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

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

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?

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)

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

Valencia DebrisValencia Debris

Hamlin DebrisHamlin Debris

What about sand?What about sand?

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?

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)

Parson Brown – Jan 2008Parson Brown – Jan 2008

Hamlin – January 2009Hamlin – January 2009

Valencia – March 2009Valencia – March 2009

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