Rosa, Uriel A

Castro Garcia, Sergio :

Ferguson, Louise

Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II OBJECTIVE II Evaluation of Mechanical Harvester ( s ) Efficiency and Effects on Fruit Quality and Value A . ENE Inc . â?? Terry I â?쳌 and â?? Terry II â?쳌 self propelled trunk shakers with pistachio catch frames B . Noli trunk shaker only , without catch frame C . Agright canopy contact harvester ; self - propelled with catch frame INTRODUCTION of OBJECTIVE II The two picking technologies currently available for evaluation are the canopy contact heads and trunk shakers . Trunk shaking harvesting of oil olive trees is common in Europe . In the 1960s , the University of California also developed pruning methods , and an â?? inertia head â?쳌 shaker for mature California table olive trees . However , the technology , never widely adapted , was designed exclusively for larger trees , not younger hedgerow orchards . Because a younger hedgerow orchard , developed by Krueger and Ferguson , ( discussed under Objective III.B of this report ) , now exists , there is an opportunity to examine both a canopy contact head and trunk shaking harvesters in young hedgerow table olives . For trunk shaker harvester evaluations in 2009 the companies and machines selected were two versions of the ENE Inc . trunk shaker , â?? Terry I â?쳌 and â?? Terry II â?쳌 ( Fig . 2.1 ) , named for the hydraulic engineer who developed the shaker heads , and a Noli Spanish trunk shaker . The ENE Inc . machines had a double - sided modified pistachio harvester catch frame with a bin take out system . The Noli head was front mounted on an almond shaker cab and therefore had no catch frame or take out system . As a result the trials with the Noli were more limited . 26 Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II Fig . 2.1 . ENE Inc . Terry II modified pistachio trunk shaking harvester with catch frame harvesting at Nickels Soils Laboratory on 5 October 2009 . Mr . Terry Tompkins is operating the harvester . The canopy contact machine evaluated was a modified Agright over the row pomegranate harvester , the Olivia ( Fig . 2.2 ) . Due to harvester size limitations only a limited , non - replicated trial was conduced on the Agright . The Agright Olivia harvester in the fully lowered position has a top closure height of 1.6 feet , a bottom picking rod height of 3 feet , a top picking rod height of 8.8 feet and a top closure height of 1.6 feet . The Olivia has a clear passage from the ground of 9.3 feet , a left and right clear passage width of 4.75 feet and 2.6 feet of rod penetration into the tree canopy from both sides . The pruning required to make the trees suitable for the Olivia decreased the yield significantly relative to the trees in which the trunk shaking harvesters were evaluated . Therefore , as both the number of replications , and the canopy of the trees harvested by Olivia were different from those harvested by trunk shakers , the final removal efficiencies of the three trunk shaking harvesters can be roughly , but not statistically , compared to the efficiency of the Olivia . The objective was to evaluate efficiency , and effects on fruit quality of these four machines . As the analyzed data provided below demonstrates , trunk shaking of young hedgerow orchards has potential , but is currently still below the 80 % necessary removal efficiency . Similar , but not strictly statistically comparable analyzed results , were obtained for the Agright Olivia . 27 Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II Fig . 2,2 . Agright Olivia canopy contact head harvester operating in Nickels Soils Laboratory hedgerow olive orchard on 30 September 2009 . Mr . Richard Loquaci of Madera Ag Services is operating the harvester . PROCEDURES of OBJECTIVE II Locations : Nickels Estate : Greenway Ave , Arbuckle CA Planted 7 - 8 - 01 . Tree spacing = 12 ' x18 ' or 202 trees / ac â?? Manzanillo â?? cultivar with Sevillano ( S ) pollinators ; center row budded to Sevillano 07 - 03 May 2009 : Trees were trained and chemically thinned . 30 September â?? 7 October 2009 : Harvest trials were conducted with two ENE Inc . trunk shakers , â?? Terry I â?쳌 and â?쳌 Terry II â?쳌 , a Noli Spanish trunk shaker , and a modified pomegranate harvester , Olivia . Harvest Procedure : Each trunk shaking harvester shook one replication in eight rows . - catch frame was cleaned - fruit in bin was weighed in field using a bin scale * - fruit on ground under tree was collected and weighed in the field using baby scale * o held in extra bin for the entire row - fruit remaining on tree was hand harvested and weighed in the field with baby scale * o held in extra bin for the entire row 28 Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II - mechanically harvested fruit in the bin was sent to Orland Musco grading station for weight and COC grade and value - two 40 pound samples were drawn from each of the replications and each divided into two 20 lb samples o two 20 pound samples each were sent to Musco Olive Company and Bell Carter for ï?§ Fresh processing ï?§ Processing after storage o These samples will be sent to Dr . Guinard for : ï?§ Sensory panel evaluation after March 2010 ï?§ Consumer panel evaluations after March 2010 * These three field weights , and their confirming weights at the receiving station , were used to calculate the calculate harvester removal efficiency and final harvester efficiency as follows : Fruit Removal Efficiency = ( fruit in harvest bin + fruit on ground ) X ( Fruit in bin + fruit on ground + fruit remaining in tree ) Final Harvest Efficiency = ( fruit in harvest bin ) X ( Fruit in bin + fruit on ground + fruit on tree ) Data Analysis A method of analysis sometimes referred to as â?? box and whisker plots â?쳌 was used to analyze this data ( see Fig . 2.3 ) . It is particularly applicable to data in which one wants to see the range of values within treatments . Fig . 2.3 . â?? Box and whisker plots â?쳌 . When describing a set of data , without listing all of the values , we can use measures of location such as the mean and median . It is also possible to get a sense of the data's distribution by examining the ( 1 ) minimum , ( 2 ) maximum , ( 3 ) median ( or second quartile ) , ( 4 ) the first quartile , and ( 5 ) the third quartile ( Fig . 2.3 ) . Such information will show the extent to which the data is located near the median or near the extremes . 29 Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II The first quartile is the middle ( the median ) of the lower half of the data ( Fig . 2.3 ) . One - th fourth of the data lies below the first quartile and three - fourths lies above ( i.e . , The 25 percentile ) . The third quartile is the middle ( the median ) of the upper half of the data . Three - th fourths of the data lies below the third quartile and one - fourth lies above ( i.e . , The 75 percentile ) . A quartile is a number ; it is not a range of values . A value can be described as " above " or " below " the first quartile , but a value is never " in " the first quartile . A â?? box plot â?? or â?? box and whisker plot â?? describes ( graphically ) all these summary statistics , giving a graphic of the distribution of the data . The first and third quartiles are at the ends of the box , the median is indicated with a vertical line in the interior of the box , and the maximum and minimum are at the ends of the whiskers . All data were analyzed by standard statistical analysis using Statistical Analysis Systems software ( SAS Institute , Cary , NC ) to perform the means separation ( Duncanâ??s multiple range test and LS means ; 5 % level of significance ) and analysis of variance ( PROC GLM ) ; distributions analyzed by PROC UNIVARIATE AND PROC BOXPLOT . RESULTS of OBJECTIVE II Final Trunk Shaking Harvester Efficiencies and Effect of Harvester on Fruit Quality & Value Fig . 2.4 . Analyzed final harvest efficiencies of the three trunk shaking harvesters ( Noli , Terry I , Terry II ) relative to the hand harvested control , HHC . The analyzed final harvest efficiencies of the three trunk shaking harvesters relative to the hand - harvested control , HHC , are shown in Fig . 2.4 . The HHC trees were considered to have had 100 % of the fruit removed in all four replicates , and therefore the data display no variability for efficiency . There was no significant difference in the final harvest efficiency between the Noli trunk shaker ( had no catch frame ) and the Terry II , but both had significantly higher final harvest efficiencies than the Terry I . All were significantly less efficient than the hand harvest . As discussed earlier , the results with the Noli trunk shaker cannot be strictly compared to the Terry I and II because the lack of a catch frame limited the number of replications that could be 30 Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II done . As a result the data from the Noli had the widest distribution of efficiency among the harvest technologies , as results were highly variable from tree - to - tree . Only the data from the ENE Inc . Terry I and II can be considered to be statistically comparable to the hand harvest control in that sufficient replications were done to produce comparable data . This data demonstrated that the ENE Inc . Terry II was significantly more efficient than the Terry I . Thus far , the ENE Inc . Terry II is the best performing trunk shaker tested . However , it averaged only 64 % efficiency , 16 % less than the 80 % needed . Loss from the catch frame was minimal ; less than a pound per tree and easily equal to that of hand harvest . As a result the harvester removal force and final harvester efficiency are essentially the same . The previous problem with trunk shaking trees ( i.e , trunk barking ) was largely eliminated by decreasing shaker head clamping strength below 1000 psi . However , in the future it would be advisable to develop a method of measuring bark strength as a function of irrigation status to ensure barking is totally eliminated . There was little branch damage caused by the trunk shakers . The shakers also sometimes disturbed the soil around the trunk . For this reason all trunk harvesting was followed by a field capacity irrigation . In summary , the major problem with trunk shakers is the final harvester efficiency of 64 % , is not the necessary 80 % final removal efficiency our economic analyses demonstrate is needed . In our observations the shakers were more efficient at removing fruit closer to the trunk . Large clumps of olives at the ends of longer branches in the top quarter of the canopy were resistant to trunk shaker harvesting . A possible solution might be to prune these branches off as they are observed during harvest . It also suggests that chemical thinning ; both to eliminate these large clumps and increase fruit size as heavier olives harvest more easily , would enhance trunk shaking . Thus , the solution to increasing the efficiency of trunk shakers appears to be to change the tree as well as improve the harvester and harvesting parameters . Table 2.1 gives the final harvest efficiencies as well as the canning percentages and adjusted price per ton . The data clearly shows there were no significant differences in either canning percentage or adjusted price per ton among the mechanically harvested olives , or between them and the hand harvested olives . Therefore trunk shaking can produce olives with quality and value equal to that of hand harvested olives . These olives were delivered to Musco and Bell Carter immediately after harvesting for both fresh and stored processing . Lee and Guinard will evaluate the sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability in Spring 2010 . Even though these olives were harvested in 2009 , versus 2008 for the olives evaluated by Lee and Guinard in Objective I of this report , they have virtually identical canning percentages and adjusted values per ton . Therefore it is expected , that as with olives harvested with the canopy contact head harvester in 2008 , these olives , when processed , will be virtually indistinguishable from hand harvested olives . The sensory and consumer evaluations will be available by July 2010 . Final Harvester Efficiency of Agright Olivia Canopy Contact Harvester and Harvester Effects on Fruit Quality & Value The Agright Olivia , an over the row modified pomegranate harvester , was not evaluated in a randomized replicated trial . However , in two 18 - tree rows it produced an average of 67 % final harvest efficiency with a canning percentage of 93.5 % and an average value per ton of $ 1071.96 per ton . The olives left in the tree appeared to be primarily closer to the trunk ; unlike the better interior fruit removal of the trunk shakers . The harvester damaged 23 % of the trees including 31 Ferguson , et al . Annual Report California Olive Committee : Objective II Table 2.1 . Final Trunk Shaking Harvester Efficiency and Harvester Effects on Olive Quality and Value Harvest Adjusted value per ton Harvest efficiency % Cannable fruit method ( $ ) X HHC 100.0 a 97.0 a 1178.6 a Noli 69.5 b 94.1 a 1146.9 a Terry I 41.2 c 94.8 a 1147.3 a Terry II 64.5 b 95.6 a 1147.0 a Significance * * * NS NS X Means separation within columns by Duncanâ??s multiple range test ; P = 5 % . Where letters are different within columns , means are significantly different ; level of significance by ANOVA * * * , NS = significant at 0.1 % and non - significant , respectively . pulling one tree from the ground . Had the trees had been properly pruned the harvester would have probably achieved the very high efficiencies observed with the MaqTec Colossus in Argentina in 2007 , and inflicted little damage . The Agright Olivia harvester in the fully lowered position has a top closure height of 1.6 feet , a bottom picking rod height of 3 feet , a top picking rod height of 8.8 feet and a top closure height of 1.6 feet . The Olivia has a clear passage from the ground of 9.3 feet , a left and right clear passage width of 4.75 feet and 2.6 feet of rod penetration into the tree canopy from both sides . Successful harvesting with the Olivia would require a tree with no stiff wood above 10 feet high , beyond 4 feet wide and below 4 feet . As with the olives harvested by both the earlier tested canopy contact harvester and the tree trunk shaking harvesters evaluated this year , the harvested oliveâ??s receiving station grade and value demonstrate these olives would also produce processed olives that are indistinguishable from hand harvested olives . Finally , as with the trunk shaking harvesters evaluated in 2009 , it appears the way to improve the final harvesting efficiency of the Olivia is to train young trees into a high - density hedgerow . The Olivia is unsuitable for Californiaâ??s existing olive orchards ; the trees are too large . CONCLUSIONS of OBJECTIVE II The three trunk shaking harvesters and one canopy contact harvester evaluated this year all produced fruit that , based upon canning percentage and adjusted price per ton , would produce processed olives that are indistinguishable from hand harvested olives . What must be improved is the fruit removal percentage . The data thus far strongly indicates this can be done through both machine improvements and tree training and pruning . 32