scholarly journals MECHANICAL HARVESTER FOR FRESH MARKET QUALITY STEMLESS SWEET CHERRIES

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Peterson ◽  
S. D. Wolford
Keyword(s):  
Market Quality ◽  
Fresh Market ◽  
Sweet Cherries ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

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.

Mechanical Harvester for Fresh Market Quality Blueberries

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 823-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Peterson ◽  
G. K. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Market Quality ◽  
Fresh Market ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

scholarly journals Considerations for Machine Harvesting Fresh-market Eastern Thornless Blackberries: Trellis Design, Cane Training Systems, and Mechanical Harvester Developments

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fumiomi Takeda ◽  
Donald L. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Production System ◽  
Impact Damage ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fresh Fruit ◽  
Market Quality ◽  
Fresh Market ◽  
Training Systems ◽  
Mechanical Harvester

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.

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

FRESH MARKET QUALITY BLUEBERRY HARVESTER

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

Advances in mechanical harvesting of fresh market quality apples

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

scholarly journals Preliminary Valuation of “Y” and “V”-Trellised Canopies for Mechanical Harvesting of Plums, Sweet Cherries and Sour Cherries for the Fresh Market

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-35
Author(s):  
Jacek Rabcewicz ◽  
Augustyn Mika ◽  
Zbigniew Buler ◽  
Paweł Białkowski
Keyword(s):  
Sweet Cherry ◽  
Sour Cherry ◽  
Light Interception ◽  
Standard System ◽  
Stone Fruits ◽  
Fresh Market ◽  
Training Systems ◽  
The Third ◽  
Sweet Cherries ◽  
Cost Of Construction

AbstractPlums, sweet cherry, and sour cherry trees were spaced 4.5 m × 1.5 m to be trained to “Y” and “V”-trellising systems for mechanical harvesting, with a canopy contact harvester, attending to obtain fruits meeting the requirements of the fresh fruit market. The applied trellising systems were compared with the standard central leader system at the same spacing. The most of trellised trees grew less vigorously than the standard trees, and after 3 years of training, the trees were suitable for mechanical harvesting with the harvester designed at the Research Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice. The trellised trees were able to set as many fruitlets as those grown in the form of central leader and gave a comparable yield, but differences between cultivars were significant. Light interception in the third year after planting was lower for trees of sour cherry and plum growing in the “Y”-20° and “V” in comparison to the trees with central leader. Illumination of trellised canopies at the level of 0.7 and 1.5 m was the most favorable in “V” system when compared to control and “Y” training systems. Cost of construction for the trellising systems of stone fruits calculated per 1 ha was two times higher when compared with the standard system.

scholarly journals Precocious, Dwarfing, and Productive—How Will New Cherry Rootstocks Impact the Sweet Cherry Industry?

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Lang
Keyword(s):  
Sweet Cherry ◽  
Prunus Avium ◽  
Fruit Size ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Fruit Production ◽  
Fresh Market ◽  
High Productivity ◽  
Sweet Cherries ◽  
Beneficial Traits ◽  
Cherry Rootstocks

Sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.) can be one of the most profitable tree fruits cultivated in temperate climates. While cherry trees grow naturally to relatively tall heights (≈35 ft [≥10 m]), new size-controlling cherry rootstocks similar to those used in high-density apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) orchards are now a reality. The Gisela (GI.) and Weiroot (W.) series from Germany, the Gran Manier (GM.) series from Belgium, the P-HL series from Czech Republic, `Tabel Edabriz' from France, and others of international origin are at various stages of scientific and field testing in North America, with some now being used for commercial fruit production. These stocks confer several advantageous traits besides vigor control, including precocious fruiting and high productivity. While these beneficial traits are exciting, serious problems also have been documented on occasion, such as small fruit size and tree decline. As many of these rootstocks are interspecific Prunus L. hybrids, might there be significant limitations for fruit quality and orchard longevity? What is known about their tolerance to various soil types and/or climatological stresses? What is known about their susceptibilities to pathogens and pests? Further, with the U.S. and worldwide orchard area planted to fresh-market sweet cherries already expanding to record levels throughout the 1990s and a time-honored agricultural tendency toward overproduction until grower profits are minimized (e.g., recent international apple markets), what might be the future impact of such precocious, productive rootstocks on sweet cherry profitability and sustainable production? This overview addresses these topics, providing some answers and some areas for future scientific investigation and industry discussion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document