Fabrication and evaluation of mounted harvesting machine for sugarcane

Sugarcane is one of the important sugar crops in the world that depends on it in many industries, so we have fabricated and evaluated a machine for harvesting sugarcane to saves time, labors and costs necessary for harvesting, which is reflected in production and reduces costs. This harvester was designed for mounted on a small tractor and the single-row machine harvesting meets the functional requirements of the physical properties of the sugarcane. The performance of the harvester machine was evaluated on one shapes of cutter disc, three forward speeds and three cutter disc speeds. The results demonstrated that the average forward speed of 5 km/h, the average cutter disc speed 2000 rpm produced the lowest sugarcane losses while producing the highest power requirements and operating cost than other studied forward speeds and cutter disc speeds. It turns out that the fabricated mechanical harvester machine did not do major harm to the sugarcane and less than 6.38 % losses. Operating a sugarcane harvesting machine at optimal conditions saves time, labors and costs compared to common methods of manual harvesting.

Design and Field Test of a New Compact Self-Propelled Cabbage Harvester

As a labor-intensive operation, manual harvesting greatly affects cost and therefore profitability in the cabbage industry. A new compact self-propelled cabbage harvester for small, separate fields was designed and field tested. This harvester included a crawler chassis, a picking mechanism, a lifting mechanism, a cutting device, and a leaf separator. Results of preliminary field tests showed that the harvester had good flexibility and maneuverability. Results of field performance tests showed that the harvester could pick cabbages with diameters of 15 to 25 cm, providing a harvesting capacity of 0.21 hm2 h-1 and a harvest loss of 10.2%. Compared with experiments conducted in traditional fields, harvest quality showed an improvement in fields with an experimental cultivation method. The harvest loss was reduced by 5.0%, while the picking rate and accurate cutting rate were improved by 3.0% and 5.4%, respectively. Keywords: Cabbage, Compact, Field test, Mechanical harvester, Self-propelled.

Yield, Fruit Damage, Yield Loss, and Juice Quality Characteristics of Machine- and Hand-harvested ‘Brown Snout’ Specialty Cider Apples Stored at Ambient Conditions in Northwest Washington

In this 2-year study, ‘Brown Snout’ specialty cider apples (Malus ×domestica) that had been hand harvested or machine harvested with an over-the-row shake-and-catch small fruit harvester were ambient stored (56 °F mean temperature) for 0, 2, and 4 weeks to evaluate yield, fruit damage, yield loss, and juice quality characteristics. The average yield (pounds per acre) of fruit picked and retained by the mechanical harvester was 74% that of the hand-harvest yield and 81% that of the hand-harvest yield when fruit that fell out of the harvester was included in the machine-harvest yield. Percent fruit bruised and cut were greater for machine harvest (97.5% and 25.5%, respectively) than for hand harvest (47% and 0.5%, respectively), on average for 2014 and 2015. Yield loss to rot was greater for machine harvest than for hand harvest, and increased for both methods over time; percent rot doubled from 2 to 4 weeks storage for machine harvest (22% to 41%), and while negligible, tripled from 2 to 4 weeks storage for hand harvest (0.7% to 2.1%). Juice quality characteristics did not differ due to harvest method, but did differ due to year and storage time. Soluble solids concentration [SSC (%)] and specific gravity (SG) did not change due to storage in 2014, but in 2015, SSC and SG were greater on average for 2 and 4 weeks storage duration (15% and 1.062, respectively) than at harvest (13.31% and 1.056, respectively). Titratable acidity (grams per liter malic acid) decreased in 2014 from 2.98 g·L−1 at harvest to 2.70 g·L−1 on average for 2 and 4 weeks storage duration, but did not differ due to storage in 2015. Tannin [tannic acid equivalent (%)] was unchanged in 2014 from harvest to 4 weeks storage, but increased in 2015 from 0.16% at harvest to 0.19% by 4 weeks storage. These results indicate that harvest efficiency could be improved with some engineering modifications of the over-the-row mechanical harvester and training modifications for the trees. A comparison of the aromatic and phenolic contents of mechanically harvested and hand-harvested ‘Brown Snout’ would be a valuable next step in evaluating shake-and-catch mechanical harvest technology for cider apple production.

Mechanical harvesting optimization and postharvest treatments to improve wine quality

<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Aims</strong>: The aim of this work was to verify the influence of mechanical harvesting and postharvest treatments on wine composition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Methods and results</strong>: Trials were carried out in triplicate on cv. Montuni grapes. The estimated best setting frequency for the mechanical harvester was 410 shakes/min. Comparing hand-picked and mechanically harvested grapes, the reduced extract and pH results were lower for the hand-picked grapes, showing a more evident berry breakage caused by the mechanical harvester. The wines obtained from mechanically harvested grapes had a lower phenolic compound content than wines produced with hand-picked grapes, indicating that oxidation phenomena occurred; the trend for postharvest treated grapes was different. The significantly lower amount of higher alcohols in the hand-picked grapes trial than in the mechanically harvested ones could be explained by a lower amount of their precursors and oxygen in musts. The sensory differences among the trials were significant for some parameters, but an overall view of the data suggested that the differences were not remarkable and all the wines were good.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Conclusion</strong>: Postharvest treatments reduce the loss of natural antioxidant compounds found in wines produced from mechanically harvested grapes. Mechanical harvesting does not have a negative influence on wine composition if matched with the proper vineyard characteristics, machine settings and postharvest treatments. The typicality of Montuni wine is maintained in the cases of grapes harvested mechanically with, but also without, any postharvest treatment. The use of these treatments is otherwise useful to obtain wines with a better stability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Significance and impact of the study</strong>: With respect to mechanical harvesting, this study highlights the importance of maintaining and/or improving the quality of mechanically harvested grapes containing the harvesting costs.</p>