Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COMPARISON OF TRANSPLANTING TECHNIQUES FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES
by Sthphane Burgoyne
Repor t t o : O n t a r i o Tomato S e e d l i n g Growers Market ing Board Learnington, O n t a r i o
P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t o r s : Gary H e r g e r t Eng ineer ing & S t a t i s t i c a l Resea rch C e n t r e Resea rch Branch, A g r i c u l t u r e Canada Ot tawa, O n t a r i o KIA OC6
Ed, Tomecek Crops and S o i l s Branch O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e & Food Ridgetown, O n t a r i o NOP 2C0
Preamble
This report is the result of an investigation of methods of
transplanting bare-root and tray-grown transplants. The investigation
was carried out to obtain accurate rates of transplanting and to obtain
information on performance of conventional transplanters and newer
transplanters suitable only for tray-grown plants.
Stephane Burgoyne is an agricultural engineering student at
Macdonald College of McGill Unviersity, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec.
His work term included collection of data, collating the results, and
writing this report. The report provides much useful information on the
present state-of-the-art of transplanting processing tomatoes in Ontario,
indicates where reduction of labour inputs are possible and provides
information useful for work on automation.
Gary Hergert
ESRC
Agriculture Canada
October 19, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
MATER 1AL.S
METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
OBSERVATIONS
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF PLANTERS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE 1 - Average planting rate of transplanters TABLE 2 - Field efficiency of transplanters TABLE 3 - Time allotted for each operation TABLE 4 - Average plant spacings TABLE 5 - Plant population
TABLE 6 - Plant characteristics TABLE 7 - Variable costs for transplanting
tomatoes
FIGURES 1 to 7
APPENDIX 1:
APPENDIX 2:
APPENDIX 3:
APPENDIX 4:
APPENDIX 5:
APPENDIX 6:
APPENDIX 7:
APPENDIX 8:
APPENDIX 9:
Cost of transplanting: A Case Study
Field Data of Planting
Planting rate of transplanters
Field efficiency
Plant spacing test
Planting and Survival counts
Tray counts
Tray plant characteristics
Data sheets
Page
1
2
4
8
16
20
2 2
2 3
2 3
24
2 4
2 5
2 5
2 6
COMPARISON OF TRANSPLANTING TECHNIQUES FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES
St6phane Burgoyne
INTRODUCTION
The t r a d i t i o n a l method o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r o c e s s i n g tomato c r o p i n
Sou thwes te rn O n t a r i o is t o t r a n s p l a n t b a r e - r o o t s e e d l i n g s impor ted from
t h e Sou the rn U n i t e d S t a t e s . More r e c e n t l y , t h e r e h a s been a growing
t r e n d t o u s i n g l o c a l l y grown media-block t r a y p l a n t s . While t h e s e p l a n t s
a r e more c o s t l y t h a n impor ted b a r e - r o o t p l a n t s , t h e r e a r e i n d i c a t i o n s
t h a t t h e t r a y p l a n t s pe r fo rm b e t t e r by producing more r e l i a b l e s t a n d s and
h e a v i e r y i e l d s .
The purpose of t h i s s t u d y is t o compare t h e i n p u t s , s u c h a s l a b o u r ,
c o s t of p l a n t s and c o s t of machines , f o r b a r e - r o o t and t r a y p l a n t s and t o
compare g rowth performance a s a f f e c t e d by t r a n s p l a n t e r performance and
t r a y t y p e . Al so i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y is t h e c o l l e c t i o n of i n i t i a l
i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t might be u s e f u l f o r f u t u r e work on au tomat ion .
The t e s t s were c a r r i e d o u t d u r i n g t h e summer, from May 8 t o
J u n e 19 , 1987, i n Essex and Kent c o u n t i e s of Sou the rn O n t a r i o .
A t o t a l of 19 growers co -opera ted i n a t i m e s t u d y of t h e i r
t r a n s p l a n t i n g o p e r a t i o n s . P l a n t performance was t e s t e d on t h e s e and
s e v e r a l o t h e r f a rms .
P l a n t e r s and p l a n t s were e v a l u a t e d under a t e s t regime t o o b t a i n t h e
f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n :
- 2 -
- a c t u a l s u s t a i n e d p l a n t i n g r a t e s on l a r g e a c r e a g e o p e r a t i o n s ;
- f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y ;
- p l a n t s p a c i n g ;
- l a b o u r requ i rements ;
- t r a y - p l a n t hand l ing methods;
- a c t u a l p l a n t i n g and s u r v i v a l r a t e s ;
- s o r t i n g c o s t s f o r ba re - roo t p l a n t s ;
- need f o r wa te r ;
- c o s t of removal f o r premature f r u i t ;
- t r a y - p l a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ;
- c o s t of a l l i n p u t s .
I n most c a s e s , i n f o r m a t i o n was g a t h e r e d on t h e same farm f o r b o t h
w bare - roo t and t r a y grown p l a n t s . Not a l l d a t a was c o l l e c t e d on e a c h ( .
farm.
MATERIALS
T r a n s p l a n t e r s under t e s t s inc luded :
Hol land and Mechanical c o n v e n t i o n a l p l a n t e r s
- c o n v e n t i o n a l g r i p p e r - t y p e t r a n s p l a n t e r
- b o t h u s e 10 g r i p p e r s mounted on a c h a i n
- both u s e 2 workers p e r row
Mechanical Model 1000 c o n v e n t i o n a l t r a n s p l a n t e r (M1000)
- newer model of a g r i p p e r - t y p e t r a n s p l a n t e r ;
- u s e s 12 g r i p p e r s mounted on a c h a i n ;
- 3 -
- the units are mounted on the planter frame with a floating
parallel hitch supported on a rubber compactor wheel;
- uses 2 workers per row.
Mechanical Model 4000 rotating cup transplanter (M4000)
- newer type for planting plugs only;
- uses a four cup rotating carousel; - the units are mounted on the planter frame with a floating
parallel hitch supported on a rubber compactor wheel;
- uses only 1 worker per row.
Three other transplanters described below ere tested but were not
included in the comprehensive tests:
Regero Transplanter Model MD B4 T from France
- continuous feeder tray type;
- used commercially in Europe for small plants such as lettuce;
- model tested had 2 units on a bed;
- one person per row with a possibility of operating with one person
for two rows but at a slower speed.
LBnnen RT-2 transplanter from Finland
- used in forest nurseries;
- uses 8 or 10 cups on a carrousel;
- model tested had a single unit;
- one person per row.
- 4 -
Automatic planter, ESRC, Agriculture Canada
- experimental planter;
- uses a plastic segmented belt in which the plants were grown;
- model tested had a single unit;
- automatic (no workers on planter);
Plants used for the study included:
1. Bare-root transplants
There are grown in Georgia, U.S.A., and shipped to the growing
areas by truck. Growers receive the plants in crates which are
usually transported directly to the planting site. There, the
transplanter operators sort the plants prior or during loading
onto the transplanter.
2. Tray plants
These are grown locally in greenhouses usually by greenhouse
operators but in some cases, grown on-farm by the tomato
growers. Almost all plants are grown in Blackmore 288 square
trays with a few grown in 280 round plug trays or 200 square plug
trays.
METHODS
Planting Rates
In the field, the speed of the planters was measured in terms of the
possible number of plants planted per minute, ignoring missed plants.
Normally, transplanter speed is established for each crew at a speed
- 5 -
r u n f a s t e r t h a n t h e workers a b i l i t y t o p l a c e t h e p l a n t s i n t h e mechanism
o r s o s low t h a t m i s s e s a r e e l i m i n a t e d comple te ly . P l a n t i n g r a t e s were
measured by c o u n t i n g t h e number of pocke t s o r cups opening p e r minute
u s i n g a s t o p w a t c h , i g n o r i n g whether t h e y c o n t a i n e d a p l a n t o r n o t . A t
t h e same t i m e , a meas,uring wheel was c a r r i e d b e s i d e t h e p l a n t e r t o r e c o r d
measur ing t h e t r a v e l d i s t a n c e d u r i n g t h e same t i m e i n t e r v a l . T h i s t e s t
was r e p e a t e d s e v e r a l t i m e s d u r i n g a day a t each l o c a t i o n .
F i e l d E f f i c i e n c y
The f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y d a t a was o b t a i n e d by t a k i n g e l a b o r a t e t i m e
measurements of a l l p l a n t i n g o p e r a t i o n s performed d u r i n g a f u l l day o r
p a r t of a d a y , f o r a l l t h e p l a n t e r s when p l a n t i n g b o t h b a r e - r o o t and plug
p l a n t s . The i n f o r m a t i o n recorded was: t h e a c t u a l p l a n t i n g t i m e , t h e
s o r t i n g t i m e , t h e p l a n t l o a d i n g and w a t e r f i l l i n g t i m e , t h e machine t u r n
around t i m e , and o t h e r m i s c e l l a n e o u s e v e n t s s u c h a s a d j u s t m e n t s ,
c l e a n i n g , r e s t p e r i o d s , e t c .
P l a n t S p a c i n g
The a c c u r a c y of p l a n t i n g was t e s t e d by measur ing t h e a c t u a l spac ing
between 20 c o n s e c u t i v e p l a n t s i n t h e f i e l d . The t e s t s were r e p e a t e d a t
l e a s t t e n t i m e s f o r each model of p l a n t e r under t e s t when p l a n t i n g b o t h
b a r e - r o o t and t r a y p l a n t s . For t h i s t e s t , obv ious m i s s e s were ignored a s
m i s s e s a r e u s u a l l y caused by o p e r a t o r e r r o r .
Labour Requirements
Labour requ i rements were de te rmined by s imply c o u n t i n g t h e number of
workers r e q u i r e d f o r each t y p e of o p e r a t i o n . Grower i n t e r v i e w s i n d i c a t e d
whether t h e r e were o t h e r a d d i t i o n a l unseen workers used f o r such work a s
s o r t i n g p l a n t s .
Tray and P l a n t Handling Methods
The methods of handl ing bo th t r a y p l a n t s and bare - roo t p l a n t s were
no ted on t h e v a r i o u s farms v i s i t e d . Th i s t ime s t u d y was used f o r bo th
f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y r a t e s above and f o r commenting on t r a y hand l i ng , a s it
war ran ted s p e c i f i c s t udy .
Actual plant in^ and Su rv iva l Rate
F i e l d coun t s of t h e number of p l a n t s s t a n d i n g i n t h e f i e l d a t
p l a n t i n g t ime and of t hose t h a t had surv ived t h r e e weeks a f t e r p l a n t i n g ,
were performed f o r bo th t r a y p l a n t s and ba r e - roo t p l a n t s . The number of
I w p l a n t s i n f o u r marked 30 m beds on each farm were recorded soon a f t e r
p l a n t i n g and t h r e e weeks a f t e r .
S o r t i n g Bare-root P l a n t s
S o r t i n g of bare - roo t p l a n t s r e p r e s e n t s a hidden c o s t i n terms of
l o s t t ime and p roduc t . The o b j e c t was t o de te rmine t h e r a t e of p l a n t
r e j e c t i o n a s e s t ima t ed by growers and by count ing and t o determine t h e
s o r t i n g t ime th rough t ime s tudy .
Need f o r Water
While expe r i ence ha s shown, tha t t h e r e is a need t o p rov ide a smal l
amount of wa t e r w i t h each bare - roo t t r a n s p l a n t a t p l a n t i n g t i m e , t h e need
is no t known f o r t r a y p l a n t s . T e s t s were s e t -up f o r t o compare p l a n t s
w watered and no t watered by p l a n t i n g w i th and w i thou t wate r i n side-by-
s i d e rows.
Premature F r u i t Removal
On some v a r i e t i e s o r shipments of ba re - roo t p l a n t s , s m a l l premature
f r u i t a r e produced i n t h e f i e l d t o o e a r l y a f t e r p l a n t i n g which h a s t h e
p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t of matur ing t h e p l a n t b e f o r e optimum y i e l d .
T h e r e f o r e , growers c a r r y o u t a s p e c i a l p i c k i n g o p e r a t i o n i n t h e f i e l d t o
remove t h e s e premature f r u i t . A s t h i s is an a d d i t i o n a l c o s t f o r
b a r e - r o o t p r o d u c t i o n , a n e s t i m a t e of t h e t ime r e q u i r e d f o r premature
f r u i t removal was de te rmined by i n t e r v i e w i n g growers .
Tray P l a n t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a y p l a n t s were determined a s
d e s c r i b e d below:
Viab le p l a n t s p e r t r a y : The number of v i a b l e p l a n t s p e r t r a y were
counted and t h e p e r c e n t a g e c a l c u l a t e d .
P l a n t removal f o r c e : The p l a n t s were p u l l e d from t h e t r a y s u s i n g a
s p e c i a l c a l i p e r and a t e n s i o n s c a l e . The we igh t of t h e p l a n t and
p lug was t h e n deducted t o o b t a i n t h e a c t u a l f o r c e r e q u i r e d t o remove
t h e p l a n t .
Weight of t h e p l a n t s and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e weight between
f o l i a g e and r o o t - b a l l : T h i s was done by weighing t h e whole p l a n t
and t h e n c u t t i n g o f f t h e r o o t - b a l l and weighing t h e component p a r t s .
C e n t r e of g r a v i t y on t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l a x i s : The c e n t r e of g r a v i t y
of t h e p l a n t was determined by b a l a n c i n g p l a n t s on a rod and
measur ing t h e ba lance p o i n t from t h e t o p of t h e r o o t b a l l .
Mean p l a n t h e i g h t : T h i s was determined by measur ing t h e h e i g h t of
random p l a n t s i n each t r a y examined.
- 8 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
P lan t in^ Rates
T ransp lan te r ground speed i n t h e f i e l d is determined by t h e a b i l i t y
of t h e p l a n t i n g crew t o p lace t h e p l a n t s i n t h e mechanism without
missing p l a n t placements. Optimum p lan t ing r a t e and t h e r e f o r e , ground
speed was achieved by d i r e c t communication between t h e o p e r a t o r s on the
p l a n t e r and t h e t r a c t o r d r i v e r . This speed v a r i e d among p l a n t i n g crews,
f o r t r a n s p l a n t e r s and f o r t h e p l a n t s being p lan ted .
Many f a c t o r s can a f f e c t t h e p l an t ing process . On a g r i p p e r s t y l e
p l a n t e r , t h e l e n g t h of t h e p l a n t s and t h e stem s i z e a r e major f a c t o r s .
I f t h e p l a n t s a r e t o o s h o r t , they cannot be placed proper ly , o r when t h e
stems a r e t h i n , t h e p l a n t s do not hold we l l i n t h e g r i p p e r s , r equ i r ing
the ope ra to r t o hold them longer t o al low t h e p l an t g r i p p e r t o g r a s p them
secu re ly . P l a n t l eng ths between 15 and 20 cm ( inc lud ing t h e roo t b a l l )
a r e p r e f e r r e d . I n t h e case of a cup s t y l e p l a n t e r , when t h e p l a n t s a r e
t o o long, t h e l eaves tend t o en t ang le o r c l i n g t o t h e s i d e s of t h e cups
de lay ing t h e t i m e requi red f o r t h e p l a n t s t o f a l l i n t o t h e shoe. P l a n t s
s h o r t e r than 15 cm a r e b e t t e r f o r t h e cup s t y l e . Other speed reducing
f a c t o r s a r e t h e t ime needed t o grab another handful of p l a n t s o r t o
change p l a n t t r a y s .
There was a ne t improvement i n t h e p l an t ing r a t e f o r cup-style
p l a n t e r s such a s t h e M 4000 (Table I ) , even though t h e r e was only one
worker pe r row. The f a c t is t h a t t h e workers need only t o drop t h e
p l a n t s i n t o t h e cups without any p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n , except f o r
ensuring t h a t t h e cups were always r e f i l l e d i n t ime and func t ion
proper ly .
Note t h a t t h e p l a n t i n g r a t e a s measured by t h e number of p l a n t s pe r G minute, is t h e on ly d i r e c t comparison between t h e d i f f e r e n t p l a n t e r s
s i n c e d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of tomatoes r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t spac ings , t hus
a f f e c t i n g t h e ground speed and a r e a covered.
One i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t is t h e p l a n t i n g r a t e achieved by t h e M 1000
when p l a n t i n g p lugs w i t h only one worker p e r row i n s t e a d of two
(Table 1 ) . The speed averaged 55% of t h e p l a n t i n g speed f o r t h e same
p l a n t e r u s ing two workers p e r row.
F i e l d E f f i c i e n c y
The f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y d a t a , a s measured d i r e c t l y i n t h e f i e l d , is
r ep re sen t ed i n Tab le 2 a s a percen tage f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t even t s . To
b e t t e r demons t ra te f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y i n more d i r e c t comparison by
a l l o t t i n g t i m e s f o r each o p e r a t i o n p e r 1000 p l a n t s , t h e d a t a i n Table 3
was de r i ved by u s i n g t h e p l a n t i n g r a t e de r i ved from Table 1 and t hen
applying t h e percen tage of t ime used f o r o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s a s i n d i c a t e d i n
Table 2. The a d j u s t e d d a t a (Table 3 ) p rov ide s d i r e c t comparison of
t r a n s p l a n t i n g methods r e g a r d l e s s of p l a n t spac ing and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s .
From Table 3 , we can s e e t h a t t h e use of cup s t y l e t r a n s p l a n t e r s
( M 4000) p rov ide a more e f f i c i e n t ope ra t i on t h a n convent iona l p l a n t e r s
because of reduced l abou r and an i nc r ea sed p l a n t i n g r a t e . Fur thermore,
when p l a n t i n g t r a y p l a n t s , t h e q s e of t r a y r acks f u r t h e r i nc r ea sed
e f f i c i e n c y by reducing p l a n t load ing t ime .
Data shown i n Table 2 does no t i nc lude a s e p a r a t e r a t e f o r t h e
use of t h e M 1000 w i t h bare - roo t p l a n t s because of incomplete d a t a
on s o r t i n g r a t e s . The M 1000 does , however, show a p o s s i b i l i t y of
i nc r ea sed e f f i c i e n c y because t h e average p l a n t i n g speed ( t a b l e 1 ) is
i nc r ea sed by 6% f o r bare - roo t and by 24% f o r block t r a n s p l a n t s over
e a r l i e r models.
Accuracy of t h e P l a n t i n g Mechanisms
To ana lyze t h e accuracy of p l a n t i n g between t h e d i f f e r e n t
p l a n t e r s t h e s t anda rd d e v i a t i o n of t h e d a t a f o r each was c a l c u l a t e d
and d i s t r i b u t i o n cu rves drawn.
The i n fo rma t ion f o r e ach p l a n t e r is t a b u l a t e d (Table 4). The
average s p a c i n g s i n t h e f i e l d were found t o be ve ry c l o s e t o t h e
t h e o r e t i c a l spac ing ( s e e F i g s . 1 t o 7 ) . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e
s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of each machine range from 2.19 t o 4.46 cm o r
<11% maximum of t h e t h e o r e t i c a l spac ing . I n agronomic te rms t h i s
v a r i a t i o n is u n l i k e l y t o be of any importance.
Tray Handl inq
When handl ing t r a y s , a somewhat d i f f e r e n t system needs t o be
developed t o move t h e p l a n t s from t h e greenhouse t o t h e f i e l d , t o
keep them wate red , t o load them qu i ck ly o n t o t h e p l a n t e r and t o
r e d i s t r i b u t e them e f f i c i e n t l y t o each worker when needed.
- 11 -
Keeping i n mind t h a t t h e p l a n t s a r e u s u a l l y grown i n t h e greenhouse
on r a c k s measur ing about 1.10 m x 2.20 m, each h o l d i n g 16 t r a y s , t h e b e s t
sys tem a v o i d s e x c e s s i v e hand l ing by u s i n g t h e r a c k s a s c a r r i e r s f o r t h e
t r a y s from t h e greenhouse t o a s p e c i a l wagon and o n t o t h e p l a n t e r .
A number of growers a r e a l r e a d y u s i n g a covered t r a i l e r o r t r u c k f o r
c a r r y i n g p l a n t s t o t h e f i e l d . These t r a i l e r s s u p p o r t f o u r t o s i x t i e r s
of r a c k s 6 t o 7 h i g h and have a f i t t e d t a r p u l i n t o keep t h e p l a n t s from
d r y i n g o u t . To keep t h e p l a n t s m o i s t , a ga rden hose equipped w i t h a
n o z z l e and connec ted t o t h e n u r s e t a n k w a t e r pump is used t o w a t e r t h e
p l a n t s o c c a s i o n a l l y .
P l a n t l o a d i n g t ime can be reduced and e f f i c i e n c y i n c r e a s e d by having
r a c k s u p p o r t s added on t h e p l a n t e r t o h o l d i n g a t o t a l of 6 t o 8 f u l l
r a c k s , e n a b l i n g t h e p l a n t e r t o make a f u l l round w i t h o u t r e l o a d i n g a t t h e
o p p o s i t e end of t h e f i e l d . Time s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t ime f o r two
workers t o remove a r a c k from a t r a i l e r , t o walk t o t h e p l a n t e r , t o p l a c e
t h e r a c k on a h o l d e r and t o walk back t o t h e t r a i l e r t o be n e a r
45 seconds o r 6 min. t o load e i g h t r a c k s c o n t a i n i n g 36,000 p l a n t s o r
approx imate ly 2 .8 s e c / t r a y .
When h a n d l i n g i n d i v i d u a l t r a y s , t h e t ime f o r a worker t o load 62
i n d i v i d u a l t r a y s o n t o a p l a n t e r i n c l u d i n g t h e t ime t o walk between t h e
p l a n t t r a i l e r and t h e p l a n t e r u n i t , was measured a s being an average of
16.6 seconds p e r t r a y o v e r 62 t r a y s c a r r i e d , even though t h e t r a y s were
c a r r i e d 2 o r 3 a t a t i m e .
- 1 2 -
The main advan tage of t h e r a c k sys tem is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o load
a lmos t 6 t i m e s f a s t e r a s w e l l a s e a s i e r h a n d l i n g f rom greenhouse t o
f i e l d . Racks a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e p l a n t c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y of t h e
t r a n s p l a n t e r a l l o w i n g f u l l rounds i n l a r g e f i e l d s w i t h o u t l o a d i n g .
An i d e a l p l a n t e r would be equipped w i t h a c a t w a l k c i r c l i n g t h e
machine t o p e r m i t t o a worker t o c i r c u l a t e e a s i l y between each u n i t t o
d i s t r i b u t e p l a n t t r a y s and t o remove s p e n t ones w h i l e t h e machine is
moving. The c a t w a l k would make t h e j o b s a f e r f o r t h e worker wa lk ing
around t h e p l a n t e r , who is o f t e n c a r r y i n g s e v e r a l t r a y s a t a t ime .
P r e s e n t l y , worker s a f e t y is a t r i s k when d i s t r i b u t i n g t r a y s on models
w i t h o u t c a t w a l k s .
A c t u a l plant in^ and S u r v i v a l Ra te
P l a n t s u r v i v a l c o u n t s from averaged r e s u l t s show t h e most
o u t s t a n d i n g r e s u l t s t h r e e weeks a f t e r p l a n t i n g . On a v e r a g e , b a r e - r o o t
p l a n t s l o s t 13.7% of t h e i n i t i a l p l a n t p o p u l a t i o n compared t o 4 .6% f o r
p l u g p l a n t s ( T a b l e 5 ) .
sort in^ Bare-Root P l a n t s
P r i o r t o p l a n t i n g , o r when l o a d i n g t h e p l a n t s o n t o t h e p l a n t e r ,
b a r e - r o o t p l a n t s r e q u i r e s o r t i n g . U s u a l l y , d u r i n g t r a n s p l a n t i n g , a
worker h a s v e r y l i t t l e t i m e , w h i l e p l a n t i n g , t o make s u c h a d e c i s i o n a s
i f t o r e j e c t a p l a n t o r n o t . The s o r t i n g o p e r a t i o n s a r e t h e r e f o r e
performed s e p a r a t e l y , e i t h e r b e f o r e d e l i v e r i n g t o t h e f i e l d o r more
commonly j u s t p r i o r o r d u r i n g l o a d i n g o n t o t h e t r a n s p l a n t e r .
- 13 -
D i f f e r e n t r e a s o n s j u s t i f y t h e need f o r s o r t i n g . Some of them a r e
t h e p resence of d r i e d p l a n t s , r o t t e d p l a n t s , smal l p l a n t s , broken s t ems ,
weeds, f o r e i g n p l a n t s such a s peanut p l a n t s , e t c .
The number of p l a n t s r e j e c t e d is , however, d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y due
t o i t s v a r i a b i l i t y . I t was measured i n t h e f i e l d t o v a r y from l e s s t h a n
5% t o o v e r 20%. When a p l a n t shipment is v e r y good, t h e number of p l a n t s
s o r t e d o u t is l e s s t h a n 5%. When t h e shipment i s a c c e p t a b l e , t h i s number
o s c i l l a t e s between 10 and 15%. I n t h e c a s e of a bad shipment , o r when t h e
p l a n t i n g is d e l a y e d , t h e s o r t o u t cou ld r e a c h more t h a n 20%..
The t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r s o r t i n g t h u s v a r i e s w i t h t h e amount of p l a n t s
r e j e c t e d . S o r t i n g d a t a c o l l e c t e d by a c o o p e r a t i v e grower i n d i c a t e d a
s o r t i n g speed of 1892 p l a n t s / h / w o r k e r when heavy s o r t i n g is needed.
Other d a t a t a k e n i n d i c a t e d a s o r t i n g speed of 5200 p l a n t s / h / w o r k e r when
r e j e c t i n g around 5% of t h e p l a n t s a t load ing t i m e .
Tray p l a n t s do n o t r e q u i r e s o r t i n g and i f t h e p l a n t i n g i s d e l a y e d ,
t h e y w i l l h o l d f o r c o n s i d e r a b l y l o n g e r w a i t i n g p e r i o d s w i t h o u t damage
p rov ided t h e y a r e wa te red .
Need f o r w a t e r
The purpose of t h i s t e s t was t o de te rmine i f t h e u s e of w a t e r o r
w a t e r f e r t i l i z e r m i x t u r e s a r e a c t u a l l y needed f o r t r a y p l a n t s . Watering
d e v i c e s would add c o n s i d e r a b l e expense t o any f u t u r e d e s i g n of au tomat ic
o r semi-automat ic p l a n t e r . I t has a l s o been observed t h a t imported and
e x i s t i n g models of au tomat ic p l a n t e r s do n o t have w a t e r f a c i l i t i e s .
The need f o r wa t e r when t r a n s p l a n t i n g bare - roo t p l a n t s is c r i t i c a l
f o r t h e s u r v i v a l of t h e p l a n t s . However, p lug p l a n t s have been observed
t o s u r v i v e t r a n s p l a n t i n g w i thou t a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r , provided t h e t r a y s a r e
we l l soaked b e f o r e t r a n s p l a n t i n g .
The major r o l e of wa t e r is t o a c t a s an i n su rance f o r t r a n s p l a n t i n g
s u c c e s s , bu t a l s o t h e wate r used a t t r a n s p l a n t a t i n g c o n t a i n s f e r t i l i z e r ,
t h a t h e l p s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p l a n t s f a s t e r . Thus, enough wa t e r is almost
v i t a l when t r a n s p l a n t i n g , a s i r r i g a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s a r e no t commonly used
i n t h i s a r e a . The amount of wa t e r used a t t r a n s p l a n t i n g h a s been
recorded t o be around 0 .1 L /p l an t .
Actual t e s t s were no t c a r r i e d ou t a s i n t e r v i e w s w i th growers
i n d i c a t e d t h e y would no t c o n s i d e r p l a n t i n g t r a y p l a n t s w i thou t wa t e r and
l i q u i d f e r t i l i z e r . The complexi ty of t e s t s needed were de te rmined ,
t h e r e f o r e , t o be beyond t h e scope of t h i s s t udy .
The f i l l i n g of t h e wa t e r t a n k s on t h e p l a n t e r i s an o p e r a t i o n
u s u a l l y performed wh i l e load ing p l a n t s on t h e t r a n s p l a n t e r and was n o t
observed t o t a k e l o n g e r t han t h e p l a n t l oad ing t ime . There is , however,
a n added c o s t a s t h e nurse t a n k must be f i l l e d and t aken t o t h e f i e l d .
Premature F r u i t Removal
On some v a r i e t i e s of bare - roo t p l a n t s , sma l l premature f r u i t s
appear ing soon a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g need t o be removed i n o r d e r t o p r even t
r e t a r d e d growth. T h i s problem is no t s i g n i f i c a n t among t r a y p l a n t s .
- 15 -
A f t e r i n t e rv i ewing t h e growers, t h e work involved f o r removing t h e
smal l tomatoes was s t a t e d t o be around 0.5 acre/hour/worker on a
8 hours/day b a s i s .
Tray P l a n t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
Popula t ion : The a c t u a l number of p l a n t s growing i n t h e t r a y s were
recorded a t many d i f f e r e n t growers. Most t r a y s averaged a very h igh
popula t ion (88-96 p e r c e n t ) , bu t some o t h e r s c l e a r l y showed a poor
performance (68-76 p e r c e n t ) ( F i g s . 8 & 9 ) . From a t o t a l of 142 t r a y s
counted, a mean of 85 pe r cen t p l a n t popula t ion was determined.
Plug Removal Force: The f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e removal f o r c e s a r e :
t h e amount of wate r con ta ined i n t h e media-block, t h e presence of r o o t s
coming o u t t h e bottom of t h e c e l l , t h e shape of t h e c e l l and t h e na tu r e
of t h e w a l l of t h e c e l l . The w e t t e r t h e p lug , t h e e a s i e r it was t o
remove i t .
The m a j o r i t y of t h e t r a y s now i n use a r e Blackmore 288 and 200
square t r ay - t ype . There was a noted i n c r e a s e i n removal f o r c e w i t h t h e
288 round p lugs (Table 6 ) .
Cons iderab le v a r i a t i o n was noted i n removal f o r c e s w i t h some
measurements recorded t o be t h e double of t h e average and o t h e r s h a l f
t h i s va lue . The averages do r e p r e s e n t , however, t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e d a t a
t aken .
P l a n t s i z e : Average p l a n t s i z e s and weight v a r i e d depending on plug
s i z e (Table 6 ) . These averaged measurements were t aken a t t ime of
p l a n t i n g t o ach ieve an average f o r t hose used.
A s measured ve ry e m p i r i c a l l y , t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y of t h e p l a n t s is
s i t u a t e d approximately a t 1 cm above t h e media-block.
OBSERVATIONS
1. Labour requirement
S ince most p l a n t e r s have s ix-rows, l abou r requirement f o r a
convent iona l p l a n t e r is 1 2 people p l u s a t r a c t o r d r i v e r . The new
p l a n t e r s (Mechanical 4000 o r L%nnen) r e q u i r e on ly one p e r p e r row, t h u s
reducing t h e number of workers on t h e p l a n t e r t o 6 p l u s t h e d r i v e r and
one e x t r a worker walking a long w i t h t h e p l a n t e r t o keep t r a y r acks f i l l e d
and t o r e p l a n t missed p l a n t s .
I n t h e c a s e of t h e M 4000, one t r a c t o r d r i v e r , s i x p l a n t i n g workers
and two e x t r a workers walking behind t h e p l a n t e r were used . I t was
observed t h a t because of t h e speed t h e u n i t was t r a v e l l i n g , o n l y one
worker walking behind t h e p l a n t e r t o change t r a y s and r e p l a n t i n g missed
p l a n t s was no t enough.
S ince most growers f i n d t h a t h i r i n g and s u p e r v i s i n g workers is a
d i f f i c u l t t a s k t h a t r e q u i r e s a f a i r amount of t ime and e f f o r t , t h e n
t h e o p t i o n t o u se 5 t o 6 workers l e s s when u s ing a t r a y - p l a n t
t r a n s p l a n t e r cou ld be s een a s a r e l i e f .
- 17 -
2 . M o d i f i c a t i o n s on E x i s t i n g P l a n t e r s f o r Plug P l a n t s
Convent ional p l a n t e r s u s i n g g r i p p e r s on a c h a i n can be used t o p l a n t
p l u g s , provided a d d i t i o n s a r e made. The s o - c a l l e d g r i p p e r e x t e n s i o n s on
each g r i p p e r h e l p t o hold t h e media b lock of t h e p l a n t i n t h e r i g h t
p o s i t i o n , s e t s t h e p l a n t s deeper and reduces t h e ho ld ing t ime when
manually p l a c i n g t h e p l a n t s i n t o each g r i p p e r .
3 . High Speed Plug P l a n t i n g Problems
When working a t h i g h p l a n t i n g r a t e s ( n e a r o r o v e r 70 p l a n t s / m i n ) ,
some workers exper ienced d i f f i c u l t i e s i n changing a s p e n t t r a y f a s t
enough w i t h o u t m i s s i n g any p l a n t s .
T h i s problem can be avoided by e n s u r i n g t h a t a n o t h e r f u l l t r a y is
always v e r y c l o s e a t hand.
When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e t h e o r i t i c a l c a s e of p l a n t i n g a t a v e r y h igh
p l a n t i n g r a t e (more t h a n 90 ~ l a n t s / m i n ) , some means of he lp ing t h e p l a n t s
t o move f a s t e r down i n t o t h e shoe w i l l be needed (compressed a i r ,
e t c . ) . The r e a s o n is t h a t t h e p l a n t s l e a v e s t e n d t o c l i n g t o t h e s i d e s
of t h e cups , t h u s i n c r e a s i n g t h e t ime f o r t h e p l a n t t o d r o p and caus ing
t h e p l a n t s t o remain i n t h e cups o r t o f a l l t o t h e ground s u r f a c e because
of t h e mechanism be ing o u t of t i m i n g . T h i s problem was n o t i c e d on t h e
M 4000 when p l a n t i n g a t speeds h i g h e r t h a n 75 p lan t s /min .
With t h e cup s t y l e p l a n t e r s , t h e u s e of younger and s h o r t e r p l a n t s
shou ld be c o n s i d e r e d s e r i o u s l y , s i n c e t h e s e mechanisms w i l l work b e t t e r
when t h e l e a v e s do n o t s t i c k t o t h e s i d e s of t h e cups . The cups , a s w e l l
a s t h e s h o e s , a r e w e l l s u i t e d f o r a c c e p t i n g s m a l l p l a n t s ( n e a r 10 cm).
These younger p l a n t s would a l s o be l e s s expensive t o produce p e r 1000
p l a n t s .
4 . One n o t e about t h e t r a y h o l d e r s i n f r o n t of e ach worker: t hey
should be des igned t o p reven t t h e t r a y s from break ing i n two and f a l l i n g
on t h e ground when t h e machine is moving o r t u r n i n g . I n o r d e r t o p reven t
t h i s s i t u a t i o n , e i t h e r keep t h e t r a y s h o r i z o n t a l o r pu t them i n v e r t i c a l
h o l d e r s t h a t ho ld t h e t r a y s on bo th s i d e s ove r a l l t h e i r l e n g t h .
5. A c a s e s t u d y of a convent iona l t r a n s p l a n t i n g o p e r a t i o n is shown i n
Appendix 1. The grower was u s ing a three-row t r a n s p l a n t e r and p l a n t e d
18 a c r e s i n double rows and 26 a c r e s i n s i n g l e rows. I n h i s o p e r a t i o n ,
t h e e x t r a c o s t f o r t r a n s p l a n t i n g double rows was $200 p e r a c r e h i g h e r .
S o r t i n g was a l s o c o s t l y i n h i s o p e r a t i o n , amounting t o ove r $1400 f o r t h e
season , o r r ough t l y 10% of t o t a l t r a n s p l a n t i n g c o s t s . P l a n t i n g l abou r
amounted t o j u s t under $2000 o r an average of $41.83 p e r a c r e i f
c a l c u l a t e d a t $5 p e r X .
6. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e New T r a n s p l a n t e r s
The t h r e e new models of t r a n s p l a n t e r s , t h e Regero, t h e Llnnen and
t h e ESRC au toma t i c u n i t , were t e s t e d f o r t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r p l a n t i n g
tomatoes even though n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y des igned f o r t h i s work.
The Regero p l a n t e r d i d no t ,perform w e l l when p l a n t i n g tomatoes ,
mos t ly because t h i s p l a n t e r is des igned f o r p l a n t i n g much s h o r t e r p l a n t s ,
w i t h a b igge r media block. The mechanism is v e r y compact p e r m i t t i n g
placement of two p l a n t e r u n i t s ve ry c l o s e t o g e t h e r . But major
m o d i f i c a t i o n s would be needed t o make t h i s p l a n t e r p r a c t i c a l .
- 19 -
The most promising planter was t h e LBnnen. The planting mechanism
uses simple technology, access ib le t o anyone. The planting u n i t s are o f
s im i lar s i z e as t h e conventional ones, and can be attached on t h e same
type o f t oo lbar now i n use . One i n t e r e s t i n g f ea ture i s i t s ease o f
adjustment. For example, t h e planting depth i s adjusted by simply
turning a knob s i t ua ted underneath t h e s e a t , wi thout loosening any
b o l t s . A lso , t h e r e i s no mechanism below ground l e v e l i n t h e shoe, t h u s
avoiding clogging. The plant spacing i s a l so e a s i l y a l t e r e d .
To keep t h e plants upr ight i n t he furrow, t h e LBnnen uses a s e r i e s
o f spring wires attached t o a V -be l t t h a t t r a v e l s a t ground speed, t o
hold t h e f o l i a g e upr igh t .
The only problem w i t h t h e L%nnen machine, as it was t e s t e d , i s t h a t
it uses a plant ing carrousel w i t h cups o f t o o small diameter. Two
d i f f e r e n t s i z e s o f carrousel cups were t e s t e d . The f i r s t carousel held
10-6 cm diameter cups. The second one had 8-7.5 cm diamter cups. In
both models, t h e plant leaves held t o t he s i d e s o f t h e cups , t h u s
preventing t h e p lants from f a l l i n g down t h e shoe f r e e l y . Only t h e small
plants f e l l through. A cup diameter o f 9 t o 10 cm would probably be
adequate, and make t h i s planter f u l l y operat ional .
The t e s t i n g o f t h e automatic planter was a l imi ted success . The
automatic mechanism t o advance t h e carousel b e l t was e f f e c t i v e i n feeding
plants one a t a t i m e . The mulch t ype t ransplanter on which t h e mechanism
was i n s t a l l e d wasn ' t succes s fu l i n placing t h e plants properly i n t h e
ground.
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF PLANTERS
Economic d a t a f o r v a r i a b l e c o s t s of t r a n s p l a n t i n g (Tab le 7 ) was
c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e g rowers , t r a c t o r d r i v e r s , and t h e p l a n t i n g
workers .
Data: Cos t of P l a n t e r s - M 1000: $15000 f o r 6 row u n i t - M 4000: $24000 ' " ' "
Cos t of P l a n t s - Bare-root : $19.75/1000 - Plugs : $22.10/1000
S a l a r y : $5.00/h f o r a l l p l a n t e r s e x c e p t $6.00/h on M 4000 $6.00/h f o r t r a c t o r d r i v e r $5.00/h f o r s u p p o r t peop le $4.50/h f o r premature f r u i t removal
P l a n t s p e r h e c t a r e : 29410 p l a n t s / h a
f o r : 1 .70 m wide beds 40 cm between p l a n t s
2 rows p e r bed
o r : 27060 p l a n t s / h a @ 92% p o p u l a t i o n
Employee c o s t p e r ha ( f o r a
(29410 p l a n t s x M x 1 h o u r ) ha 6 6 0 m i n
6-row machine):
x ((6W x DW) + (T x DT) + ( S x DS))
Where: M 6 t o t a l t ime i n min t o p l a n t 1000 p l a n t s / r o w ( s e e
Tab le 4 )
W - p l a n t e r workers / row
( 2 f o r a l l p l a n t e r s e x c e p t 1 f o r M 4000)
T - t r a c t o r d r i v e r
S = s u p p o r t peop le (walking behind p l a n t e r , e t c . . . )
( 1 f o r a l l p l a n t e r s e x c e p t 2 f o r M 4000)
DW = p l a n t e r s a l a r y i n $ / (worker x hour )
DT = t r a c t o r d r i v e r I1 II
DS = s u p p o r t people " "
P l a n t c o s t p e r ha :
(27060 p l a n t s x P ) ha G
Where: P - p l a n t cos t /1000 ($1
G - number of good p l a n t s (85%)
(27060 p l / h a assuming 92% pop. ; See F i e l d Counts s e c t . )
* Premature f r u i t s removal c o s t p e r ha :
$4.50 / ( 0 . 5 ac re /2 .47 a c r e s ) h ha
The r e s u l t s from Table 7 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l a b o u r c o s t i n o p e r a t i n g
p l a n t e r s s u c h a s t h e Mechanical 4000 a r e much reduced a s compared t o
c o n v e n t i o n a l p l a n t e r s . Highes t l a b o u r c o s t s a r e no ted f o r u s i n g a
c o n v e n t i o n a l p l a n t e r w i t h t r a y - p l a n t s . Use of r a c k s reduces p l a n t i n g
l a b o u r c o s t by $4.00 t o $6.00 p e r h e c t a r e .
The lower c o s t of ba re - roo t t r a n s p l a n t s i s p a r t l y o f f s e t by t h e c o s t
of premature f r u i t removal.
- 2 2 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The c o - o p e r a t i o n of Jeanane K e t t l e i n c o l l e c t i o n of d a t a and t h e
f o l l o w i n g g rowers f o r t ime s t u d y is acknowledged.
P e t e r Rucouski
David Krueger
Wayne Brooksbank
Ron Ford
Gerard Lanoue
Ron K e t t l e
Lloyd Arnold
Ken J a n o u i c e k
Mark Delanghe
Ron J a n t z e n
Tim Sherk
Joseph De L e l l i s
Mike K e l l e r
Wayne P a l i c h u k
Wal te r Brown
Rober t Mai l loux
Hank Vander Po l
Rober t Chauvin
J e r r y Hlavac
- 23 -
Table 1. Average p l a n t i n g r a t e of t r a n s p l a n t e r s
Opera to r P l a n t s p e r row p e r min.
Mechanical o r Hol land Convent ional : p l a n t i n g : b a r e - r o o t 2
. t r a y p l a n t s 2
M l O O O p l a n t i n g b a r e - r o o t p l a n t s 2 p l a n t i n g : t r a y p l a n t s 2
M 1000 p l a n t i n g t r a y p l a n t s 1
M 4000 p l a n t i n g t r a y p l a n t s 1
* The average p l a n t i n g r a t e is c a l c u l a t e d from t h e number of p o c k e t s o r c u p s opening p e r minu te , i g n o r i n g missed p l a n t s w h i l e o p e r a t i n g a t s u s t a i n e d f i e l d speeds
Tab le 2. F i e l d e f f i c i e n c y of t r a n s p l a n t e r s
Loading Adjustment P l a n t i n g S o r t i n g Turning plug-ups
(XI (X ) (XI (X)
Convent ional - w i t h b a r e - r o o t p l a n t s 61.1 34.2 3 .5 1 . 2
( i n c l u d e s M 1000) - w i t h plug p l a n t s 68.5 25.0 5 .3 1 .2
M 1000 w i t h p l u g s no racks* 68.0 29.3 2.6 0 .0 M 1000 w i t h p l u g s w i t h racks* 71.4 20.4 7.6 0.6
M 4000 w i t h p l u g s no racks* 69.9 26.7 3 .4 0 .0 M 4000 w i t h p l u g s w i t h racks* 73.5 19 .1 4 . 9 2 . 5
* " r a c k s " r e f e r s t o p l a n t r a c k s h o l d i n g 16 t r a y s e a c h , c a r r i e d on each s i d e of t h e p l a n t e r
iw Table 3 . Time a l l o t e d f o r e ach o p e r a t i o n t o p l a n t 1000 p l a n t s ( 1 t y p i c a l row)
i n minu tes u s ing s u s t a i n e d f i e l d r a t e s
Conventional w i t h bare - roo t p l a n t s 16.41 9.19 0.94 0.32 26.86 Conventional w i t h t r a y p l a n t s 19.36 7 .07 1 .5 0.34 28.27
M 1000 w i t h bare - roo t p l a n t s 1 15.46 7.88 0.94 0.34 24.62 M 1000 w i t h t r a y p l a n t s ; no r a c k s 15.67 6 .68 0 .6 0 22.95
M 1000 w i t h t r a y p l a n t s ; w i t h r a cks 15.67 4 .48 1.67 0.13 21.95 M 4000; t r a y p l a n t s ; no r a c k s 14.33 5.47 0.7 0 20.5 M 4000; t r a y p l a n t s ; w i t h r a c k s 14.33 3.72 0 .96 0 .49 19.5
u s ing Table 1 *2 c a l c u l a t e d from f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y d a t a .
Table 4 . Average p l a n t spac ings
Machine F i e l d S tandard s e t t i n g average d e v i a t i o n
(cm> ( cm> (cm>
Mechanical o r Holland p l a n t e r w i t h bare - roo t p l a n t s 30.0 30.77 3.52 w i th bare - roo t p l a n t s 40.0 41 .07 4.46 w i t h t r a y p l a n t s 40.0 38.30 2.75
M 1000 w i t h bare - roo t p l a n t s 40.0 39.98 2.87 w i t h t r a y p l a n t s 30.0 31.02 2.19 w i th t r a y p l a n t s 40.0 43.42 3.26
M 4000 w i t h t r a y p l a n t s 35.0 35.56 4 .00
Table 5. Plant population: Average of all counts taken on same plots immediately after planting and again 3 weeks later
Bare-root plants Tray plants Population (%) Population (%)
Theoretical 5226 100 At planting 4766 91.2 3 weeks after 41 15 78.7
Lost plants 651 13.7 (planting to 3 weeks)
Table 6. Plant characteristics: Tomato plants grown in Blackmore trays
Avg . Avg . Avg . Avg . Avg . No. of stem removal root stem net
Tray plugs height force weight weight force type tested (mm) (I31 (f3 (g) (g)
288s : square cells 288r : round cells
M 1000 with tray plants; no racks 133 7 , K ' ! $ , ~ M 1000 with tray plants; with racks 127 7 04
M 4000 with tray plants; no racks 8 7 704 791 M 4000 with tray plants; with racks & ? , l h t d ~ ? t ~ i ? P 4 , ~ h ~ @ barn r787 i q
Fig. 1 Plant ape- distribution
mb\(-i EEI a;:sr;-I cn ; ~ J ~ ! i , j < j :jr:f rl.?Pw SC~;! !< c d
&3T T S 1 c:;:.z.l r : ~ i y ; z$.?i:,::; :.5-:;1 !:?;:d: 223:
sodm (em)
Fig. 3 Plant s p d ~ distribution
F l a n t s r : f l e c h a ~ i c s ! , Ho!laad P l a n t s : bare r o o t s Hachine s e t t i n g : 3Ocn No. of spacings measured : 550 No. of rows : 18 No. of f i e l d s : 2
1
P l a n t e r : t l echa? icc l , H ~ ! l i n d
P l a n t s : Plugs Rachine s e t t i n g : 40cm No. of s?a:inqs cedsured : 236 No. of rcns : 15 No. of f i e l d s : ?
Fig. 5 Plent speciq distribution
F ig . 6 Plent specing distribution
Percent gmd plants
TOTAL COSTS: -
*= ,p '3 2 ,> M 1OOO w i t h bare-root plants 2 1381 73.3 398 21.Y. 70 3.7 F35 1.9 L1884 100 M 1000 w i t h plugs no tad& 2 232 68.1 100 29.3 9 2.6 ":'.o 0.0 341 100 M 1OOO w i t h plugs w i t h racksk 2 461 71.4 132 tl,.& <.I! 49 7.6 ?4 0.6 . 646 100
1 c. (.!,-. c-.c< t
M4000withplugs no rackrPk 1 123 69.9 47 26.FC16 3.4 l.O 0.0 ;:,I76 1W
M 4000 w i t h plugs w i t h rack# 1 625 73.5 162 19.1 42 4.9 ,21 2.5 t . a , 850 100
Average speed
Conventional w i t h p l u g p l a n t s !
T i m e F'1 a n t s D is tance ( f t )
- - - --.- -- -- - - .
' .j,
MlO(:)0 w i t h p l u g s ( h a l f crew ,
'1- i m e P l a n t s
Appendix 5:-2
39 , .:, 1 , 7: .... I L- ... I , ..-% , , .i A'." ' >. -, 7 , .i. !.. ' -.:'= ? , .,., 8 ., -!
, : .<F , 2; 7 . . . .J 6 , , I? ,&. LJ. 1 , :;,,%*( -2 r - ., ,_,. <._.
... , .. 1
, . ... ' .i:.
-L -?it3 ,,,;,,:.- ...,. . . . . . . ,, , .? -7 37 I .. -.::a H . ' .-:, , t . - : i - y ; .:; l.7 -... ,..I !'>" 36 ;+,;::. ;;:; , , .. , . ,J 3 ,>., #:.:' ., .. ,q, -13 1- r - -- --
. 1.2 . .-* .:> 4. ;>.I :3(5 "t" Tc 7" .+.
',< : ..:. ... J '. . .. [, ? -
-. .. "' 7 44 r , ; . f$j. [') :h dl . ;.:> i .i;. .::. 5' ....I F i . .'$I. ,... . . 1:) .. . -, 1. % . ,
4h + . x- i : . 45 '. ._ . _, ,. - 4 '7 49 : .51. t3 !? 4.8 ' 1: <;I .. !. <I ? : $,. 4, Fi 4. :I. 43 4 0 , .. j , %.! !+(;I ;:-: .r. (;I 1 , :... (11
,:I :-3 4 4. 49 45 ', : 46 ,.:, j; 4.5 i P 13 , >, = ,-!
5 5 ~ ; ~ d!lilij2] F)S
1 '7 19 ,.:! ;;?I;) '::' . _ ( ! 'I. 5 16 I. El ! I'
. .
Fi I 1, c;, -2, ,7 .r;. , - I c:j,.\p I ) 'I ! 1 . ... . a:... ...- , 1 L? I _ I 3, b 1. 7 18 1 <? ,', .' .
.,.:. \. !
Appendi
* >-
Appendix 5 : - 15
Appendix 5 : - 19
_.. 4 -
Appendix 5:-21 -.
6 2 .
Appendix 5 : - 22
--.
Appendix 5:-23 --. , .
.-i - . * - .
Appendix 5:-24
-61-
->
Appendix 6: Planting and survival counts
F i el d cnunt f o r Bare-root p l a n t s
Machine A t setting p l a n t i n g 3 w e e k s f r u i t
-- . Appendix 6 : -2
Field count for Plug plants
Machine At setting planting 3 w e e k s fruit
Bicerel 2653
ti1 avac 2653
Ford 6203
UeLell if; 9464
-.L --
Appendix' 7 : Tray--counts
P e r c e n t s t a n d c o u n t i n e a c h tray
288 t r a y s 92 86 76 81.5 91 (35 82 85 93 87 82 9.3 85 84
89.5 76 85 83 86 79 84 '7 2 88 93
89.5 91 88
88.5 91 9 0 91 89
88.5 91 92 96 92 91 95 93 93 88
-66- -,-
Appendix 8: T r a y ' p l a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
. , . . . .... , . ! ' ' I , ,
,',,;.', '. \
,
1. .I ?
.I . ,
I I
:I :I 'I 1
I
6
/ I
I . . , ... . ,
l :
. .
. ,
.L..
: 3 ..... .- . , ., . ...-,
r-,
3h
Appendix 8 : - 2
, j !.
< ,, z. .! . . .....
. ,
:I I : I L::
t:! . ,
i-, il) !
!-, ,I C:! A > .
....
., ... J. 1 .! i:.,
i> I. . . ,.
i:! . . . .:, -.,.
. .
.... r, i : !
i_i i'
, ..: t::, :!
Appendix 9;-Data sheets
DATA SHDT - TDlAEl TRlWSmANTING PFWEI! 8702 - SlMER 1987
,'V B: REXX)RDED BY: TEST CODE: A SERIAL NO. \
TEST DESCRIPTICN:
WEXmB: X cloud Temp: Max. "C, M i n . "C, Wind: direction Velocity - W h
LKACICN: G r m r Field Soil type
Size (apprax. ) Length: (m) Width: (d Row length: (m)
Make M e 1 Test d e Grnd speed ( W h )
Raws: No. sPach3 Bed width ( i f any)
Make Mcdel Gear Operator
TRANSPLANIS: Supplier Variety Size(or age) Type
Trays: T y p Make Cells: %./tray L W H
NO. OF WRKERS: on planter - Other (describe functions)
(xmml3:
w
No. of
Plants
Row length ( )
Time
Start
'
Stop Event Notes
Appendix 9 : - 2 .- DATA SHEFT - nmPn, TRANSPUINTK PROJEtX 8702 - SWMER 1987
m: - REX30RDED BY: TEST CODE: 6 SExILW.
TEST DE5cxEcIcN:
wE4mER: %cloud Temp: Max. "C, Min. "C, Wind: direction Velocity - lan/h
LEATICN: Grower Field Soil type
Size (apprax.) kng th : (m) Width: (d Row length: (m>
PIlNrER: Make W e 1 Test mode Grnd speed (lan/h)
m: No. spacing Bed width ( i f any)
'llUClm: Make Model Gear Operator
-: Supplier Variety Size(or age) rn Trays: Type Make Cells: No./tray L W H
M. OF tX)RKERS: on planter - Othr (describe functions)
(xmE!ms:
No. of plants no.
I
I I I I I I 1
t I t
Workers
Per raw
Time Row length ( ) Sta r t
( h m n t s - speed near limit? Limiting factor
i 1 I I I i i I I
I '
Stop
i
I I I v l
Appendix 9 : - 3 %
M U ~ S H E E T - l?XUO TRANSPLANTING PROJECT 8702 - SUM4ER 1987
RE)33RDED BY: TEST 03DE: c SERIALNO.
TEST DESCRIPTICN:
WEAIMER: % c l d Temp: Max. 'C, M i n . 'C, Wind: direction Velocity - l d h
IIXATICN: G m r Field Soil type
Size (apprax.) Length: (m) Width: (m) Row length: (m)
PLANTER: Make W e 1 Test d e Gmd speed O d h )
Raws: No. Spacing Bed width ( i f any)
TRA-: Make W e 1 Gear Operator
TRANSPIANICS: Supplier Variety Size(or age)
Trays: Make Cells:No./tray L W H
ND. OF MXKERS: on planter - Other (describe functions)
m: "Start" t k for each event is also the "Stop" t h for the h d i a t e l y previous event. w
- Start
t i n e Event (Each work period &and rest o r down-tirre is an "event" - describe)
Appendix 9: -4 --1
SECONDARY DATA SHEET . - TOMATO TRANSPLANT,ING,,PROJEGT 87021 ;3.rSUMMER 19 87 t _. -_____--- . - - - . ---.-..
I
.-li
DATE : -* * r f i 7-?,RECORDED BY :m ---------- ' TEST:ICODEj=A S E R U U O - . PP
'rES'r-DESCRIPTION: ---- y ? i n J . l i ' i i j f ~ x n i b :buiW ,DO ____ , ~ifiPa ,3" , , ,:* . :-2 . % ,,-: wci3 S, :$iti&&itJ
8 *
COMMENTS': ? . - ' I ):> blss i
, -- I dnu-~a : M317i'EK - -- -.- &- - -- .- -- ----- ___--..-I/---
, . . ---, . 7 - .
k :'<* &.: : :J SudI J L + < A e + W r -,. . . . -- . ." - _ _------ --
Event (Each work per iod and r e s t o r down-time "event'l .S:de,~sfibe) guw&s an i ><. 1.i. : i , !' 'hi* 3-fi --
' NOTE: "S tar t " time f o r each event i s a l s o t h e "Stop" ' t imk"for ' th& 'immediately previous eve r !-
Appendix 9 : -5 1:
DATA SHEET - TCtWIO 'IllANSE'UWTING PROJET 8702 - SUt+lEU 1987 , -
DATE : - FEZOWED BY: TESTCODE: . SERIALNO.
'V TEST DEaUETIrn:
WEATHER: %cloud Tanp: Max. T, Min. "C, Wind: direction Velocity - k d h
LOCATICN: G r m r Field So i 1 type
Size (approx. ) Length: (m) Width: ( 4 Row length: ( 4
PIANER: Make Model Test d e Gmd speed (lan/h)
Raws: NO. spacing Bed width ( i f any)
'IRACIDR: Make W e 1 Gear Operator
TIWEPLANIS: Supplier Variety Size(or age) ?)rpe
Trays: Type Make Cells: No./tray L W H
f33. OF WlKERS: on planter - Other (describe functions)
c€wlmls:
Field sketch with row nos.: See Field Book, page .
Consect ive plant spacing m a s u r m n t s (Units: 1 Manber of:
Len-
g th M i s - h- No. ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ses bles bst Poor
MILTS: Misses - No plant placed a t target locations. - Doubles - More than one plant placed a t target location. Lost - Plant dropped off the machine, without going through the plant p l a c m n t mechani-m. Poor - Plant improperly placed by machine so tha t plant survival is in serious doubt. Row Identification - Lergth - show units of measure ( ).
- Sketch a map of f i e ld t o show l a x t i o n and rcw no. ( i n f ie ld h k , preferrably). 87-05
Appendix 9:-6
DATA SHEET - TI=MP;ID TRANSPMING PRQJEICT 8702 - suM.IER 1987
DATE: - REXX)RDED BY: TESr CODE: F.2 TEST DESCRIPTICN:
w!3lmEB: % c l a d T q : Max. O C , Min. "C, Wind: direction Velocity - k d h
LKATION: Grcwer Field Soil type
Size (approx.) Length: (m) Width: (m) R w length: ( d
P W : Make Model Test d e Grnd speed ( W h )
Raws: No. Spacing Bed width ( i f any)
TRACER: Make Model Gear Operator
TRANSPLANIS: Supplier Variety Size(or age) 'WP
Trays: Type Make Cells: No./tray L W H
NO. OF KNKEW: on planter - Other (describe functions)
CCXVPIENIS:
SAMPLE SI'LE: (No. ) Unit (check one) - row; - b; - f ield; - tray; - Other (specify).
Mrnber of plants
Appendix 9 : - 7
DATA SHEET - 'KMAKl TRANSPLANTING PROJK;T 8702 - SUWR 1987
RECORDED BY: TEsr CODE: F.3 SERIAL K). w D B : I
'rn DESCRIPTIrn:
WEATHER: Z cloud Temp: Max. 'C, Min. "C, Wind: direction Velocity - h d h
LOZATICN: Grower Field Soil type
Size (apprax. ) Lmgth: (m) Width: (m> Row length: (d
PLANITER: Make Mcde 1 Test d e Grnd speed @dh)
Rows: No. Spacing Bed width (if any)
TFACTOR: Make Model Gear Operator
IlWWLWE: Supplier Variety Size(or age) Type
Trays: Type Make Cells: No./tray L W H
NO. OF LDKERS: on planter - Other (describe functions)
cct.MENIs:
Time since planting: days. Previaus t e s t on th is plot? If so, Serial no. Field book, page
Appendix 9 : - 8
.' DATA SfElT - '?XWIQ TWWSPZANTm PRQEZT 8702 - suM.IER 1987
'l'i.Sr D m I P T I a :
1 % cloud Temp: Max. "C , Min. " C , Wind: d i r e c t i o n Velocity - W h
I &~TICN: Grower Fie ld So i l type
Size (approx. ) Length: (m) Width: (m) Row length: (m)
i71,wER: Make Mode 1 Test rrcde Gmd speed ( w h )
Rows: No. Spacing Bed width ( i f any)
'I1iAClDR : Make Model Gear Operator
'JIUrNSPLANE : Suppl ier Variety S ize (o r age) 'b'F
Trays: Type Make C e l l s : N o . / t r a y L W H
NO. OF WDRKERS: on p l a n t e r - Other (describe funct ions)
c o r n s :
No. of p l a n t s
K u n I;( ' .
t I C t
t t I t
Workers
per row
T h Row length
( )
-
I I I
I
I- t
S t a r t Grm-ents - sped near l imi t ?
Limiting f a c t o r
w
1 I i i
-- I I
1 I
-1
Stop
I , , I
6
I
Appendix 9 : -9
*' MTA SW - ?\RMTO l7WET&TING P R m 8702 - S M P R 1987
11.1 X: REXX)RDED BY: mT CODE: G .3 S ~ I A L NO. w - I 1 ! :;I' lX~mTP17W:
1 : % cloud Tmp: Max. 'C, Min. O C , Wind: d i r e c t i o n V c l w i t y - k d ! ~
I IG'rTICN: Grower Fie ld So i l t y p
Size (approx. ) k n g t h : (m) Width: (d R w l e ~ y t l ~ : (I:))
i'!N\ITI4R: Mode 1 Test mode Grnd sprcd (wh)
XOIJS : No. Spacing Bed width (if any)
'nt4CIOR: Make W e 1 Gear Operator
' I ? U h j S M : Suppl ier Variety Size(or age) 'bw
Trays: Type Make Cells: No./tray 1, CI 11
N3. OF GX)RKEfX: on p lan te r - Other (describe functions)
r T l tII*NE:
' l ' i~~r s ince p lant ing : days. Previous test on t h i s p lo t? I f s o , S e r i a l no.
Row
lo. -
-.
--
~-
. .-
Field book, page
Consective p lan t height rreasurerrents (Units: 1
\Jr:,'i'IIIT;R: % c l o d Temp: Max. " C , Wind: d i r ec t ion Velocity - kmfh "C , Min.
I D ~ T I @ J : Grmr Field So i l type
Size (approx.) Iangth: (m) Width: (m) Rcw length: (m)
itI\nm: Make M e 1 Test mode Grnd speed ( W h )
Rovs: No. Spac ing Bed width ( i f any)
11LZC10R: Make M e 1 Gear Operator
'I~LWSPLNL~S : Supplier Variety Size(or age)
Trays: Ty-pe Make Ce l l s :No . / t r ay L W H
NO. OF WORKERS: on p lan te r - Other (describe functions)
m . m :
-
,-: "Star t" time f o r each event is a l s o the "Stop" t i rre f o r the imrediately previous event.
S t a r t t h Event (Each work perid $and rest o r down-tim is an "event" - describe)
Appendix 9: -11
DATA SHEET - 'ICWTO TRANSPLANTW P m 8702 - suL.MER 1987
TESTCODE: 6-6 SERIALNO. DAE : w - FEERDED BY:
TEST DESCRIPTICN:
WEATHER: Z cloud Tgnp: Max. "C, Wind: direction Velocity - km/h "C, Min.
LKATICN: G r m r Field Soil type
Size (approx.) Length: (m) Width: (m) Row length: (4
P m : Make Model Test rrcde Grnd speed (ldh)
Rcufi: NO. spacing Bed width ( i f any)
TRAmR: Make Model Gear Operator
TFWSUMS: Supplier Variety Size(or age) ?Lpe
Trays: Type Make Cells: No./tray L W H
NO. OF WRKERS: on planter - Other (describe functions)
COFMENIS:
Notes
--
-
Plant no.
.-
-.
Plant height
(mn)
Remrxlal force
(g)
mot & mdia
(g)
stern& leaves
-
-80- Appendix 9 : -12
DATA SHEET - T W T O TFWSPLPNTIffi PR(UECT 8702 - SUM? 1987
.--\, '.
D A E : - RFIX,RDED BY: TEST ODE: H SFRIALMI. (+. - -
TEST DESCRIE'TICN:
wM?HER: % cloud Terrp: Max. 'C, Min. "C, Wind: d i rec t ion Velocity - km/ll
LKATICN: Grmr Field Soi l type
Size (approx.) Length: (m) Width: (d Raw length: (m)
F I ~ : ~ a k e M e 1 Test mode Grnd speed (lan/h)
Rows: No. %c% Bcd width ( i f any)
'JIUCTDR: Make We1 Gear Operator
' I ? V N S P W : Suppl ier Variety Size(or age) TYF
Trays: Type Make Cel ls : &. / t ray L w NO. OF 6XXIKERS: on planter - Other (describe functions)
c a m :
T h s ince p 1 a n t i n g : d a y s . Previous test on t h i s p lot? I f so, S e r i a l No. . Field book, ~g.-
Row No. of p lan t s No. T h
No. Length Fru i t None of ( ) remxred r w e d Workers S t a r t Stop Notes
