scholarly journals Fruit Machine

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Harp ◽  
Suzie Silver
Keyword(s):  
Fruit Machine

Varieties of Pathological Gambling

1970 ◽  
Vol 116 (535) ◽  
pp. 593-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Moran
Keyword(s):  
Pathological Gambling ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Psychological Needs ◽  
List Type ◽  
Type Number ◽  
Fruit Machine ◽  
Machine Gambling

Gambling may be defined as an activity which has the following four characteristics: 1.There is an agreement between two or more persons; the participation of others is therefore essential, although sometimes, as in pools and fruit machine gambling, this is more remote.2.Certain property is transferred between the persons involved so that some gain at the expense of others; this is usually referred to as the stake.3.The result is dependent on the outcome of a risky or uncertain situation; it therefore involves risk taking.4.Participation can be avoided and is typically pursued in an active fashion; the motivation for this is not uniform often being unrelated to the property staked and arising out of various psychological needs.

scholarly journals Film Review: The Fruit Machine

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-98
Author(s):  
Lynne Gouliquer ◽  
Carmen Poulin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Documentary Film ◽  
Film Review ◽  
Dark Period ◽  
Canadian History ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Fruit Machine

The following is a review of The Fruit Machine documentary film directed by Sara Fodey. This documentary sheds light on a dark period in Canadian history. Using the testimonials of survivors and historical expert, The Fruit Machine film illustrates how a democratic state could legally wage a discriminatory campaign against its own citizens whose only crime was being (or suspected to be) “homosexual.” For fifty years, Canadian state institutions hunted down and interrogated thousands of individuals suspected of homosexuality. This film is a must see.

scholarly journals Yield, Labor, and Fruit and Juice Quality Characteristics of Machine and Hand-harvested ‘Brown Snout’ Specialty Cider Apple

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 519-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol A. Miles ◽  
Jaqueline King
Keyword(s):  
Specific Gravity ◽  
Titratable Acidity ◽  
Quality Characteristics ◽  
Soluble Solids ◽  
Juice Quality ◽  
Solids Concentration ◽  
Fruit Machine ◽  
Small Fruit ◽  
Harvest Method ◽  
Soluble Solids Concentration

In this 2-year study of ‘Brown Snout’ specialty cider apple (Malus ×domestica) grafted onto Malling 27 (M.27) and East Malling/Long Ashton 9, we compared weight of total harvested fruit, labor hours for harvest, tree and fruit damage, and fruit and juice quality characteristics for machine and hand harvest. Machine harvest was with an over-the-row small fruit harvester. There were no significant differences due to rootstock; however, there were differences between years for most measurements. Weight of harvested fruit did not differ because of harvest method; however, harvest efficiency was 68% to 72% for machine pick and 85% to 89% for machine pick + clean-up weight (fruit left on trees and fruit knocked to the ground during harvest) as compared with hand harvest. On average for the 2 years, hand harvest required 23 labor-hours per acre at a total cost of $417, while machine harvest required 5 labor-hours per acre at a cost of $93. There were no differences due to harvest method on damage to spurs (four to eight spurs damaged per tree) or limbs (0.5–0.8 limbs damaged per tree). Although there were also no differences due to harvest method on fruit bruising (100% for both harvest methods in this study), 10% of fruit were sliced and 4% of fruit were cut in half inadvertently with machine harvest, and none were sliced or cut with hand harvest. Harvest method had no effect on fruit quality characteristics, specifically, soluble solids concentration (SSC), pH, specific gravity, titratable acidity (malic acid equivalents), or percent total tannin, when fruit was pressed immediately after harvest or stored for 2, 3, or 4 weeks before pressing. Juice quality characteristics were affected by storage, and SSC increased 11% in 2011 (3 weeks storage), and 12% and 18% in 2012 (2 and 4 weeks storage, respectively). Similarly, specific gravity increased both years after storage, 1% in 2011, and 1% and 2% in 2012 (a 1% increase in juice specific gravity corresponds to a potential 1.3% increase in alcohol by volume after fermentation for cider). Both years, juice pH tended to decline when fruit was stored (0.01 pH units in 2011, 0.06–0.12 pH units in 2012). Overall, cider apple harvest with an over-the-row small fruit machine harvester used four times less labor than hand harvest, yield reached 87% that of hand harvest (when clean-up yield was included), and juice quality characteristics were not negatively affected. These results suggest that machine harvest may be suitable for cider apples if equipment is available and affordable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document