness decreased in storage after one week. Firmness was highest among hand harvested ‘Draper’ followed by MH with SCS. For ‘Elliott’ and ‘Aurora’, fruit firmness was the same across harvesting methods. ‘Draper’ exhibited more bruising than ‘Duke’, but bruise ratings and the incidence of bruising at ≤10% and ≤20% were similar between hand and MH ‘Draper’ with SCS after 24 h of harvest. ‘Aurora’ berries had similar bruise ratings after 24 h between hand harvesting and MH with SCS, while ‘Elliott’ showed more bruise damage by MH with both SCS and HCS than hand harvested fruit. Although our studies showed slightly lower fresh market blueberry pack outs, loss of firmness, and increased bruise damage in fruit harvested by the experimental MH system compared to hand harvested fruit, higher quality was achieved using SCS compared to HCS. We demonstrated that improved fresh market quality in northern highbush blueberry is achievable by using modified OTR harvesters with SCS and fruit removal by either hand-held pneumatic shakers or rotary drum shakers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document