DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATSCN OF A FRUiT DETACHMENT PRINCWLE FOR ONCE-OVER MEQHARKAL CUCUMBER HARVEfifiNG Thesis for the Degree 0‘ M. S. MECQEGAN SEATE UN ‘SERSETY Max Myron DeLong 1952 ‘ E1” imam DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATIOH OF A mm DETACHHENT PRIMIPLE FOR ONCE-OVER MECHANICAL CUCUHBER HARVESTING By Max Myron Belong AETRACT Submitted to the Colleges of Agricultun and mung of Michigan State University of Agriculture und Applied Science in partial mum of the requirements for the degree! of EASIER 01" same: ID AGRICULTURAL , mm W of Agriczzntnnl Waring 19 ' Approval-W Max Myron Belong The harvesting costs of pickling cucumbers amount to about one half of the gross value of the, crop. The increasing cost and the uncertain supply of harvest labor have encouraged the develop-cut of mechanical cucusber harvesters. Multiple-harvest machines have been develOped. but the efficiencies have not been consistently satisfactory. Some of the inherent problems of the multiple harvest nchinee would be eliminated by a once-over or destructive type hamster. The results of an economic feasibility stew of once-over cucmber harvesting revealed that the yields required for once-over harvesting were not unreasonable or umbtaimble. Preliminary studies were corducted to determine what actions and mechanisms would be suitable for removing the fruit from the vines in a once-over harvesting operation. Two flat rubber belts arranged to provide a constriction removed the fruit in a- manner satisfactory for a once-over cucumber harvester. ’ For the principle investigation. a device was constructed which employed two flat rubber belts appropriately arranged. For all the tests the device removed-86 percent or acre of the monetary value of the fruit originally on the plants. For 71+ percent of the tests. the device removed 93 percent or more of the monetary value of the fruit originally on the plants. An average of 79 percent of the monetary damage occurred in Grade 1 fruit. An average of l5 percent of the undamaged fruit retained a stem. DEVEIDFHENT‘ AND EVALUATION OF A FRUIT DETACHHENT PRUCIPLE FOR ONCE-OVER MECHANICAL GUCIMBER HARVBTDB By Max Wren DeLorg A THESIS Submitted to the Colleges of Agriculture an! Engineering of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfill-eat of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL 3mm Department of Aggizcultural Engineering G Booot 9/9/64 ACKNOWLEDGWTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. B. A. Stout for his supervision and assistance during the inves- tigation and the preparation of this manuscript. The author is also indebted to: Dr. Arthur W. Farrell. Chairman of the Agricultural Engineering Department for granting the Graduate Research Assistantship which enabled the author to complete this work. The National Pickle Packers Association and the Scott-Viner Operation of the Gaming Machinery Division of mo Corporation for co.sponsoring the research grant on mechanical cummber harvesting. Dr. S. X. Bias and A. R. Putnam for providing cucumber plants for testing purposes. Messrs. Cawood. Burenga. Pettengill. and Viscardi for their assistance during the construction and testing phases of the investi- gation. Dr. W. F. Buchele and Dr. G. Mass for acting as members of the guidance committee. Marilyn. aw wife. for her support and assistance in preparing and typing the manuscript. TABLE OF commas INTRODUCT IOIL REVIEW OF LITERATURL PRELIMINARY STUDIES INVETIGATION2‘ Principle of Operatiora Description of the Machine _ Data Collection Rosults and Discussion. caucus ION3_ w SIBC'ETIONS FOR FURTHER STUD! REFERENCE _. a LIST OF TABLE Table Page 1 Grade sizes and values used in this investigation 27 2 Values of Mn for computing effectiveness- ' ~ -32 3 Effectiveness values arranged in descending order and the percent of Grade 1 fruit in the sample ~ 37 u The grade distribution for tests with 51.60 percent Grade 1 and Grade 2 fruit . m -40 5 Distribution of damage and the percent of the total weight of the test that appeared as damaged fruit in the fruit be; A >41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Yields required to break even using a once-over mechanical harvester __. — 8 2 The double chain and flight fruit detachment~device...... 11 3 The flights on the double chain and flight device 11 4 .An overall view of the rotating-cylinder. moving-concave device 13- U! One half of the rotating-cylinder. moving-concave device- 13 6 A frame for mounting various combinations of rollers..... 15 Q A double belt fruit detachment device with a plant ready for entry into the constriction 15 8 The essential components of the double belt fruit detachment device inwestigated during the 1962 season.... 18 9 The right side of the double belt device__ — v19 10 The left side of the double belt device - 20 11 The constriction formed by the picking belts and the surrounding components——~ __ 21 12 The spring loaded mounting bracket for the spring loaded roller__ —— -~ __ 23 13 The picking belts. vine prodder, and introduction conweyor :_ _ -—~ 23 14 The right side of machine ‘ 28 15 The fruit grading gauge and fruit samples , 28 16 The range of sizes of Grade 1 fruit that were harvested.. 30 17 Damaged fruit=: - ‘1 30 Figures 18 19 20 22 23. Page Effectiveness vs speed of picking belts — 31+ Distribution of monetary dange by grade vs speed of picking belts: 35 The tendency for the effectiveness to decrease as the percentofthetotalmonetarydamageinceeasesinGnde 36 1 fruit L Damage tends to remain constant as the proportion of Grade 1 fruit increases in the samplm _ ‘36 Effectiveness for tests which had 51-360 percent Grade 1 and Grade 2 fruit and the value of the harvested , marketable fruit._— - - -39 Percent of harvested marketable fruit that retained a , 3m —*; _—..le"2 INTROWCT ION In 1960 . the pickle processing industry paid the nations' growers approximtely 18 million dollars for cucumbers (13) .‘ Michigan growers received about 25 percent or 5 million dollars of this amount (7). Almost all of the cucumbers for pickles (subsequently referred to as fruit) are harvested by hand. Workers walk through the field and glean the marketable fruit. Because of the: undesirable nature of hand harvesting. very few domestic workers can be hired. Thus; it is a comm practice to brimt in tramient labor from the southern United States and Mexico. Hand harvest is enemive in relation to: the total value/ of the crop. It accounts for approximately 50 percent of the gross value of the harvest. Further. because of existim goverlnent regulations and pending legislation. the cost of labor has' increased: and the supply of workers has become uncertain. Since the cost and supply of labor is a problem. partial or complete harvest mechanization must be sought if the centimed growing of cucumbers is to be profitable. There are at‘least three alternatives to: the hand harvestixg of pickling cucumbers. First; picking side, can be/ used. One of these machines was described as early as 1955 (5). A. picking aid usually consists of a transporting device to carry the pickers acmss the —-__A‘ 'The numbers in parentheses refer to references. 2 field in a sitting or prone position and some type of conveying system to carry the harvested fruit away from the picker. By transporting the workers. the objectional task of walking and stooping is eliminated from the harvesting of cucmnbers. Partial mechanization of this type has not been fully evaluated at this tine. but pickim aids do offer a way in which present varieties can be harvested with a- minimal of musical discomfort. A second alternative to haul harvesting is to harvest present comercisl varieties of pickling cucumbers with a machine that con- pletely replaces the menial picker. A machine to do this must harvest a field several tines during a season. Hamsters of this type are often referred to as multiple-harvest machines. miltiplmrvest machines have? received considerable attention airing the past ten to twelve years (3. a. 6. 10). but the inherent problms of machine multiple harvesting have. caused Michigan; State University researchers to abamion- this method (9}. At least one machine namfacturer. however. is still developing a nachuie based'on this principle. The problems of multiple-harvest machines as sun; narised by Stout and flies are (11): a. Accumulative damage to plants with resultant decrease in yield b. Inadequate nechanioel couponents for removing fruit setnearthebaseoftheplant c. Imbility to relieve and retrieve all the marketable fruit fron certain co-ercial varieties 3 d. Decreased yields because of wide row spacing required by machine e. Pnllixgofplantsfronthesoilmenvinegmuthis luamrisnt' or anchorage poor f. Small acreage capacity per harvester because of the necessity of repeatedly harvesting the sane plants A third approach to mechanical harvesting of cucumbers is a once-over or destructive harvest in which all the fruit are renoved from the plant at one time and the vine is destroyed. The success of this principle depends largely upon the capabilities of new varieties of cucumbers to produce single-harvest yields that will be canonically attractive. _ A preliniJery ecommic amlysis has been conducted for this method (11). Although problems of developing new plant varieties. machines. and cultural practices exist. they do not seen to be incur. mountable. A successful once-over mechanical cucumber harvester Inst perform at least five functions : l) Orientation or positioning of plants for fruit detachment 2) Fruit detaclnent . 3) Fruit transportation away free the detachment device 4) Separation of fruit a!!! foreign material 5) Vine disposal _ Of these five functions. fruitdetachnentappearstcbe the nest difficult...*Therdew of nechuisuv to ouplete the 1+ mixing Operations has been started. by the] work done on multiple- harvest nachines. This stow was amortaken because of the need for a fruit detachment mechanien. The objectives of this study sores l) to'develop and'eveluate several fruit detactnent- principles.« 2) to. design and evaluate a device employing the nest preside: principle. WOFIITERATURE Intensive mechanical acme-r harvesting studies have. been conducted at Michigan State“ Duversity' since' 1957-4 Stout all! Bias (10) described the harvesters that were! tested. during the 1957 sill 1958 seasons. Allofthemchinsewereofthemltiple-harvesttype». The reported average efficiencies were:- 1) 33.5 percent for the. Grew Belt machine in 1957. 2) #3.? percent for the Grew Boiler eachine- in'1958. 3) 38 percent for the Chisholm-Ryder- lashine in early 1958. 79 percent later in 1958 and 90 percent in 1959 (8). Boeever. no conclusive evidence has been available on! the perforsance of' the Whole-Mr machine during the/1960 and 1961'seasons. ‘ Michigan State Unisersity personal have designed and built three models of a nultiple-harveet enchant Issued (6) designed and constructed a harvester in l958.’md the. sale machine with a few alterations .3... evaluated by .Bingley in 1959.1 (3).. Bingley stated that the return per-acre sas'reduced by 76 percent because of the «shined effectsofvinetrairdmand-echanioslharvestm. Another Michigan State University experinental coca-bar harvester Ins designed]!!! constructed 1.31960 um the lost necess- ful conponents' developed by Bingley'ggfl‘ (it). At the end of the 1960 season further develop-entail work on the maple—harvest principle was mt. comidemd justified (9).. At this tine. Stout sug. gested that latitude of; harvesting cumbers in a once-over prccss be developed. When the present stuw was initiated. no specific intonation was available on once-over harvesting of cucumbers. Some information from previous studies was applicable to the problem of once-over harvesting. Leonard (6) noted that prior to the first picking. the vines of the Wisconsin sun-12 variety averaged about 2“ inches in length. and the first few fruits were set near the base of the stem. The profuse leaf growth tended to fore a canopy over the-Iain stem and laterals from 6 to 8 inches above the ground. Allard (1) indicated that cucumbers hung dorm lwhen the vine was lifted off the ground. and that the size of the plants increased and the vines became brittle as the vines aged. Bingley (3) reported that both fabric flights and roller flights on the pickim unit removed foliage. The roller. flights «sued to remove more foliage than the: fabric flights. Stuclonan (12) stated that during the 1958 season. the grade distribution that gave a'nannun net return-persona” when the fruit with disasters of 1% inches or less comprised 51 to 60 percent of the total weight. The period of tine when a given grade-distri- bution exists in a field of cucumbers may be as short as one day. Hence. a once-over harvester must harvest efficiently at the nest desirable grade distribution and must have «tough capacity to harvest the necessary amount of plants. Stout and Rise (n).heve analysed the expected costs/of 7 producing and harvesting cucunbers in a once-over operation. The analysis considered the followirg items concerning the use of a machine: initial cost. interest rate. salvage value. useful life. power required. specific fuel corruption. fuel cost. repairs. main- tenance. lubrication. tames'. Wee. shelter. capacity. and labor cost. Cost of production data was also considered. Figurel is anodified chartfrcmthe economic analysisby Stout and Rios (11). Assuming the‘conditions listed on the graph and an average selling price of $1.25 per bushel of cucumbers. the break even points for various xmbers of acres harvested per year are given. For instance. if a grower were to harvest 25 acres a year with a once- over mechanical harvester costing $3.000. he would need a yield of about 70 bushels per acre to pay for production. harvesting. and land costs. The significance of this chart as stated by Stout and Ries- is that the bmak even yields and yields. mededv for a profitable net return to the grower do not present an: unreasonable and unobtainable 8081. As indicated in this review of literature. a new approach to mechanical cucumber harvesting is needed. The once-.over harvesting operation appears to be economically feasible. This approach is an abrupt change from present hand harvesting concepts and will require new machines to be designed and constructed. Bainer' M. made the following consents on the philosophy of experimental machine develop- ment (2) 3 When a radically raw-chins is'bedm designed. . .. the Add no.3 one psopm Bonn penance. .nopmgnmn Hmodamnooe unsouoono a means on; :33 on octagon @3on .H 0.8m: ~54 Ed .3 dd; $6233 8.. 08 8. oo. \ om\\ o 1 . _ q 9 Nu O M 3 H -on H 3 l. n H .N 400. Mr V 0 H 3 non. moEmmdo mzo It; mzioqz ooooc < 9 problem is more difficult and- requires greater imagi- mtion and ingenuity in addition to good basic engi- neering ability. The first experimntal designs are primarily mnctional and generally deal with machine elements rather than a complete machine. the chief objective being to test and develop (or discard) certain ideas or principles of operation. Although durability and the refinement of mechanical details are not important in these early models (except to the extent necessary to permit ade- quate fimctional testing). the mechanical and economical practicability of the ideas should be given increasing consideration as the development progresses. The ultimate objective is. of course. to be able to perfor- the specified functions satisfactorily with as simple and efficient a unit as possible. PRELIMINAR! STUDIES In July of 1961 prelimimry' studies were initiated to detenine types of actions suitable for removing the fruit from the vines in a once-over cucumber harvesting operation. The studies were exploratory. and the nectunisns built to study the actiore were not designed to be immediately adaptable to a field aachine. The infor- mation gained from these studies was helpful in detenining the avenues, of approach to once-over cucumber harvesting. A mtural action to investigate was that developed by the picking beds of previous Michigan State University cucumber harvesters. The problem had been that when the efficiency of the/pickim bed was high. damage to the plants was also high. Because the plants would not have to survive the fruit detachmnt operation in this once-over harvest study. damage to the vine'would not has problem. The previous picking beds agitated the plant on on]: one side. To make this type of agitation nore severe. the device shown in Figure 2 was constructed. It employed two chain and flight mecha- nisms. The flights in contact with the vine moved away from the clamped root. This movement tended to remove fruit and foliage. To subject the plant to the action of the flights for a given ascent of time. the clamp was also moved in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the flights. For various tests the speed of the flights ranged from 200 ' , 1"; . . "3. _ ' .. ‘5' . ' _ - é o, J .o'“ w k \ - ‘ . - \fi '4 ' \ p / x Figure 2. The double chain and flight fruit detachment device. A) variac for controlling speed of clamp; B) chain for moving clamp; C) a plant ready to enter flights. ' u \ Figure 3. The flights on the double chain ani flight device. The position of the flights shows the clearance between the upper and lower flights and the relative position of the flights. 12 to 500 fpm (feet per mimte): the’speed of the clamp ranged from 50 In: to 250 rpm; and the clearance between the’tep and bottom flights ranged trousers to'one inch. The harvested fruit was collected in. boxes located beneath and at the end of the lower chain and' flight mechanism. This device removed 90 percent or more of ‘the- marketable fruit when the speed of the flights was 1000 to 500 fps: and there was'no clearance between the flights. Although the action produced by this device was quite effec- tive in removing the fruit under certain conditions. to adapt the device to a field machine would require orienting and anchoring the plants. Since this would be difficult. the double chain and flight mechanism was not pursued further. To duplicate the action described above. a' rotating-glider. moving-concave mechanism (Figure it) was built. Plant anchorage or plant orientation was not required for this devicet The peripheral speed of the ends of the fingers on the rotating" cyliaier was- greater than the speed of the mvirg' concave. Whenaplant was droppedinthe nachim. the fastermoving fingers would draw the vines through the mrrow opedngs of the slower moving concave. Fruit detactuent resulted as the vines were drawn thmugh the constrictions. The fruit were carried by the. loving concave and either dropped thr'cugh a hole in the bottom of the sta. tionary concave or were carried out over the edge of the statiomry concave. This mechanism appeared to‘have good capacity as it wand take 3 to 1} plants ataztinee However. there-warmiderable-dange 13 1 't‘w‘t,’ . m ' ~ ._ I. k y ' " shah ' -' ‘w“‘a. Figure 1+. An overall view of the rotating-cylinder, moving-concave device.- The plants enter at (A) and are drawn through the concave (B) by the linder (C). ; . e _ '1’? ‘.¢.‘ 40116 half of the rotating-cylinder, moving-'I concave device. .‘W Figure 5. 14 . to the fruit and vines tended to wrap about the fingers. The machine was cut in half (Figure 5) to see if less-damage would occur. but this tended to' decrease fruit detacluuent. The device did not warrant further investigation. The fruit was also stripped from the! vine by! means' of a pair of rollers. Various combinations of rollers were! tested in a frame shown in Figure 6'. As the vims'were drawn through by the rotating rollers the fruit. being too large to pass through the' opening. were stripped off. Good detachment resulted with both large and very small fruit when the roller surfaces were hard but aggressive-v enough! to draw the vines through. and'when at least om roller had a diameter of two inches or less. The contact between the rollers and the vim approached a line contact. and very little area was available for the rollers to pull on the plant. -'This often meant that the vine would stall before it completely passed through the rollers. The vines also had a terdency to wrap around the rollers. Because of the excellent fruit detaching characteristics of some of the combinations of rollers . severel additioml devices were built which retained the' characteristics of the rollers but increased the area of contact for pullirg the plants through. The device-shown inFigure 7 insane such-devicee The rubber belts running over the small diameter pulleys'detached the fruit in a very satisfactory merrier and almost elinimted the problem of plant stalling. To introduce-mm into-the comtricted area. it was 9'} D I Figure 6. A frame for mounting various combinations of rollers. - l Figure 7. A double belt fruit detachment device with a plant for entry into the constriction. l6 necessary to catch one or two leaves of the plant and then! the' Vine would move through. A problem crusted with this type of double belt arrangement because the detached fruit often inhibited entry of a vine that followed. In addition. a fruit entangled in a vine prior to detachment often became damaged: or when detacInent did occur. the peduncle" remained on the. fruit. The supply of greenhouse plants was exhausted at the end of November, 1961, so the device mentioned above (Figure 7) was the last one tested during the 1961 season. This double belt arrangement was the most promising detachment principle tested during the prelinimry studies: therefore. the plans for the 1962 season were based on a knowledge of the desirable and' undesirable characteristics of the double belt device. ’The term stem will subsequently be used in this study to mean the peduncle that remained attached to the fruit. INVESTIGATION The objective of this. investigation was to design. comtruct. and evaluate a fruit detachmsnt device suitable in principle for adaptation to a once-over mechanical cucumber harvester. The design was based on the double belt device (Flam/ 7) that had been tested during the preliminary studies because that device" had provided very good fruit detachment'and'requirod a minimum- of plant orientation. W The design adopted for this investigation is shown pictorially in Figure 8. Side views of theactual device are shown in Figures 9 and 10. A plant was placed on the introduction conveyor with the leaves up. After being carried to the end of the conveyor. an air blast from the fan and air duct floated the. light parts of the plant up into the constriction. Because the belts were moving. the. vim was pulled up between the belts. As the fruit on the vim came to the constriction. the fruit were detached from the stems and fell down intothecatchirgbox. Thevimwas can-iedup'betweenthebelt and ejected into the vim box. After initial trials in June of 1962. two mechanisms were added to make the operation more efficient and reliable. A spring loaded roller (Figures 11 autlZ) we placed imide the upper hilt 18 econflou 82 23 mega eeeemfleeefi eefiee $8533 para 33 e253 23 e6 message 39:88 e5. .m 933m xom tam... mo>m>zoo zofioaooEzfl 53 mi N)! TINY _ _ t harm .05 5.645 \) op oueomzzoo $ ’5 farm 9.; \ M 5mm ozioa «when we}; ._.n_wm 023.05 «5304 \ \ _ 298.538 m1» 5.32. $30.. 33% ‘ xom mz_>\\¥ i Q \ 53.5.. 55245 1% N (\\ . mwooomn. NZ.) 0 58 t 19 Figure 9. The right side of the double belt device. A) happer; B) shield: 0) fan: D) air duct: E) fruit box: F) vine boa: G) vineprodder. Figure 10. 20 I .' ‘ f~' -_‘_ jé' EU. The left side of the double belt device. A) damper; B inlet screen; C) nultigroove V-belt sheave for driving the vine prodder; D) driving arrangement for the vine prodder; B) PTO shaft. " ' View ..\ I) Figure 11. The constriction fonwd by the picking belts and the surrounding components. A) spring loaded roller and roller bearing; B) two inch diameter pulley; C) shield; D) vine prodder; E) chain for driving picking belts: F) shaft of picking belt pulley; G) fan drive chain: H) chain tightener. 22 at the point of constriction. This roller prohibited excessive move. ment of theupperbeltaweyfronthelowerbeltwhenthe vineswere drawn through the constriction; Excessive movement of the upper belt tended to damage the small fruit. A vine pmum'WM' (Figures 11 andu'13) was'added'to assure entry of the vines into the constriction. Because the detach. ment area was solidly shielded (Figure. ll) to lceep fruit and vines from escaping. the air used to float the plants up into the constriction had to be exhausted out'the area inwhichthe plants were comingin. At times the vines were kept away from the constriction by the exhausting air. but'the action of the vine! prodder forced'the vines back into the constriction. Des t f e To facilitate movement between the shop and field. the whole device was mounted on a two wheeled trailer. The power requirements of the device were not known so a tractor with a PTO (power-take-off) drive was used to ensure enough power to drive the device and maintain a constant speed during load. ‘ The speed of the device could be varied by changing the throttle setting on the tractor. The introduction conveyor belt was rubber surfaced and lit inches wide. The sheet metal hopper and the wooden shields (Figure 14) kept the vines on the belt. Adjustable bronze bearings on the rear of the conveyor penitted the proper tension to be applied to the belt. The paddle type fanhadatrashscreenandadamratthe inlet (Figure-'10). The! outlet of the air duct‘ Its also scmned to we / _' s . .r ’,z .2” Figure 12. The spring loaded mounting bracket for the Spring loaded Inner. Figure 13. The picking belts. vine prodder and introduction conveyor. A) eccentric for driving prodder; B) prodder: C) upper picking belt; D) lower picking belt: E) introduction conveyor; F) vine wiper for upper picking belt. 21+ prevent fruit arr! foreign material from falling into the fan housing. The 12 inch wide rubber picking belts had a smooth but firm outer surface. A special section V.be1t was vulcanized on the center of the pulley side of the belt to improve tracking qualities.’ The ends of the belt were held together by metal lacing; The pulleys over which the picking belts ran were grooved to accomodate the V-belt. The bearings for the'picking belt pulleys wereall ball bearings. and the upper four bearings were adjustable to permit the proper tension to be applied to the belt. The fruit box (Figure-9). located directly below the cons striction. was removable. The vine box (Figure 9) was also removable and was located at the upper ends of the picking belts. The spring-loaded. backup roller (Figure 11) was a 1 3/16 inch shaft with a groove in the middle. The vim prodder was driven from the shaft of the front introduction conveyor pulley. The vim prodder was' designed to engage the plants on the downward stroke but mt to' inhibit the motion of incoming plants on the upward stroke. The tip of. the vim prodder was made of sheet rubber. The sheet rubber was stiff enough to force the leaves and stems into the oomtriction. but pliable enough not to cause damge to the fruits that were at the comtriction at the end of the downward stroke of the prodder. One end of the shaft on the lowest pickirg belt pulley was conmcteddirectlytothetractorbyaPTOshaft. Theotherendof fi—v I"The belts were purchased from A. J. Sparks Coup-1w. Grand Rapids. Michigan. 25 the shaft on the lower picking belt pulley drove the fan from one sprocket (Figure 11) and the introduction and the top two picking belt pulleys from another sprocket. The speed of the PTO shaft ranged between 200 and 500 rpl. The speed ratio- of the PTO shaft to the. introduction conveyor shaft was 1.62:1. The ratio of the linear" speed of the pickim belts to the linear speed of the introduction conveyor belt .wes 1.10631. The speed ratio of the PTO shaft to the fan shaft was 1:7. The speed of the vine prodding mechanism was kept between 1K) and 60 stmkes- per minute for all operating speeds of the mchine. The mltiple V-belt sheave (Figure 10) permitted changes in speed ratios. 26 Data Collection Plants were provided by the Horticulture Department of Michigan State University for testing the fruit detachment device. The plants grown specifically for .machim harvesting use were the Spartan Dawn variety. The rows for these plants were 1+8 inches apart. and the plants were spaced on the average of 12 inches apart in the row. A When the supply of plants for machine harvesting was exhausted. additioml plants were obtained from the guard rows of yield trial plots . The varieties available from the yield trial plots were Spartan Dawn and Wisconsin SHE-18. Row spacing and plant spacing in the row varied in the yield trial plots. Where possible a row of plants 25 feet long was used as a test sample. When a row this ”length was not available. then a sample of' 25- plants was used. The best time for once-over harvest seemed to be when Grade 3 fruit began to appear on the vines. The maturity of the vines was approximately 50 days using this criteria. Because of developmental work being carried on durim the harvesting season. the best harvest times were sometimes missed. At the beginning of a test. the sprig loaded roller was adjusted so the greatest number of small fruit were removed without causing feeding problems. A twenty five foot row. or twenty five plants. were selected and the number of plants was recorded. The throttle setting of the tractor was adjusted to give the desired speed of the picking belts. A hand tachometer was used to determine 27 the speed of the PTO shaft. The plants were placed individually on the introduction conveyor with leaves up. When the complete sample had been put through the machine. the damaged and undamaged fruit were taken from the fruit catching box and placed in separate sacks. The processed vines were weighed and the weight recorded. The vines were omitted and saw marketable fruit that appeared with the vines was placed in a separate sack. After a series of tests were completed. the damaged and undamaged fruit were taken into the laboratory. The undamaged fruit were counted. graded. weighed. and the stems remaining on the fruit were counted and measured. The information was' recorded. The damaged fruit were graded and weighed: and as this information was recorded. the place where the damaged fruit appeared was also mentioned. Current grading information was used. and the sizes and values for the different grades are given in Table 1. Table 1. Grade sizes and values used in this investigation mur‘firat fife? Grade (mhesl W 1 d < 11/16 6.00 2 1 1/16 éd< 1 1/2 2.50 3 1 1/2 s d< 2 1.25 a 2 .4. d * 0-50 ' A *Fruit with diameters over two inches were not used if yellow spots were present. ' A e e f . , . \ Figure lit. The right side of mehim: A) vines in hopper; B) crushed vines in vine box: 6) fruit box. Figure 15. The fruit grading gauge and fruit samples: A) Grade 1: B) Grade 2; C) Grade 3. 29 The fruit were graded with the device shown in Figure 15. The machine removed a considerable amount of very small fruit. Only the small fruit with no blossoms or dried blossoms were considered. The range of sizes of Grade 1 that were harvested are shown in Figure 16. Damaged fruit (Figure l?) for these. tests was defined as broken. gauged. or smashed fruit. and fruit with serious abrasions. Gulls and oversize fruit were not considered in either danged or undamaged classifications. Figure 16. The range of sizes of Grade 1 fruit that were harvested. The actual size of the grid was one inch. [1 Figure 17. Damged fruit A) Grade 3; B) Grade 1: C) Grade 2. The actual size of the grid was one inch. 31 Re ts a Discuss . The measure of performance of the fruit detachment device is defined for this study to be the ratio of the monetary value of the marketable fruit harvested to the monetary value of the marketable fruit available for harvest. When expressed as a percent. this ratio has been called effectiveness. Since weights of the marketable (undamaged) fruit and non-marketable (damaged) fruit were recorded for each test. it was convenient to compute the monetary value ratio on a weight basis. The price per unit of weight was not constant for the different grades (Table 1) . so the weights were adjusted. The mathematical definition of effectiveness is: 4. 2 (Weight of undamaged Grade 8 fruit) It (Mn) 8 __ __ Effectiveness 8 z — ’— " v ' (weight of undamaged and damaged fruit n 8 1 Grade N) X (Mn) where N 8 Grade of fruit Price/wt for Grade N fruit and Mn = . Price/cut for Grade 1 fruit The values of Mn are given in Table 2. Figure 18 shows the effectiveness and the speed of the picking bolts for each of the 23 tests. All of the tests had an effectiveness higher than 86 percent. and 17 of the 23 tests. or 74 percent had an effectiveness higher than 93 percent. The scattering 32 Table 2. Values of 14,-, for computing effectiveness IL ‘7 6...: N 73‘ «W; M. 1 1 6.00 1.000 2 2 2.50 0A1? 3 3 1.25 0.208 n 2+ 0. 50 0.083 33 of points precludes aw suggestion of a' trend between speed and effectiveness. Figure 19 shows the distribution of the monetary damage for the various grades. Inn of the 23 tests. all the damage for the test occurred in Grade 1 fruit. Hence. in these 11 tests the effectiveness was determined solely by the amount of damage in Grade 1 fruit. In the retaining 12 tests damaged Grade 1 fruit accounted for an average of 61 percent of the total monetary damage for a test. The tendency for the effectiveness to decrease as the damage in Grade 1 fruit becomes a larger part of the total monetary dauge (Figure 20) isexplainedbyFigureZl. InFigurethhedamagein Grade 1 fruit is relatively constant. Therefore. the comtant proportion of damage in Grade 1 fruit tends to decrease the effectiveness as Grade 1 fruit make up a larger proportion of the sample. The tendency for the effectiveness to decrease. as the damage in Grade 1 fruit becomes a larger part of the total monetary damage is verified by Table 3. In Table 3 the tests with a high percentage of Grade 1 fruit tended to have a low effectiveness. Stuckman (12) has stated that in 1958. the farmers who sold cucumbers that averaged 51-60 percent Grade 1 and Grade 2 fruit by weight, received the highest net return per acre. This exact distri- bution may not provide the highest net return in a once-over cucumber harvesting Operation. but this proportion of Grade 1 and 2 fruit should be a reasonable estimate. 31+ .ouswam one no soapon one he co>am ma nomads ocean moodnm> new soap=QAAemap modem ommam>m one .mpaon wnaxoad mo pecan m> mmoco>wpoouwm .wa madmam Emu I man—mm no omwam ooo one can one 00¢ 03 com com 08 W34 :nfi:Zifidi_.:::___:1_::jlo Q. m.» L W ma... comm e 355 .1 One man e _ 0mm silo m 345 H H ewe 93. W 0.2.. seem N madam In A we m.o_ . _ on some _ 84$ 1: w Lull/ \ hi J «I > '4 Ill-J \l u zo_Sm_Em_o madam mo< H L A w i _ o J 3 o m i _ 1 «w o 1 _ A _ giiii : a a: L... n . M 1 L e 1 a w e w _ o I. w w W ee 1 e . l N 1:. -4113?) e edmi L 5.- e e .13 1 no N w n. 0 .IL 0 ._ _ 0 II. L _r 8. .moamn wcaxoad mo woman m> oemnm an ommseo mamomcos no soapsnwupmwo .ma madman .me Imam—mm m0 ommam 5665599999 eeeeeeeee _~_ 4 .r, . . a: .__ :U. .1 A. _ __ “a M: .__ w L i. r _._: _ 2.. . _ _ _ 0:“ :.~w a u H. u." . i. ._ . ... "1 ~ _ w a_m—— . . m.. ___ .. ._ _ L 5 L; H; :3 T” M, _ _ a L. L j .. .. .__ _ v..; , 1. .. _ N _ _ C) v _ 9 a v G 3 C) (D C) a) _._,_._.-.<-- —._ lNEOHBd—BO'IVA UV'TIOO NO OBSVQ 39VWVO JO NOILHQIULSIO Z BOVB‘E) 00. EFFECTIVENESS - PERCENT DAMAGE - PERCENT GRADE I IOO T g 1 !* ' I I 95 a -— L, I s 1 e 90.. _ :1 e L f “i-" ___ + .-.L__e ..... . 'o 4. 0 as»— ------ - ee— ——~——+~ :w-w so—-——«— -k-41—»- Mew—- 75 , 20 3O 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 IOO DAMAGE IN GRADE I - PERCENT OF TOTAL Figure 20. The tendency for the effectiveness to decrease as the percent of the total monetary damage increases in Grade 1 fruit. 60*"? I 1 T . i see-- % ' : 1 L ' I 40~—-~—.— ~ - L... - -— — - s i 30~—--~—~;-—~— : - —— : ,0 o; 0 i 0 . l , 2K)__Jl.- T- . _a_411_1.__% ° 0 0. o L a ‘7’: AVERAGE ° 3 <2, 0 : 1 2 i g i i : 1° : 1 J 0 5 IO IS 20 25 30 35 40 GRADE l - PERCENT BY WEIGHT Figure 21. Damage tends to remain constant as the preportion of Grade 1 fruit increases in the sample. 37 Table 3. Effectiveness values arranged in descending order and the percent of Grade-1 fruit in the sample. A high proportion of Grade 1 fruit in the sample tended to result 1n.a law effectixenese for the test. Grade 1 Fruit in sample Effectireness M - 3 2.7 98.2 2.7 97.9 9.3 97.1' 7.8 97.0 10.9 97.0 2.1 96.5 5.8 95.9 9.1 95.7 2.7 95.5 9.5 95.3 2.1 95.2 12.6 95.1 9.4 99.5 8.5 93.8 12.1 93.8 6.9 93.1» 9.1+ 93.9 11.6 9103 180.2 9007 28.6 89.8 #.8 88.9 26.1; 87.6 27.3 86.5 38 Figure 22 shows the effectiveness for the tests which had 51-60 percent Grade 1 and Grade 2 fruit by weight. Table 1+ indicates the exact proportion of Grade 1 fruit and Grade 2 fruit that comprised the 51-60 percent proportion of. Grade 1 and 2 fruit. Three of the four tests represented in Table- it have a very favorable effectiveness. Damaged fruit was found with the undamaged fruit and with the discarded vines" (Table 5). The damaged fruit found with the undamaged fruit would have to be remved under actual field-9 conditions. The percentage figures in column five of Table 5 suggest what proportion of the total weight of fruit harvested might need to be removed by mechanical or human sorters. The percentage of undamaged fruit with stems is shown in Figure 23. The lengths of the stems (mduncles) varied between 1/8 inch and 2 inches. In the speed range of 200 fps: to 400 rpm. an average of 13 percent of the fruit retained a stem. In the speed range of £000 fpm to 600 fpn an average of 17 percent of the fruit- retained a stem. The increased speed of the belts caused the plants to be handled more severely. and the fruit had a tendency to be shaken or knocked off rather than beirg snapped off at the constriction. The relatively narrow width of the picking belts only permitted plants to be fed into the device individually. Feeding the plants singly precluded any measurement of the capacity of the device. A *All fruit appearing in the vine box with the discarded vines was damaged. - ' \ EFFECTIVENESS -- PERCENT I00 Efi @ 0 0 95 0 03.9% e 0. GI II II 0 0 90 ° h 85 j>' - TESTS WHICH HAD 5|°/e-60°/e 5 ‘ OF GRADE |.AND GRADE 2 FRUIT BY WEIGHT. (DIAMETER OF FRUIT, I I/Z INCHES OR LESS) O I 1 LOO 2.00 VALUE OF MARKETABLE FRUIT--DOLLARS/ CWT Figure 22. Effectiveness for tests which had 51-60 percent 39 Grade 1 and Grade 2 fruit and the value of the harvested marketable fruit. Table 1+. The grade distrilntion for tests with 51-60 percent Grade 1 and Grade. 2 fruit _.. Valuewatwof . Grade Distribution of Sample . Harvested No.1 No.2 No.3 No.1 8: 2 Effectiveness Fruit - Pe nt Perce t Percent Fe Fe are 9.3 149.3 106.3 53.6 97.1 1.97 8.5 uz.o 49.5 50.5 93.8 2.05 12.1 “7.1 I«0.8 59.2 93.8 2.26 26.9 27.3 I+6.3 53.7 87.6 2.52 Table 5. Distribution of deluge and the.percent of the total weight ' of the test theta appeared as danaged.fruit in the fruit box *TF‘* '1? _ Damag fruit Damage5.f fruit mwgight'of T in fruit box, in 1d!!! be: and 31 est fruit - 'u Qaal_ (21 121 m 1 150 93 2578 5.3 2 04 48 7936 0.6 3 121 75 3911 3.1 h 129 62 9929 1.9 5 49 72 2999 1.7 6 1118 20 1035 3.“ 7 2h 37 #000 0.6 8 97 22 2222 4.5 9 86 33 2030 4.0 10 60 12 3272 1.9 11 46 8 36»? 1.3 12 34 39 3531+ 1.0 13 61 36 2610 2.5 1“ 117 12 3821 3.1 15 58 8 3581 1.6 16 79 14 3896 2.0 17 286 23 3915 7.3 18 18 12 2760 0.7 19 63 o 2&5? 2. 5 20 $2 82 6532 0.8 21 83 21+ 5130 1.5 22 3 28 6069 0.1 23 116 22 5906 2.0 z+2 .Empm m pecans?" pen... 33.5 mangoxpfia emanate: mo scooped .mm 0.33m .me I9me “.0 owmmm 999955655655999999888 %99®%GI8VW 0 IO N - IO N 2. 3. COMMENTS The double belt fruit detachnent device uneves' all sizes of marketable fruit. All of the tests'had an effectiveness higher than 86 percent. Seventy four percent of the tests had an effectiveness higher than 93 percent. The tests with 51-60 percent of the fruit with diameters less than 1 1/2 inches had an average effectiveness of 93 percent. An average of 79 percent of the monetary damage occurred in Grade 1 fruit. An average of 15 percent of the undamaged fruit retained a stem. The effectiveness did not appear to be a function of the speed of the picking belts. 1. SWGESTIOTS FOR FURTHER STUDY Determine the effectiveness of a field size device using the principle of the fruit detacIment device developed in. this investigation. Determine the grade distribution that provides the highest dollar return per acre. Establish the minimum size of fruit that should be considered marketable fruit. Establish precise damage criteria. means (1) Allard. Gordon (1956). Mechanical cucumber harvesting. Unpublished apart. Agricultural Engineering Department Library. University of Main. Orono. Maine. (2) Banner. Roy. R. A. Kepner. and B. 1.. Berger (1955). e W. 'John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. New To . 571 PD. (3) Bingley. George W. (1959). Comtruction. Evaluation and Efficiency Studies of a Mechanical Gamer Harvester. Thesis for the degree of M. S. Michigan State University. East Lansing (Unpublished). (a) Bingley. c. w..a. 1:. Leonard. w. r. Buchele. s. A. Stout. and S. K.Ries Ries.(l962) Mechanized Cucumber Harvesting. Agricultural Engineering. 213 (1):22.25. 3“. (5) George. 1.. F. (1955). The Maryland field conveyor. Market Growers Journal. 84 (7):6-8. (6) Leonard. a. x. (1958). Mechanical Cucumber Harvesting. Thesis for the degree of M. S.. Michigan State University. East lensing (Unpublished). (7) manger: Department of Agriculture (1961) W m (8) Stout. B. A. (1960). Development of a nechanical cucumber harvester. (Unpublished Report). Agricultural Engimerirg Department Library. Michigan State University. (9) Stout. H. A. (1961). Development of a nechanical cucunber harvester. (Umublished Report). Agricultural Engineering Department Library. Michigan State University. (10) Stout. a. A. and s. x. Rios (1959).. i progress report on the development of a mechanical cucumber harvester. Michigan figricgltué’al Egperiment Station Quarterly Mistin. 3 3 -71 (ll) Stout. 8.1. and S. K. Ries (1962)... The Feasibility of a Once. Over Mechanical Harvester for Picklitg (ha-hers. Michigan Agricultural Equerinent Station Quarterly Bulletin (In Press). 45 (12) .Stuclman. Heel w. (1959). Michigan Pinning Oucuabers—The grower. the picker and the HIRE. Michigan Agricultural Experilent Station Quarterly Bulletin. 42 (1): 2.23. (13 United States rtnent r cult 71961. t ) 8m .Dopn 0 £er m< ) W ”IWiiiilfifliiii1E“5