A Mechanical Harvester for Chaffy Seeded Grasses

1979 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 0270-0272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Whitney ◽  
R. M. Ahring ◽  
C. M. Taliaferro
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Harvester

Mechanical Harvester for Fresh Market Onions

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

scholarly journals Yield, Fruit Damage, Yield Loss, and Juice Quality Characteristics of Machine- and Hand-harvested ‘Brown Snout’ Specialty Cider Apples Stored at Ambient Conditions in Northwest Washington

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 614-619
Author(s):  
Travis Robert Alexander ◽  
Jaqueline King ◽  
Edward Scheenstra ◽  
Carol A. Miles
Keyword(s):  
Yield Loss ◽  
Titratable Acidity ◽  
Quality Characteristics ◽  
Soluble Solids ◽  
Juice Quality ◽  
Ambient Conditions ◽  
Storage Duration ◽  
Phenolic Contents ◽  
Fruit Damage ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

In this 2-year study, ‘Brown Snout’ specialty cider apples (Malus ×domestica) that had been hand harvested or machine harvested with an over-the-row shake-and-catch small fruit harvester were ambient stored (56 °F mean temperature) for 0, 2, and 4 weeks to evaluate yield, fruit damage, yield loss, and juice quality characteristics. The average yield (pounds per acre) of fruit picked and retained by the mechanical harvester was 74% that of the hand-harvest yield and 81% that of the hand-harvest yield when fruit that fell out of the harvester was included in the machine-harvest yield. Percent fruit bruised and cut were greater for machine harvest (97.5% and 25.5%, respectively) than for hand harvest (47% and 0.5%, respectively), on average for 2014 and 2015. Yield loss to rot was greater for machine harvest than for hand harvest, and increased for both methods over time; percent rot doubled from 2 to 4 weeks storage for machine harvest (22% to 41%), and while negligible, tripled from 2 to 4 weeks storage for hand harvest (0.7% to 2.1%). Juice quality characteristics did not differ due to harvest method, but did differ due to year and storage time. Soluble solids concentration [SSC (%)] and specific gravity (SG) did not change due to storage in 2014, but in 2015, SSC and SG were greater on average for 2 and 4 weeks storage duration (15% and 1.062, respectively) than at harvest (13.31% and 1.056, respectively). Titratable acidity (grams per liter malic acid) decreased in 2014 from 2.98 g·L−1 at harvest to 2.70 g·L−1 on average for 2 and 4 weeks storage duration, but did not differ due to storage in 2015. Tannin [tannic acid equivalent (%)] was unchanged in 2014 from harvest to 4 weeks storage, but increased in 2015 from 0.16% at harvest to 0.19% by 4 weeks storage. These results indicate that harvest efficiency could be improved with some engineering modifications of the over-the-row mechanical harvester and training modifications for the trees. A comparison of the aromatic and phenolic contents of mechanically harvested and hand-harvested ‘Brown Snout’ would be a valuable next step in evaluating shake-and-catch mechanical harvest technology for cider apple production.

Metabolism of 2-(α-naphthoxy)-N,N-diethyl propionamide in Tomato

Weed Science ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Murphy ◽  
Janice Didriksen ◽  
R. A. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Lycopersicon Esculentum ◽  
Water Soluble ◽  
Tomato Plants ◽  
Mechanical Harvester ◽  
Ring Hydroxylation

Metabolism of the herbicide 2-(α-naphthoxy)-N,N-diethyl propionamide (R-7465) by tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Mechanical Harvester’) was investigated. Ring-labeled R-7465-14C was taken up rapidly by the roots and distributed throughout the leaves within 8 hr. R-7465 was converted primarily into water soluble metabolites. The principal metabolite was identified as a hexose conjugate of 2-(α-naphthoxy-4-hydroxy)-N,N-diethyl propionamide. This metabolite represented 47% of the soluble radioactivity in the plant. A different hexose conjugate of 2-(α-naphthoxy-4-hydroxy)-N,N-diethyl propionamide together with a hexose conjugate of 2-(α-naphthoxy-4-hydroxy)-N-ethyl propionamide accounted for another 22% of the radioactivity. Nonmetabolized R-7465 was found to represent only 5% of the total soluble radioactivity. Other identified metabolites included 2-(α-napthoxy)-N-ethyl propionamide, 2-(α-naphthoxy-5-hydroxy)-N,N-diethyl propionamide, and 1,4-naphthoquinone. None of these metabolites individually represented more than 3% of the soluble radioactivity in the plants. Ring hydroxylation and N-dealkylation appeared to be the initial steps in detoxification of R-7465 followed by conjugation with sugars.

Design and Field Test of a New Compact Self-Propelled Cabbage Harvester

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 1243-1250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongdong Du ◽  
Jun Wang ◽  
Luxin Xie ◽  
Fanfei Deng
Keyword(s):  
Field Test ◽  
Field Tests ◽  
Field Performance ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Cultivation Method ◽  
Compact Field ◽  
Cutting Rate ◽  
Traditional Fields ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

Abstract. As a labor-intensive operation, manual harvesting greatly affects cost and therefore profitability in the cabbage industry. A new compact self-propelled cabbage harvester for small, separate fields was designed and field tested. This harvester included a crawler chassis, a picking mechanism, a lifting mechanism, a cutting device, and a leaf separator. Results of preliminary field tests showed that the harvester had good flexibility and maneuverability. Results of field performance tests showed that the harvester could pick cabbages with diameters of 15 to 25 cm, providing a harvesting capacity of 0.21 hm2 h-1 and a harvest loss of 10.2%. Compared with experiments conducted in traditional fields, harvest quality showed an improvement in fields with an experimental cultivation method. The harvest loss was reduced by 5.0%, while the picking rate and accurate cutting rate were improved by 3.0% and 5.4%, respectively. Keywords: Cabbage, Compact, Field test, Mechanical harvester, Self-propelled.

scholarly journals Control of Second Generation Tobacco Budworms on Cotton in Southern North Carolina, 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-239
Author(s):  
J. S. Bacheler ◽  
D. W. Mott
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Loamy Sand ◽  
Single Application ◽  
Beneficial Arthropods ◽  
Hollow Cone ◽  
Mechanical Harvester ◽  
Recommended Practices

Abstract Cotton was planted on 4 May in a Norfolk loamy sand on 38-inch rows near Laurel Hill in southeastern NC. Recommended practices for fertility and weed management were followed, and 0.75 lb (AI)/acre Temik 15G used at planting for thrips control. Plots were 40 ft X 6 rows, with 10-ft alleys and 4 replications arranged in a RCBD. The entire test was oversprayed with 1.0 lb (AI)/acre Orthene 75S on 7 Jun to encourage TBW establishment via destruction of beneficial arthropods. A single application was applied to all plots on 21 Jun. All applications were applied with a CO2-pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 8 gpa at 50 psi with a single Spraying Systems TX-8 hollow cone nozzle per row. On 27 Jun, 25 terminals from each plot were examined for TBW eggs, terminal damage from TBW and live larvae. No squares were present at this relatively late date and thus were not sampled. On 31 Jul, the number of white blooms and bolls was counted for 15 ft for each plot per replicate (60 ft total per treatment). Plots were harvested with a 2-row John Deere mechanical harvester on 18 Oct.

FRUIT INJURY FROM MECHANICAL HARVESTER FOR CALIFORNIA BLACK RIPE PROCESSED TABLE OLIVE

2009 ◽  
pp. 337-348
Author(s):  
U. Rosa ◽  
L. Ferguson ◽  
C. Gliever ◽  
K. Glozer ◽  
C. Crisosto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Table Olive ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

scholarly journals Optimizing Continuous Canopy Shakers for Late Season `Valenica' Harvest

HortScience ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 885A-885
Author(s):  
Richard S. Buker* ◽  
Jackie K. Burns ◽  
Fritz M. Roka
Keyword(s):  
Operating Conditions ◽  
Tree Size ◽  
Mature Fruit ◽  
Fruit Removal ◽  
Crop Load ◽  
Immature Fruit ◽  
Late Season ◽  
Southern Site ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

Continuous canopy shakers (CCS) were developed in the late 90's and have been used to commercially harvest citrus in Florida. A viable mechanical harvester in Florida must be able to selectively remove mature `Valencia' fruit. A study was conducted to evaluate the effect of operating conditions on mature and immature fruit removal during the 2003 harvest season. The study was conducted in the southern flat woods and northern ridge areas. The study treatments were completely random and replicated four times. The CCS treatments were 145, 215, 230, and 245 cycles per minute (cpm) and a hand picked control. The harvest occurred on 17 and 19 June at the southern and northern sites, respectively. Mature fruit removal linearly increased from 95.7% to 97.9% between 145 and 245 cpm, respectively. Varying the operating ranges significantly influenced mature fruit removal in the southern flat woods site. The trees at the southern site were taller (>4m), and had a larger crop load. At the northern ridge site where trees were smaller, varying the CCS operating ranges did not significantly influence mature fruit removal. Immature fruit removal was influenced by the operating ranges. Immature fruit removal was increased at least 22% over hand picked controls. The results were interpreted to indicate the frequency of CCS is dependent on tree size. The initial selectivity of the CCS was not equal to hand picking.

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

1994 ◽  
Vol 119 (6) ◽  
pp. 1114-1120 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.L. Peterson ◽  
S.S. Miller ◽  
J.D. Whitney
Keyword(s):  
Malus Domestica ◽  
Market Quality ◽  
Fresh Market ◽  
Cumulative Yield ◽  
Apple Trees ◽  
Training Systems ◽  
Golden Delicious ◽  
Harvesting Efficiency ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

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.

scholarly journals Mechanical harvesting optimization and postharvest treatments to improve wine quality

OENO One ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Arfelli ◽  
Elisa Sartini ◽  
F. Bordini ◽  
Claudio Caprara ◽  
Fabio Pezzi
Keyword(s):  
Negative Influence ◽  
Lower Amount ◽  
Antioxidant Compounds ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Wine Composition ◽  
Postharvest Treatment ◽  
Postharvest Treatments ◽  
Mechanical Harvester ◽  
Harvesting Costs

<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Aims</strong>: The aim of this work was to verify the influence of mechanical harvesting and postharvest treatments on wine composition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Methods and results</strong>: Trials were carried out in triplicate on cv. Montuni grapes. The estimated best setting frequency for the mechanical harvester was 410 shakes/min. Comparing hand-picked and mechanically harvested grapes, the reduced extract and pH results were lower for the hand-picked grapes, showing a more evident berry breakage caused by the mechanical harvester. The wines obtained from mechanically harvested grapes had a lower phenolic compound content than wines produced with hand-picked grapes, indicating that oxidation phenomena occurred; the trend for postharvest treated grapes was different. The significantly lower amount of higher alcohols in the hand-picked grapes trial than in the mechanically harvested ones could be explained by a lower amount of their precursors and oxygen in musts. The sensory differences among the trials were significant for some parameters, but an overall view of the data suggested that the differences were not remarkable and all the wines were good.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Conclusion</strong>: Postharvest treatments reduce the loss of natural antioxidant compounds found in wines produced from mechanically harvested grapes. Mechanical harvesting does not have a negative influence on wine composition if matched with the proper vineyard characteristics, machine settings and postharvest treatments. The typicality of Montuni wine is maintained in the cases of grapes harvested mechanically with, but also without, any postharvest treatment. The use of these treatments is otherwise useful to obtain wines with a better stability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Significance and impact of the study</strong>: With respect to mechanical harvesting, this study highlights the importance of maintaining and/or improving the quality of mechanically harvested grapes containing the harvesting costs.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document