MACHINE HARVESTING BLUEBERRIES FOR FRESH MARKET · 2014-02-28 · MACHINE HARVESTING BLUEBERRIES...

MACHINE HARVESTING

BLUEBERRIES FOR FRESH

MARKET

Fumiomi Takeda, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV

Gerard Krewer º

Changying Li “

º Horticulture (retired), University of Georgia, Tifton, GA

“ College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Acknowledgement

• Funded by USDA-NIFA Specialty Crop

Research Initiative

Project title: “Advancing Blueberry Production

Efficiency by Enabling Mechanical Harvest, Improving

Fruit Quality and Safety, and Managing Emerging

Diseases”

Award No. 2008-51180-19579 (2008 – 2013)

Project Director: Dr. Harald Scherm, UGA

Participants: UGA, UFL, MSU, NCSU,

and USDA-ARS

• US Highbush Blueberry Council

Project Title:

Improving blueberry mechanical harvest

efficiency: Quantifying with blueberry impact

recording device (BIRD) and develop

information to assist in reducing soft berries in

machine harvested blueberries

Project Director: F. Takeda, USDA-ARS

BEI harvesters

(past, present,

and future?)

Harvest-aid equipment

Workers must lean

over to hand-remove

fruit

Possible to use

pneumatic devices

Unless canes are

pushed outward,

ground loss can

occur

Machine Harvest vs. Hand

Harvest

• Cost and Labor: > 500 man-h/a with hand

or > $5,000 /acre/year

Blueberry harvesting research:

G. Brown and D. Peterson in Michigan

K. van Dalfsen in BC, Canada

M. Mainland and R. Rohrbach in North Carolina

B. Strik in Oregon

F. Takeda and G.Krewer in Georgia

• < 50 man-h/a by machine

• >> $120,000 for a new O-T-R harvester

SHB and NHB blueberry

production in the Southeast •

• State Production (acre) MH acreage (%)z

•

• Florida 3,800 < 5

• Georgia 2,250 1

• N. Carolina 5,500 20

• Mississippi ???? ???

Data provided by Bill Cline, NCSU

Findings from our mechanical

harvesting research with SHB

and rabbiteye blueberries

Some Issues with Machine

Harvesting Blueberry Plants

MH fruit contain more green and red berries and

soft fruit - Reduce harvest efficiency and pack-

out

Internal Bruise

M H

Hand Harvest

After 24 h at room temperature

After 1 week in cold storage

After 24 h at room temperature

Harvesting method affects QUALITY No significant

difference between

harvest methods in

Crispy cultivars, but

a significant effect in

Melting cultivars

Crispy Machine Hand

Sweetcrisp 78.5 *** 84.3

Farthing 80.1 NS 84.3

FL 98-325 88.8 NS 89.8

FL 05-290 74.0 NS 71.3

Melting *** NS

Star 54.0 *** 86.3

Primadonna 64.5 *** 86.8

Scintilla 72.0 *** 88.0

FL 05-486 49.8 *** 77.8

*mean of 4 repetitions (P <0.001)

US #1 (%)*

‘Indigo Crisp’

Change in fruit firmness during cold

storage F

ruit firm

ness

(g/m

m)

160

80

120

160

2

00

2

40

280

CRISPY

MELTING

H

M

Changes in firmness during

storage

Across all

cultivars,

machine

harvested

fruit lost

firmness

during 3

weeks of

storage, while

hand harvest

remained

constant.

y = 1.946x + 229.71

R2 = 0.7661

y = -4.128x + 205.4

R2 = 0.9253

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

0 1 2 3

Removal (weeks)

Fir

mn

ess (

g/m

m)

Machine

Hand

HAND

MACHINE

17

“SMART

BERRY”

3 Accelerometers

Y

Blueberry Bruising: Drop Test

18 Drop height (cm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Impa

ct (

g)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Drop height (in)

12 24 36

Impact data from BIRD

0 12 24 36 48

20 Rotary harvester

21 Time (s)

Imp

act

(g)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

0.7 2.2 6.9 7.30 4 6

Time (s)

0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708

Imp

act

(g)

0

100

200

300

400

500 Fall

Catch plate

Conveyor belt

Lug

Phase 1

Phase 2 Phase 3

Phase 4 Drop height (cm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Imp

act

(g

)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Engineering and horticultural assessment:

BIRD impact values and fruit bruising in three

SHB genotypes (fruit with >25% bruised). Surface and

height (in)

Bird impact

(g) Scintilla

(%)

Sweetcrisp

(%)

FL 05-528

(%)

Hard - 24

Hard - 48

Soft - 24

Soft - 48

557

834

199

360

44

76

21

26

22

68

22

25

19

31

1

5

Harvest

method

Bloom

(%)

Split fruit

(%)

Mean Internal bruise

(% of cut surface)

Hand 76 3 < 10

V45 * 61 7 < 25

Sway 54 24 > 25

Quality of hand- and machine-harvested

fruit of rabbiteye blueberry (cv. Brightwell)

* Pruned plants

Bruising (%)

Harvest Storage None

Hand 9 d Cold 95

V45 9 d Cold 83

Rotary 9 d Cold 47

Hand + 42 d CA 95

V45 + 42 d CA 84

Rotary + 42 d CA 50

Fruit internal bruising of machine harvested

‘Elliott’ blueberry after 9 days at 0 °C, and after 9

days at 0 °C followed with 42 days in Controlled

Atmosphere storage.

GROUND LOSS can be > 20% of crop

CATCH PLATE DESIGN

HARVESTER DESIGN

Cultivar Treatment Ground loss (g/plant)

Premier Control 215

Crown Restriction 173

Crown Restriction

and Y-Trellis 159

Brightwell Control 141

Crown Restriction 80

Crown Restriction

and Y-Trellis 61

No effect next year. After two years, crown

restriction reduced ground loss!

Packing House Evaluation

vs.

BIRD sensor development

New sensor is size of medium-size blueberry

1st generation

BIRD sensor evaluation of packing

houses

• 7 in Michigan: Grand Junction and

Holland

• 4 in Georgia: Alma and Baxley

Ballinger et al. (1973)

“The total distance dropped is the

critical factor that determines a

blueberry’s shelf life”

Packing Line #1

Time (s)

Imp

act

(g)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

0.7 2.2 6.9 7.30 4 6

Time (s)

0.696 0.698 0.700 0.702 0.704 0.706 0.708Im

pac

t (g

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

Impact (g

)

Cultivars and parameters used in

drop tests

Cultivars Test parameters

– Elliott * Hand picked (9 am to noon)

– Jersey * Temperature (64-69 F)

– Draper * Held at 68 F for 24 hours

– Aurora * Dropped on BEI catch plate

– Nelson * Heights of 24 and 48 inches

– Legacy * Held at 68 F for 24 hours

– Brigetta * Each fruit sliced through the

– Liberty * equator and

– Bluecrop * photographed for image analysis

* Fruit samples obtained from one farm in Grand Junction, MI

Example of fruit dropped 48

inches onto a catch plate

Not Dropped Dropped 48 inches

Control (Not dropped)

48 h at room temperature

dropped 24 inches

onto catch plate, and

sliced after 24 h

‘Examples from another NHB blueberry cultivar

22244 inch

4 inch Control 24 inch 48 inch

Fruit Firmness (g/mm) after 24 h Cultivar Drop height

Not dropped 24-inch 48-inch

Aurora 184 160 141

Bluecrop 178 164 140

Brigetta 212 173 148

Draper 237 213 183

Elliott 178 155 137

Jersey 208 163 149

Legacy 209 193 172

Liberty 200 163 154

Nelson 199 182 155

5 times from 10 cm height

Single or multiple drop test on ‘Bluecrop’

blueberry Dropped once from 16-inch height

Dropped 5 times from 4-inch height

Effect of padding

Padding? 24 inch drop to hard surface

24 inch drop to padded

surface

8 inch drop 8 inch drop

Hard surface

Padded surface

Field to Packing House

Transportation Method

Up-and-down motion

and

compression force

SUMMARY

• H-H fruit of crispy type had higher firmness than

H-H conventional type

• During storage, H-H fruit of crispy type remained

firm while H-H conventional type softened.

– In both types, M-H produced softer fruit and

lost firmness more rapidly in cold storage

– Mold developed faster in M-H fruit

Achieved quantitative measurements of

interactions between FRUIT (sensor) x PLANT x

HARVESTERs

“SMART BERRY” revealed that the CATCH PLATES

created the largest impact on the fruit

Measures for reducing bruise damage?

Reduce drop height and/or pad the surface

Comparison of harvesters:

Rotary detachment mechanism creates fewer and lower

magnitude of impacts than the slapper mechanism

The blueberry industry will continue to use

machines for harvesting of blueberries for fresh

market.

Crispy-type blueberry can withstand physical

impacts of MH.

Physical impacts on fruit does not just lead to a

cosmetic problem, but they alter the functioning of

fruit cells that culminates in internal bruise damage

(e.g. water soaked and darkened tissues) and fruit

softening.

SUMMARY The blueberry industry will move towards

mechanical harvesting of blueberries for fresh

market.

Crispy type blueberry can withstand physical

impacts of MH better than non-crispy type.

Physical impacts on fruit does not just lead to a

cosmetic problem, but they alter the functioning of

fruit cells that culminates in internal bruise damage

(e.g. water soaked and darkened tissues) and fruit

softening.

SUMMARY

Development of 2nd and 3rd generation BIRD

sensor (“SMART BERRY”) is underway with

financial support from USHBC

Sensor technology (ST) will aid

growers/manufacturers select the right

harvester/cultivars and improve harvester design

to improve fruit quality and production efficiency

ST will also help growers identify potential problem

areas in equipment and handling method

Thank you for your attention

QUESTIONS?

Contact Information

Fumi.Takeda@ars.usda.gov

304 725 3451 x212