Skip to main content
ARS Home » Northeast Area » Kearneysville, West Virginia » Appalachian Fruit Research Laboratory » Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #162988
Title: ISOLATING DAMAGE FROM MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF APPLES

Author
item Peterson, Donald
item BENNEDSEN, BENT - ROYAL VET & AG UNIV

Submitted to: Transactions of the ASAE
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 7/24/2004
Publication Date: 4/1/2005
Citation: Peterson, D.L., Bennedsen, B. 2005. Isolating damage from mechanical harvesting of apples. Transactions of the ASAE. Vol. 21(1): 31-34 2005 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883-8542 April 2005

Interpretive Summary: An experimental ARS harvesting concept showed potential for harvesting fresh market quality apples, but still inflicted too much damage for commercialization. A detail study was conducted to identify sources of damage in relation to removal technique, fruiting characteristics and fruit location in the canopy. No factors were identified in the harvest system that would allow for substantially less damage, and therefore commercialization is not feasible at this time.

Technical Abstract: This research studied the performance of the ARS fruit harvesting concept in relationship to apple removal efficiency and damage. There were no differences in apple removal efficiency or fruit quality between a single impulse or three rapid impulses when using the rapid displacement actuator (RDA) for fruit removal. In the canopy zone ± 300 mm (12") from the impulse point of the RDA, removal was not significantly different between apples on short limbs and long/thin limbs. Removal outside that zone was lower and there was a significant difference between removal on short and long/thin limbs. The harvesting concept described in the report harvested 53 to 72% damage-free apples on five cultivars. Cuts and punctures were a serious problem, but bruising was also a factor limiting better quality. Apples growing inside the canopy were significantly more susceptible to damage than apples growing below the canopy. There were no significant differences in the amount of damage-free apples detached from short limbs and long/thin limbs.