Castro-Garcia, Sergio :

Ferguson, Louise

Ferguson et al . Annual Report 2008 , California Olive Committee The summary given here demonstrates the major impediments to successful trunk - shaking will be eliminating trunk damage and increasing the final fruit removal efficiency . These two factors , as well as the more technical aspects of trunk - shaker performance evaluation are addressed in Sergio Castroâ??s report . This report was submitted as part of the 2008 Annual Report to the California Olive Committee by Louise Ferguson , Jackie Burns , J . - X . Guinard and Uriel Rosa . Evaluation of MacTeq Colossus by Sergio Castro Procedures : Date : 12 September 2008 Location : Ranch â?? Rabadoa â?? , Baleizao , Portugal Harvester : MacTeq Colossus with rod drum modification and padded frame Olive : â?? Hojiblanca â?? cultivar , 5 years old , 7 x 4.8 m tree spacing Harvesting tests in the AM : At 12 : 20 pm . Five trees . Harvester used the highest drum speed , hardest conditions . Harvesting efficiency estimation ( visual ) = 90 % . Harvesting tests in the PM : At 3.55 pm : Five trees . Harvester used the regular working conditions . Harvesting efficiency estimation ( visual ) = 60 % . Fruit removal force ( FRF ) was measured ( cN ) before and after harvesting , both in the AM and PM tests . Collected Sample Classifications : A = Belt . Olives from the bottom belt ; collected before fruit transport system . These olives show the damage from detachment system by canopy shaking and catch frame . B = Belt . Olives from the shortest conveyor belt after the transport system ; collected from rear of the harvester . They came from the left bottom belt . These olives include a part of the fruit damage from the transport system . C = Bin . Olives from the longest conveyor belt after the transport system ; collected from the rear of the harvester . They came from the right bottom belt . These olives include all fruit damage caused by the transport system . D = Hand Control . Hand - harvested olives . 35 Ferguson et al . Annual Report 2008 , California Olive Committee Visual Damage Classification after 24 h . â?¢ Sound : Fruit without damage . Fruit looks similar to those in the tree canopy . â?¢ Bruised : Fruit with > one bruise , compression or abrasion without skin being cut . Olives from this classification could be processed . These olives have visual damage after 24 h of postharvest storage . â?¢ Cut : Fruit with skin damage , primarily deep cuts . â?¢ Mutilation : Fruit deformed and unsuitable for processing . Fruit Detachment Force Evaluation : Description of data collected . FRF is measured in centiNewton ( cN ) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std . Deviation FRF Control Morning 110 380.00 1040.00 627.55 131.97 Before Harvest FRF Morning After Harvest 47 200.00 880.00 565.11 171.31 FRF Control Evening 49 160.00 860.00 485.71 135.09 Before Harvest FRF Evening After Harvest 52 180.00 860.00 499.62 146.94 Valid N ( listwise ) 47 T - tests with paired samples . Differences between control measurements in AM and PM . : There were significant differences between mean values ; FRF decreased from early AM through late PM . Paired Samples Statistics Std . Error Mean Mean N Std . Deviation Pair FRF Control Morning 656.12 49 143.50 20.50 1 Before Harvest FRF Control Evening 485.71 49 135.09 19.30 Before Harvest 36 Ferguson et al . Annual Report 2008 , California Olive Committee Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference Std . Error Mean Std . Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig . ( 2 - tailed ) Pair FRF Control Morning 1 Before Harvest - FRF 170.41 158.34 22.62 124.93 215.89 7.53 48 0.00 Control Evening Before Harvest Differences between FRF before and after harvesting : There are differences between the AM test when olives had a higher FRF and the harvesting process was more aggressive . However , this difference is not a good representation because the harvester removal efficiency was very high ( 90 % ) and the olives were located only on the lower branches , close to the ground . Also , FRF is less than earlier FRFs . Fruit removal doesnâ??t depend totally on FRF ; fruit location appears to be more important . Paired Samples Statistics Std . Error Mean N Std . Deviation Mean Pair FRF Control Morning 654.68 47 143.87 20.99 1 Before Harvest FRF Morning After Harvest 565.11 47 171.31 24.99 Pair FRF Control Evening 485.71 49 135.09 19.30 2 Before Harvest FRF Evening After Harvest 504.08 49 149.72 21.39 Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference Std . Error Mean Mean Std . Deviation Lower Upper t df Sig . ( 2 - tailed ) Pair FRF Control Morning 1 Before Harvest - FRF 89.58 213.26 31.10657 26.96 152.19 2.88 46 0.06 Morning After Harvest Pair FRF Control Evening 2 Before Harvest - FRF - 18.37 181.51 25.93055 - 70.50 33.77 - 0.71 48 0,48 Evening After Harvest 37 Ferguson et al . Annual Report 2008 , California Olive Committee DAMAGE EVALUATION AM ( Hardest conditions ) Numbers ( # ) of fruit classified by type of damage SOUND BRUISE CUT MUTILATION ALL A 75 344 26 2 447 B 66 675 52 13 806 C 53 581 119 3 756 D 830 12 9 0 851 Weights ( g ) of fruit classified by type of damage SOUND BRUISE CUT MUTILATION ALL A 213.1 912.9 75.9 3.3 1205.2 B 183.9 1774 149.5 32.1 2139.5 C 134.9 1573.9 324.7 4.3 2037.8 D 2102.4 28.3 19.4 0 2150.1 Percentages ( % ) of fruit classified according with type of damage SOUND BRUISE CUT MUTILATION A 16.8 77.0 5.8 0.4 B 8.2 83.7 6.5 1.6 C 7.0 76.9 15.7 0.4 D 97.5 1.4 1.1 0.0 PM ( Regular conditions ) Numbers ( # ) of fruit classified by type of damage SOUND BRUISE CUT MUTILATION ALL A 101 494 28 1 624 B 33 680 36 4 753 C 33 797 51 3 884 Weights ( g ) of fruit classified by type of damage SOUND BRUISE CUT MUTILATION ALL A 265.6 1265.2 71.5 1.9 1602.3 B 91.3 1788.3 96.8 6.4 1982.8 C 83.8 2013 143.6 5 2245.4 Percentages ( % ) of fruit classified according with type of damage SOUND BRUISE CUT MUTILATION A 16.2 79.2 4.5 0.2 B 4.4 90.3 4.8 0.5 C 3.7 90.2 5.8 0.3 38 Ferguson et al . Annual Report 2008 , California Olive Committee MORNING TESTS : HARDEST CONDITIONS 100 % CLASIFICATIO 80 % MUTILATION 60 % CUT BRUISE 40 % DAMAGE SOUND 20 % 0 % A B C D COLLECTED SAMPLES EVENING TESTS : REGULAR CONDITIONS 100 % CLASIFICATIO 80 % MUTILATION 60 % CUT BRUISE 40 % DAMAGE SOUND 20 % 0 % A B C COLLECTED SAMPLES Conclusions Very similar results were obtained in Argentina with â?? Manzanillo â?? olives in February 2008 . The MacTeq Colossus harvester can harvest table olives with efficiencies over 90 % , but produces totally unacceptable fruit damage . The harvester will need major adaptations to its picking head , catch frame , and conveying system to be viable for table olive harvest . 39