Estimates of Mechanization Effects on Fresh Blueberry Quality

Brown, G. K.; Schulte, N. L.; Timm, E. J.; Beaudry, Randolph M.; Peterson, Donald L.; Hancock, Jonathan; Takeda, Fumiomi

doi:10.13031/2013.25435

Cited by 47 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…comm).Mechanical harvesters have been used to pick northern highbush blueberries (NHB) since the 1960s [3], primarily for fruit destined for processed products. However, mechanically harvesting blueberries for fresh-market and with good shelf life has been a challenge due to plant architecture, excessive ground loss, and rapid fruit softening incurred from mechanical impact damage [3][4][5]. Peterson et al [6] demonstrated the superiority of the experimental V45 over-the-row (OTR) harvester to harvest NHB compared to a commercial harvester used at that time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvest of Southern Highbush Blueberry with a Modified, Over-The-Row Mechanical Harvester: Use of Handheld Shakers and Soft Catch Surfaces

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fresh market southern highbush blueberries are typically hand-harvested which requires an extensive labor force over a relative short period of time. With rising production costs and labor availability issues, interest in mechanical harvesting options is increasing. In 2017, an over-the-row (OTR) harvester was modified to reduce purchase cost while making hand labor more efficient. The picking heads were removed and dual worker stations were added on each side of the unit. Handheld olive shakers were suspended at each station. Experimental catch plates were installed on one side of the OTR harvester and soft, inclined surfaces over the rigid conveyors on both sides. 'Meadowlark' and 'Farthing' blueberries were harvested with this system and compared to those manually harvested by a commercial harvest crew. Samples from each harvest method were then commercially cooled and mechanically harvested fruit were commercially packed to determine packout data. Fruit firmness, bruise severity and composition were determined after one day at room temperature (22 • C) and after seven and fourteen days of storage at 1 • C. Average packout was very high for mechanically harvested fruit, 87% for 'Meadowlark' and 91% for 'Farthing'. Initial firmness of both cultivars was lower for mechanically harvested fruit (208 g/mm) than hand-harvested fruit (243 g/mm). Fruit from the three treatments softened during storage, and although 'Meadowlark' remained firmer than 'Farthing' during storage, there were no differences due to catch surfaces. Hand-harvested fruit had no severe bruising (>20% of cut surface area) at harvest, increasing to 2% after seven days, while mechanically harvested fruit from both fruit collection surfaces had 3% initial severe bruising that increased to 22% during storage. 'Farthing' had slightly higher soluble solids content and significantly higher total titratable acidity compared to 'Meadowlark'. Additional modifications must be made to the next-generation OTR harvester to further reduce blueberry harvest and handling impacts.Agriculture 2020, 10, 4 2 of 15 shipments of blueberries from Mexico into the United States during this early season is reducing wholesale prices received by Florida blueberry growers. From 2009 to 2016, U.S. blueberry exports have remained flat (approximately 18,145 metric tons), while U.S. imports during that same period almost tripled [2]. SHB cultivars have historically been softer than northern highbush blueberry (NHB) (V. corymbosum) cultivars, limiting SHB to hand-harvest for fresh market. SHB are only mechanically harvested during the latter part of the season when it is no longer economical to harvest by hand. Mechanically harvested fruit may either go to the fresh or processed market depending on the cultivar and condition of the fruit. To reduce labor costs, blueberry growers in Florida, in other production areas across the United States and in major blueberry producing countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, Chile, and Poland), are increasingly showing interest in adopting mechanic...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvest of Southern Highbush Blueberry with a Modified, Over-The-Row Mechanical Harvester: Use of Handheld Shakers and Soft Catch Surfaces

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, given that the main criterion for establishing harvest date of blueberries is skin color, and that high labor costs are associated to this operation (Brown et al, 1996; Takeda et al, 2008; Lobos et al, 2014b), growers wait for blue fruit to accumulate in the bush before starting commercial pickings. This practice results in fruit with similar external appearance but, as found in the present study, with important heterogeneity in maturity status, that will lead to a wide range of firmness levels at harvest, as well as in softening rates during postharvest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dropping height was selected based on previous findings (data not published), as well as reports on extensive bruising resulting from 15–30 cm drop heights onto hard surfaces (Brown et al, 1996; Xu et al, 2015). For each cultivar, both dropped (32 cm) and non-dropped (0 cm) fruit were placed within clamshells into cardboard boxes, and then stored during 35 days at 0°C and 85–88% relative humidity (RH).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By simulating mechanical impact damage (as for other fruit species such as apples), the resistance of blueberries to IB has been evaluated by dropping fruit from different heights onto diverse surfaces; damage is rated on an internal bruise severity scale (affected area) after a period of cold storage (Brown et al, 1996; Yu et al, 2014). When berries were dropped from 15 to 30 cm onto hard surfaces, Brown et al (1996) concluded that fruit developed IB on up to 50% of fruit area, and firmness declined significantly in samples having 25% or more damaged area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When berries were dropped from 15 to 30 cm onto hard surfaces, Brown et al (1996) concluded that fruit developed IB on up to 50% of fruit area, and firmness declined significantly in samples having 25% or more damaged area. Yu et al (2014) also reported a genotype effect, soft-textured cultivars being more susceptible than firm-textured ones when dropped on a hard plastic surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Firmness at Harvest Impacts Postharvest Fruit Softening and Internal Browning Development in Mechanically Damaged and Non-damaged Highbush Blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fresh blueberries are very susceptible to mechanical damage, which limits postharvest life and firmness. Softening and susceptibility of cultivars “Duke” and “Brigitta” to developing internal browning (IB) after mechanical impact and subsequent storage was evaluated during a 2-year study (2011/2012, 2012/2013). On each season fruit were carefully hand-picked, segregated into soft (<1.60 N), medium (1.61–1.80 N), and firm (1.81–2.00 N) categories, and then either were dropped (32 cm) onto a hard plastic surface or remained non-dropped. All fruit were kept under refrigerated storage (0°C and 85–88% relative humidity) to assess firmness loss and IB after 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days. In general, regardless of cultivar or season, high variability in fruit firmness was observed within each commercial harvest, and significant differences in IB and softening rates were found. “Duke” exhibited high softening rates, as well as high and significant r2 between firmness and IB, but little differences for dropped vs. non-dropped fruit. “Brigitta,” having lesser firmness rates, exhibited almost no relationships between firmness and IB (especially for non-dropped fruit), but marked differences between dropping treatments. Firmness loss and IB development were related to firmness at harvest, soft and firm fruit being the most and least damaged, respectively. Soft fruit were characterized by greater IB development during storage along with high soluble solids/acid ratio, which could be used together with firmness to estimate harvest date and storage potential of fruit. Results of this work suggest that the differences in fruit quality traits at harvest could be related to the time that fruit stay on the plant after turning blue, soft fruit being more advanced in maturity. Finally, the observed differences between segregated categories reinforce the importance of analyzing fruit condition for each sorted group separately.

show abstract