+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Date post: 13-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: jena
View: 27 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges. Timothy M. Spann Michelle D. Danyluk , Robert C. Ebel and Jacqueline K. Burns. Does mechanical harvesting increase the debris in loads of fruit?. Potential for damage to processing equipment - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
15
Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges Timothy M. Spann Michelle D. Danyluk, Robert C. Ebel and Jacqueline K. Burns
Transcript
Page 1: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Timothy M. SpannMichelle D. Danyluk, Robert C. Ebel

and Jacqueline K. Burns

Timothy M. SpannMichelle D. Danyluk, Robert C. Ebel

and Jacqueline K. Burns

Page 2: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Does mechanical harvesting increase the debris in loads of fruit?Does mechanical harvesting increase the debris in loads of fruit?• Potential for damage to processing

equipment

• Economic costs of transporting debris instead of fruit

• Potential for damage to processing equipment

• Economic costs of transporting debris instead of fruit

Page 3: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

ObjectivesObjectives

• How much debris is actually entering the processing stream?

• Is there more debris as a result of MH?

• How can debris be reduced or eliminated?

• How much debris is actually entering the processing stream?

• Is there more debris as a result of MH?

• How can debris be reduced or eliminated?

Page 4: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Harvest Methods SampledHarvest Methods Sampled• All methods were sampled on 3

separate dates, 20 samples per date – Valencia in spring 2008– Hamlin Winter 2008-09

• Hand Harvest (control)• Oxbo 3220 with & without

destemmer• Oxbo 3210 with hand pickup• Oxbo 3210 with Oxbo 3200 pickup

unit (only 1 sampling date)

• All methods were sampled on 3 separate dates, 20 samples per date – Valencia in spring 2008– Hamlin Winter 2008-09

• Hand Harvest (control)• Oxbo 3220 with & without

destemmer• Oxbo 3210 with hand pickup• Oxbo 3210 with Oxbo 3200 pickup

unit (only 1 sampling date)

Page 5: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Sampling MethodSampling Method• All harvest systems have

one common element– Transfer of fruit from the

“goat” to the trailer

• 50 – 60 kg samples are collected as the goat dumps fruit into trailer

• Sample is weighed, debris is removed, sorted, weighed, dried and weighed

• All harvest systems have one common element– Transfer of fruit from the

“goat” to the trailer

• 50 – 60 kg samples are collected as the goat dumps fruit into trailer

• Sample is weighed, debris is removed, sorted, weighed, dried and weighed

Page 6: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Valencia DebrisValencia Debris

Page 7: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Hamlin DebrisHamlin Debris

Page 8: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges
Page 9: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

What about sand?What about sand?

Page 10: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Can the use of the abscission agent 5-chloro-3-methyl-4-nitro-pyrazole (CMNP) reduce the amount of debris from mechanical harvesting?

Can the use of the abscission agent 5-chloro-3-methyl-4-nitro-pyrazole (CMNP) reduce the amount of debris from mechanical harvesting?

Page 11: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

CMNP TrialsCMNP Trials• Parson Brown

– December 2007 and January 2008 • Harvest w/ and w/o CMNP

• Valencia– Two trials April 2008

• 300 ppm CMNP @ 0, 100, 200 and 300 GPA

– May 13 and 27, 2008, May and June 2009• Speed (0.5 and 1.0 mph) × CPM (145 and 185) × CMNP (+ or −)

– March and April 2009• Shaker frequency x CMNP rate

• Hamlin– December 2008 and January 9 and 30, 2009

• Shaker frequency x CMNP rate

• Data collected was the same, except debris was separated into adhering (attached to fruit) and loose (not attached)

• Parson Brown– December 2007 and January 2008

• Harvest w/ and w/o CMNP

• Valencia– Two trials April 2008

• 300 ppm CMNP @ 0, 100, 200 and 300 GPA

– May 13 and 27, 2008, May and June 2009• Speed (0.5 and 1.0 mph) × CPM (145 and 185) × CMNP (+ or −)

– March and April 2009• Shaker frequency x CMNP rate

• Hamlin– December 2008 and January 9 and 30, 2009

• Shaker frequency x CMNP rate

• Data collected was the same, except debris was separated into adhering (attached to fruit) and loose (not attached)

Page 12: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Parson Brown – Jan 2008Parson Brown – Jan 2008

Page 13: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Hamlin – January 2009Hamlin – January 2009

Page 14: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

Valencia – March 2009Valencia – March 2009

Page 15: Debris Accumulation in Loads of Mechanically Harvested Oranges

ConclusionsConclusions• Mechanical harvesting increases debris

2x over hand harvesting

• Leaves are the largest debris component (60%) followed by small stems (38%)

• The use of the abscission compound CMNP can reduce debris to levels equivalent to or below hand harvesting– Due to reduction in adhering debris

• Mechanical harvesting increases debris 2x over hand harvesting

• Leaves are the largest debris component (60%) followed by small stems (38%)

• The use of the abscission compound CMNP can reduce debris to levels equivalent to or below hand harvesting– Due to reduction in adhering debris


Recommended