.1 ' D I 3.: . .I" ,‘.' W - .' Q! FL ‘I 3 A .‘ f I “L ‘“ ._ ‘33:} , -‘-. n ; “r ' 5,31 x ’ .fi"‘|}“ .3013: '1 ‘7 a. 3‘ 3% ,f U 5-. ‘ .p4 1'“. ‘Féfiséjfznsff'f" “1} 3‘ ‘ -‘3“.""€33‘!‘:‘3 333?;313I3m11 ‘1 “21‘5“? . 33% '3“! 1-! “I 1 a , I ‘r ' g ‘3 3“, r , lllllllllllllllllll\llllTillllllllllllllllll 3 1293 00060 8988 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A MECHANICAL SYSTEM FCB GRAPE VINE DEBRIS REMDVAL presented by Carter D. Clary has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters Agricultural Engineering degree in @fiCméth Major professor Date November 18, 1977 0-7639 A MECHANICAL SYSTEM FCR GRAPE VINE DEBRIS REMOVAL By Carter D. Clary A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirments for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Agricultural Engineering Department 197 7 During the 1975 and 1976 Michigan grape harvests, an experimental grape vine debris reunval system was tested. This unit included a cluster breaking device which fed onto a chain belt sorting surface. With the aid of vibration, the grapes fell through the chain belt and the vine debris (leaves, petioles, wood, post parts, and other non-grape material) rode over the end of the belt . Extensive stationary tests resulted in nearly 90 percent petiole renoval and grape losses due to the sorting process of less than 1 percent. Petioles in mechanically harvested grapes is of prinm'y concern to the juice processing industry as they cause serious plugging problem at the processing plant. In limited down-the-row testing, the vine debris renoval system approximately 60 percent of the vine debris. Grape losses due to sorting were less than 1/3 percent. These results warrant further analysis of the chain belt vine debris removal system and possible incorporation into a mechanical harvesting system. W... 93 1 Cum Maj or Professor Approved: M Department airman AW Appreciation must first be extended to the Agricultural Engineering Department and the Agricultural Research Service-USDA. Dr. B. F. Cargill, as major professor, has been an excellent source of guidance, and has contributed significantly to the experience I have gained.over the last few years. Dale Marshall of the USDA group has supplied me with valuable knowledge of research procedures. I sincerely thank Dr. Tbm Burkhardt for directing me to Michigan State University while at University of California -Davis. my thanks and.appreciation also go the Professor Clarence Hansen, Jordan Levin, and everyone in the Agricultural EngineeringuDepartment. The cooperation and assistance of Bill Grevelding and Jehn Nbrton of the National Grape Cooperative, Inc., and the Michigan and New'York Grape Council Committees are sincerely and gratefully acknowledged. lastly, my thanks go to my close friends Mike Cody and Steve Thomas for guiding me through some of the more chaotic times of my graduate studies. Appreciation also goes to Shari Cisco for typing the thesis. ii TABLEOFCQ‘JTENI‘S AW. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES I. II. III . INI‘RIDILTICN A. History of Grapes . B . Production and Utilization . C. Background of Grape Harvest . . D. Physical Properties of Mechanically. Harvested Grapes REVIEW OF LITERATURE A. Vineyard Debris in the Mechanically Harvested Product . . B. Bulk Handling Systens C. Methods of Removal of Vine Debris from Wically ‘ Harvested Grapes. JUSTIFICATICN OF RESEARCH A. Vine Debris, Juice Quality, and Processability B. Bulk Handling Systems . OBJECTIVES A. Overall ijectives . B. Specific ijectives . DEVELOPMENT OF A CDNCEPT. A. The Concept of Breaking Grape Clusters into Single Grapes . B. Developnent of a ‘Self—Cleaning Grid. PROJECI‘ PRIZEDURES A. Description of Cperation. B . Description of Equipment . iii 5. oo CONH H 11 ll 13 14 19 19 24 24 26 n 4 28 28 VII. VIII . IX. XII. XIII . 1. Cluster Breaker. . 2. Chain Belt Feed Conveyor 3. Chain Belt . C. Stationary Testing Procedures 1. Cluster Breaker. 2. Chain Belt . a. Definition of variables. b. Testing procedures . D. Down-the-Row Testing Procedures. DISCUSSION OF RESUILI‘S A. Cluster Breaker. 1. Test Results with 'Ooncord' - 1975.. 2. Test Results with 'Niagara' and 'Delaware' - 1975.. . . . 3. Test Results - 1976. 4. Bristle Durability. B. Chain Belt Stationary Test Results . C. Chain Belt Down-the—Row Test Results C(NCLUSICNS. SUMMARY. UNFINISHED WORK AND WATIQIS. APPENDIX A . APPENDIX B. . REFERENCES . l. Cited References 2. Other References iv assess-33' 37 37 38 67 76 78 79 82 Table LIST OF TABLES United States Grape Production and Utilization of The Connemial Crush, by States, 1975 (' 'Wines and Vines", May, 1976). Mechanical Grape Harvesting and Production History - Michigan. Cluster Breaker Efficiency with Respect to Brush Dianet er and Brush Int ennesh- 'Thonpson Seedless' - 1976 . . . Factorial Analysis of Variance of Five System Variables on EXperimental Vine Debris Removal System, 1975 and 1976 . Effect of Vibration Amplitude and Vibration Frequency on Grapes Recovered and Petioles Renoved - 1975 , . . . . . Effect of Vibration Amplitude and Vibration Frequency on Grapes Recovered and Pet ioles Rennved - 1976. . . . . Results of Down-the—Row Testing of Experimental Debris Reunval System in Michigan and Pennsylvania - 1976 49 52 59 62 Figure 10 11 13 14 15 LIST OF FIGURES Traditional Hand Harvesting Prior to Mechanical Harvesting. . . . . . . Conventional Method of Transferring Grapes from Vineyard to Processor Prior to Mechanical Conventional Mechanical Harvesting System . Existing 0. 9Metric Ton Handling System for Mechanically Harvested Grapes . . . Vibrating Grid Vine Debris Remval Systen - 1974 Rotary Drum Vine Debris Reunval Systens - 1974 Convertional O. 9 Metric Ton Capacity Handling System for Mechanically Harvested Grapes . . 3.2 Metric Ton Capacity, Highlift Bulk Handling System to Replace Conventional Vineyard Trailer - 1973 7. 3 Metric Ton Capacity, Self-Dumping Bulk Tank Truck - 1973 . Chain Belt Vine Debris Removal System - 1975 Cross-Section Diagram of Chain Belt Debris Removal. Chain Belt Vine Debris Removal Systen - 1976 main Belt and Chain Belt Feed Conveyor - 1976. Cluster Breaker Efficiency with Respect to Brush Texture, Fast/Slow Brush Speed Ratio, and Slow Brush Speed - 'Concord' - 1975. . Cluster Breaker Efficiency with Respect to Brush Texture, Fast/ Slow Brush Speed Ratio, and Slow Brush Speed - 'Niagara' - 1975. 16 17 21 22 22 31 32 35 42 43 Figure 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cluster Breaker Efficiency with Respect to Brush Texture, Fast/Slow Brush Speed Ratio, and Slow Brush Speed - 'Delaware' - 1975. . Cluster Breaker Efficiency with Respect to Brush Texture, Fast/Slow Brush Speed Ratio, and Slow Brush Speed - Mean of 'Concord', 'Niagara', and 'Delaware' - 1975 . . . The Polypropylene and Nylon Cluster Breaker Brushes - 1976 . . . . . Effect of Amplitude, Frequency, and Belt Angle on Petiole Removal - 1975 . . . . Effect of Amplitude, Frequency, and Belt Angle on Petiole Remnval - 1975 . . . . Effect of Amplitude, Frequency, and Feed Rate on Grape Recovery - 1976 . . . . Effect of Amplitude, Frequency, and Feed Rate on Petiole Removal - 1976 . . Effect of Vibration Amplitude and Vibration Frequency on Grapes Recovered and Pet ioles Remved - 1975 . . . . Effect of Vibration Amplitude and Vibration Frequency on Grapes Recovered and Pet ioles Remved - 1976 . . . . . Preliminary Chain Belt Results Incorporating a Barrier and Fabric Drape to Improve Petiole Remnval - 1977 . . 45 51 55 57 58 59 69 I. INTRODUCTION A. History of Grapes Of all the cultivated fruits, history tells us grapes are one of the oldest. The Bible tells that Nbah planted a vineyard as one of his first acts after safely completing his stay in the ark. Grape seeds have been found in Egyptian tombs 3,000 years old and in the remains of Bronze period lake dwellings of Switzerland and Italy, where grapes were introduced into Europe by the Phoenicians (Sears, 1920). Undoubtedly, grapes were first used as fresh fruit, and large quantities of grapes are still consmmed each year as fresh fruit. Hewever, the largest quantity of grapes is used for processing wines, juice, jelly and raisins ("Wines and'Vines”, May, 1976). Fhmly'American explorers found the continent abounding in wild grapes; they called.it "vineland". The first successful domestic produc- tion of grapes was on the Atlantic coast, harvested in 1820 in the vine- yard of Jenn Adlum in Georgetown, D. C. (Harvest, 1946). Nb group of fruits is more interesting botanically, and perhaps more complicated, than grapes. It is beyond the SCOpe of this thesis to discuss in detail theinore than 60 varieties of grapes and their characteristics. Yet a brief discussion is advisable as varietal characteristics influence memhanization. Probably the best known species of Vitis is the European species Vitis vinifera; it makes up 90 percent of the world grape culture l 2 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973). This species is important in the production of many hybrids grown in the United States as well as an important species grown in California. Some of the important hybrid varieties of vinifera and American species are 'Baco Noir' and 'Cuvee' (Winkler, 1974). The single species of grape with the greatest acreage grown in the northern parts of the United States is the northern fox grape, m lubrusca. It was developed from native species grown in the northern sections of this cormtry and includes the well-known 'Concord' grape. The Concord grape was developed in 1849 by Ephraim Bull of Concord, Massachussetts (Sears, 1920). B . Product ion and Utilization About 10 million hectares (25 million acres) of grapes are culti- vated in the world today; 75 percent of the grapes produced are grown in Europe, 11 percent in Asia, 5 percent in South America, 5 percent in Africa, 3 percent in North America, and 1 percent in Oceana (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973) . California is the major grape state producing 90.5 percent of the United States total in 1975. Of the 3,559,800 metric tons (3,924,000 tons) of grapes produced in California, 56.3 percent was crushed exclusively for wine (”Wines and Vines", May, 1976). Grape juice in the United States is produced almost exclusively from Concord grapes. The crushed grapes are heated, pressed, stabilized with sulfur dioxide, clarified, and bottled hot. Grape jelly is usually made from Concord grape juice (Sears, 1920). 3 Primarily, the Concord is grown in the Great Lakes region consisting of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Ontario (Canada). Washington also has a sizeable acreage of Concords. Prochiction statis— tics for these states are shown in Table 1. Michigan is the fourth largest producer of grapes in the United States, producing 49,900 metric tons (55,000 tons) in 1975; accormting for 1.3 percent of the national production. Over 90 percent of the grapes harvested in Michigan are crushed for juice, jellies, and jams (Table 1) (”Wines and Vines", 1976). The commercial production of Concords in Michigan is located in the southwest counties of Berrien and Van Buren, centered near Benton Harbor and Paw Paw. Michigan production since 1967 is outlined in Table 2. C . Background of Grape Harvest Traditionally, gape harvesting has been done by cutting the fruit bunches from the vine by hand. Grapes for processing into wine and juice were normally hand harvested into boxes, and transported directly to the processor for crushing and pressing (Figures 1 and 2). Grapes for fresh market are harvested by hand and packed directly into shipping containers. Economic studies in New York indicate that the harvesting cost of hand harvested Concord gapes delivered to the processors or wineries averaged $35 per ton in 1968. Hand harvesting required about half of the total hourly labor input per acre of vineyard (Berlage and Black, 1969). California harvesting and hauling costs ranged from $11 to $25 per ton for wine gapes (Studer and Olmo, 1969) . Until the mid 1960's, much of the commercial harvesting of fruits and vegetables in the Midwest was performed by a migrant labor force. It was 0:50.000 opsom 000 5.002 7.93000;— Jfiwnocc damages. 006305.. 009.05%: 00% 3803030 was 0030:60an 000.00 13.00 300m .0030 30:00 002308 0:0 00205; 8. 000020 00 .3: H0330: ream 00000093 05 m0 0.00m .0330“. 050 5000.0 £0050 009000535 so“ 0300:. 00303.50 .88930 .0050 no“ 830N333 mucoasmcs 00:30? 0.: 0.00 0.00 0.000 0000.0 0830 000000 0.00 0.0a 0.0 0.0 0.0 10830 350 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.: 0080.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0a 020 0.00 0.3 «.00 HA 0.00 300300050 0.00 0.0 0.00 04 0.00 0000502 ml .0... ml. 0.0 0.00 0805000; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.02 €00 302 0.00 0.00s 0.00 0.00 0000.0 30000200 388000 382000 $08.83 3002000 0:00. 0&3: N0000000000 0.000sz 0000000 EHSBQE Enmoooonmmm 00 .00 40.50. 0.0 .00 .59. 00000 ”mg 95595 m0 ZOEENHAHED .8000 .002 ...mo§> 0:0 0050.; 0s0~ .mcpdum an .2095 35.80800 05. .Ho 005.0330: 600 00305095 090nm $905 603:: .H 3809 5 Table 2. Mechanical gape harvesting and production history - Michigan. Pmcrrow YEAR PRCDUCI‘ICN MECHANICAL mammr (1000 metric mmvr.'s'r'iaras.1 HARVESTEDI tons) . (percent) 1967 35.4 o 0 1968 20.92 1 1 1969 34.5 11 25 1970 56 .3 25 65 1971 62.6 37 87 1972 48.1 44 90 1973 21.32 50 92 1974 43.1 58 92 1975 49 .9 64 92 1976 13.2 66 92 1Industry estimate based on correspondence with industry representatives . 2low yield due to spring frost damage. Figure 1. Traditional Hand Harvesting Prior to Mechanical Harvesting. Figure 2. Conventional Method of Transferring Grapes from Vineyard to Processor Prior to Mechanical Harvesting. 7 considered unlikely that field labor would increase in availability, or decrease in cost in the future. During the summer season, the migant labor force moves north from the Southwest and Southeast (Texas and Florida), into the fruit and vegetable areas of New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Until recently, plenty of work was available during July, August and September in Michigan. The migrant worker depends on continuous work from spring to fall. Breaks in this work occurred when the cherry, cucumber and blueberry harvests were mechanized. Therefore, labor for the gape harvest was in jeopardy (Berlage and Black, 1969). The gape harvest comes relatively late in the summer season and requires a high number of workers concentrated into a period of only 4 to 5 weeks. It was apparent to the migrant labor force that it was no longer profitable to wait idly through mid-summer for the gape harvest in Septerber. Therefore, labor supplies for gape harvest began to dwindle promoting the investigation of mechanizing the gape harvest. Experimental mechanical harvesting of gapes began in California in 1952. The approach was to train the gapes. so they could be removed with a cutter bar head. By 1957, shake harvesting trials were underway in New York. California shake harvesting trials began in 1961. Platform type harvesting aids were tested in California from 1965 to 1967. As a result of early emphasis on grape harvesting research, several commercial harvesters are now available (Berlage and Black, 1969; Studer and Olmo, 1969). Initial atterpts in New York to modify the vine to fit a machine led to the concept of developing an optimum vine system and then designing a machine to fit the vine. Trellising systems such as the Geneva Double Curtain and the Duplex System provided yield as well as mechaniza- tion advantages (Winkler, 1974). 8 The first commercial harvesting of any extent was done in 1967. Commercial gape harvesters are used exclusively in processing gape varieties. These over-the-row harvesters basically apply a vertical or horizontal shake to the vines or supporting wires (Figures 3 and 4). Labor replacerent ratios varied frorm 10 to 1, to 15 to 1. Limited data taken in New York from 1968 indicated that during the most efficient operation, one harvester with crew replaced 95 hand harvesters. In New York, the average 1968 harvesting cost for four machines harvesting Concord gapes was $20 per ton delivered to the processor compared to $35 per ton for hand harvesting (Berlage and Black, 1969). Use of mechanical grape harvesters in southwestern Michigan has increased since the introduction of one harvester in 1968 to 66 harvesters in 1976. Approximately 92 percent of the Michigan crop was harvested mechanically in 1976 (Table 2)(industry estimate based on correspondence with industry representatives). The rate of adoption of mechanical gape harvesting was affected by: (l) the labor availability, (2) economics of mechanical harvesting and handling, (3) the quality of mechanically harvested gape, (4) the readiness of processors to accept mechanically harvested gapes, and (5) the readiness and ability of growers to change to mechanical gape harvesting (Shepardson, et al. 1969). D. Physical Properties of Mechanically Harvested Grapes The vibratory action of the shaker head used to detach the gapes from the vine also detaches leaves, leaf stems (petioles), and cane wood, tendrils, trellis post parts, and other non—grape material. This Figure 3. Conventional Mechanical Harvesting Systen. Figure 4. Existing 0.9 Metric Ton Handling System for Mechanically Harvested Grapes. 10 debris falls onto the catching conveyor and is collected with the gapes. Most mechanical harvesters have an airstream separation system at the end of the catching conveyor. This system reroves much of the light debris, but petioles, because of their unfavorable surface area to rmass ratio, are nearly impossible to remove in an airstream without unacceptable gape losses. The amount of vine debris that separates from the vine with the gapes varies greatly with maturity, vineyard, and year. Probably the most sigiificant factor affecting the quantity of vine debris in the mechanically harvested product , other than incorrect harvester operation, is a frost prior to harvest which is comron in the eastern United States. After a frost, the leaves on the gapevine loosen and/or separate from their petioles and minimal vibration is required to separate the petiole from the cane. Mechanical harvesting at this time results in very large quantities of petioles separating from the vine with the gapes. Vine debris and disintegation of fruit may be increased by the machines employing a horizontal slapping action over machines using a vertical stroke to the trellis wire to remove the fruit from the vine. The slapping action damages the fruit and damaged fruit wets the leaves with a sticky juice. This makes leaf separation by air difficult. The flavor of the Concord grape is unique among all gapes. The gape juice and its allied industries are based on this flavor uniqueness; assurance is needed that the end products of mechanically harvested Concord gapes do not suffer either by loss or alteration of flavor due to mechanical damage and/or presence of debris in the mechanically harvested product . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to set the stage for the subsequent chapters; to build a fomdation of literary information describing vine debris, its effect on quality and processability, and methods of removing the debris from the mechanically harvested product. A. Vine Debris in the Mechanically Harvested Product. Since the first application of the concept of shaking gapevines to remove the fruit, researchers have observed the problem of vine debris falling from the vine with the fruit. This debris includes leaves, leaf petioles, vine—parts and other foreign material. In initial New York tests as reported by Shepardson (1969), it was noticed that the vibration of the shaker head also loosened leaves and pieces of the vine which fell off onto the catching frame conveyor along with the gapes. Most of this debris can be reroved when it falls through an airstream having a velocity of 4,000 feet per minute. Moyer (1968) found that up to 8 percent of the weight of the material discharged from the catching frame conveyor belt, was vine debris. Most of this debris can be eliminated by use of an air separation system. Moyer also points out the ineffectiveness of the air system in removing leaf petioles because of their lack of buoyancy. After a frost during the harvest season, excessive quantities of petiOles come off of the vine during the mechanical harvest 11 12 operation. This condition results in serious complications at the processing plant (Norton, 1977). Presence of vine debris can foul pumps and cause other stoppages at the processing plant (Shepardson gt__a_1_. , 1969; Moyer $11.: 1969). The fibrous nature of the gape leaf petioles make it difficult to handle this product in the processing plant equipment. Breakdown of pumps, stoppages in heat exchangers, and plugging of transport pipes are primarily caused by accumulation of petioles in the processing system (Norton, 1977) (Appendix B). The effect of vine debris on juice and wine quality is also evident in Vitis vinifera cultivars grown in the western United States (Petrucci and Siegfried, 1976). Wildenradt fl. (1975) describe tests conducted using taste—panel evaluation of wines produced from the ’Chenin Blanc' gapes with various proportions of leaves. Wines made with more than 5 percent macerated leaves were of significantly lower quality. Studies completed by Noble e_t_al. (1975) at University California- Davis, indicated no overall adverse effect on wine quality was produced by mechanically harvesting gapes or adding shredded (not macerated) gape leaves. Nevertheless, white wines made fran damaged or machine harvested gapes were significantly darker by visual assessment . Johnson and Grgich (1976) carried out field studies comparing hand and mechanically harvested grapes and resultant wine quality. 0f the two varieties analyzed, the 'Cabernet Sauvigon' wines were of no sigifi- cant difference in quality, while mechanically harvested white 'Riesling' grapes and the resultant wine was of slightly higher quality compared to the hand harvested. Interestingly, the mechanically harvested lots of both varieties contained fewer leaves than the hand harvested lots. 13 It is apparent from the above studies that mechanically harvested gapes contain less vine debris than hand harvested gapes. The controversy appears to be over the quality of the wine made from mechanically harvested gapes. Variability in results could be explained by the skill of the harvester operat0r, and the method of handling the. gapes following harvest. Operating the harvester at high beater speeds will result in excessive damage, especially in white varieties which will show post-harvest oxidation much more readily than red varieties. Furthermore, the mechanical harvesting process does not macerate grape- leaves to the degee tested by Wildenradt et al. (1975). B. Bulk Handling Systers. Presently, the majority of the mechanically harvested gapes in Michigan are handled in 106.68 x 119.38 x 96.52 cm deep (42 x 47 x 38 in) wood bulk boxes with 0.32 cm (1/8 in) polyethylene liners. These bulk containers hold 0.9 metric tons (1 ton) of mechanically harvested gapes (Marshall §t_a_l_., 1971). Development of suitable handling systems have not kept pace with harvester development . During the 1969 season , studies were conducted on the physical properties of gapes in order that work could begin on the investigation of more expedient forms of bulk handling (Marshall M. , 1971) . Several types of alternative bulk handling systers were tested during 1970 in southwestern Michigan (Williams 3211; , 1971) . The best system included a conventional harvester, unloading into a 3.2 metric ton capacity high-lift bulk vineyard trailer, and a 7.3 metric ton capacity 14 rear dumping bulk tank truck. This harvesting system required 3 workers. The major advantages of the high-lift bulk handling system were that: 1) it reduced manpower and equipment requirements by eliminating the need for a forklift in the vineyard and at the processing plant; 2) it offered a potential savings of $4,000 per harvester per year (Williams gal; , 1971 and Snobar 31:211., 1976), and; 3) the quality of the Concord juices was equal to or better than juices made from gapes handled in the conventional 1 metric ton capacity pallet boxes (Whittenberger 3133.1. , 1971; Marshall _et__a_l_. , 1972; Marshall, 1973). The major disadvantage of the new high-lift bulk handling system was that it did not permit removal of vine debris as was done previously by the bin attendant on the vineyard trailer. C. Methods of Removal of Vine Debris from Mechanically Harvested Grapes. At present, the largest United States Concord gape processor has attempted to reduce the vine debris from mechanically harvested gapes by requiring a bin attendant with each harvester. The bin attendant rides on the vineyard trailer and manually removes vine debris from the 0.9 metric ton (l-ton) capacity pallet box as it fills. It is apparent that a bin attendant is unable to function satisfactorily when the pallet box is filling at a rate of 4.5 metric tons per hour (5 tons per hour) for a typical Michigan crop. An attempt to improve manual debris removal was made by relocating the bin attendant from the vineyard trailer to an improved vantage point 15 on the harvester. This new system was fully tested in 1974 (Marshall, M. , 1975). Relocating the bin attendant on the harvester increased debris reroval from removal of 8 percent achieved by the conventional bin attendant, to a range of 22 to 34 percent removal of vine debris. Relocating the bin attendant on the harvester would permit use of the 3.2 metric ton bulk handling system. In spite of the 3 to 4 fold increase, the improved man-aid sorting system did not substantially increase the bin attendant 's efficiency because of the variation of dedication of the bin attendant. A better method of removing debris from mechanically harvested grapes was needed. Marshall fl. (1975) described two mechanical systers that were tested (Figures 5 and 6). (he system tested by the National Grape Cooperative in 1971 and 1972 (Figure 5), consisted of a vibrating gid with 3.49 x 5.08 cm (1.375 x 2.00 in) openings, 45.72 cm (18 in) wide, and 107 cm (42 in) long, built into a trough 267 cm (105 in) long. The mechanically harvested product consisting of single gapes, clusters, and vine debris, was fed into the higher end of the trough. With the assistance of vibration of 700 to 800 Hz, 0.64 to 0.79 cm (1.6 to 2.0 in) vibration amplitude, the gape material moved down the trough over the separation gid. The model was modified slightly in 1974 by placing a device over the gid to keep it clear. The 1974 shaker system in Concords averaged 81 percent removal of leaves, 61 percent of the petioles, and 70 percent of the cane wood in 26 tests during the 1973 season. Losses of clusters and single gapes averaged 12.3, 13.2, and 6.8 percent for 'Niagara' , ’Delaware' , and 'Concord' , respectively; this high gape loss was unacceptable . 165 .30: 13.0008. 93 05.0020 Honda mgm sex—Em Qucgngxo so 308 03m )_ Kl : .0 850E L x0e #935. r >h_0<0<0 x00 ; 0220p 0 0 o 00x .58 £05 .OH Gunmen .0 break up the clusters into single grapes. Next, the singulated grape material was discharged from the cluster breaker onto a vibrating transfer pan (not visible in Figure~10) which fed the material onto a chain belt. Here the single grapes would fall through the openings in the chain belt; the vine debris would span the chain belt openings and ride over the end of theVbelt. A.vibrating unit was incorporated into the chain belt separator to minimize plugging of the chain belt openings and prevent single grapes fromiriding over the end.of the belt on top of the leaves, thus not falling through the openings. The principle of operation of the system constructed for the 1976 season was the same as that used in 1975 (Figure 11). This system was built onto a trailer and.included its own hydraulic power unit to operate the vine debris removal system, so it could be pulled through the vineyard (Figure 12). In addition to the basic components tested in 1975, a catching conveyor’was mounted above the cluster breaker which would catch the~material fromlthe harvester discharge conveyor and feed it into the cluster breaker; The trailer.mounted.mode1 was built to accomodate a 0.9 metric tom (1 ton) capacity pallet box to hold the grapes processed by the vine debris removal system. The transfer pan which caught material from the cluster breaker and fed it onto the chain belt on the 1975 model, was replaced by a mall conveyor belt on the 1976 model. The 1976 model was tested in southwestern Michigan and Pennsylvania. B . Description of Equipment . 1) Cluster breaker - The cluster breaker consisted of two cylindrical 31 puma I Eoummm 1050.90 3.509 30m 5020 H0 50.0005 oceuoomlmmono >02m=Omza w11\\\\mcnrm 22:01 a a a , 33300.0 D 004<00 :l I, I .2 8:000 ou>o2mm + m_mmmo a Y 0.3;: :00 23:22 10:00 in. Image 0001.0n0 zrz__mmmoxd_ SHE :mzmm 522:: @035. Swim Imzzm :mzZEm \ Ema—Em Tow Z: 73 Tom 78 E: was Tom wow 2: a 3 W O m 2. .1 moi 9 “O o e w . c. o no 0.. .\ B/Iluo m. u \ m 1.5 33% 1. . . , D . _ . 4 2: W1 83:2: :35 com s :5 83er 53m 5282 3 :5 I 83x“: 53m :5 2 Ea. 2 8on gm .sonDmmm guess swim 8 p .39 .. 98239 I 80am swam 3on 2d 63% 25QO fig, Pucmfivfltm .mmxcmpm .8998 3:35 222%... ... 8538:-..JEEA @ ram ,3 3330 maze 85m :mnzm 57:5“. 2: To: ‘1 8513235 .8523. :eézm m mo<2_mmm.oxm. 3on 28 .3 5. umufimnm .8998 . 5 may. 2%. cm 0 2%. S 4 Sim a O 2%. .V 0 2%. 22.5 52.5%. .MOES. Swim Imzzm 32.5%. . aminzmhm D II: b Tom 3: wow 4‘ ............ , ...... w . .wom wow D \U 0 ... ............................. .............................. .............................. ................................ 32:; 52m. 20m 2 =5 83:: :85 2232 2 :5 m 33x3 :35 .._.m o. .25 50 'IVAOWBH (1N3383d) SBdVHO 2) 46 These results were obtained from brush textures of stiff-to—stifi’ and stiff-to-soft. 'Ihe stiff-to—medium texture combination ranged 95 to 100 percent removal of grapes at the above settings. 'Ihe stiff-to-stiff brush texture combination demnnstrates the best potential for removing all the grapes from any clusters. The range of settings for 100 percent removal is fairly wide; ranging from a retainer brush speed of 8 RPM, stripper/retainer brush speed ratio of 25 to 40:1, to 15 RPM, 15 to 25:1, respectively. It is inportant to note that exceeding a retainer/stripper brush speed ratio of 25:1, and/or a retainer brush speed of 15 RPM was found to cause excessive damage and juicing. According to the subjective damage analysis, this was determined by consulting with industry representative during the tests. The optimum setting for Concords was a retainer brush speed of 15 RPM, and a stripper/retainer brush speed ratio of 25:1. Test results ”With Niagara and Delaware varieties - 1975 - Figures 15, 16 and 17 show 1975 test results for Niagara, Delaware, and mean results for all three varieties , respectively . 'me Niagara grapes are the same size as Concord, but the Niagara clusters are more compact . The Delaware cluster consists of smaller grapes and the clusters are very compact . The cluster breaker responded noticeably to cluster compactness and berry size as shown in consecutively less satisfactory results for Niagara and Delaware. This response is related to the spacing of the bristles on the brushes and bristle stiffness. 47 The Niagara cluster responded in much the same way as the Concord cluster because of similar berry size. It can be seen in Figure 15 that optimum cluster breaker settings and bristle texture for Niagara are similar to those for Concord. 0) the other hand, tests with the Delaware grapes (Figure 16) showed a maximum removal of grapes of less than 100 percent at a retainer brush speed (15 RPM) and stripper/retainer bmsh speed ratio (25:1) settings similar to Concord and Niagara grapes. Grape removal of 98 percent was also obtained at a stripper/ retainer brush speed ratio of 40:1, but, as with Concord and Niagara, juicing was excessive. Unlike the Concord and Niagara, these settings were applied using the stiff-to—medium brush texture ccmbination. The bristles on the medium bristle texture brush are spaced closer than the stiff bristle texture brush. It appears the medium bristle texture brush (with bristles spaced closer together) trapped the smaller Delaware grapes more efficiently than the wider spaced bristles of the stiff brush, pulling them from the clusters . The overall mean results for all three varieties (Figure 17) demonstrates the general characteristics of the cluster breaker. A brush speed of 15 RPM consistently showed the best results in removal of grapes from clusters without causing excessive damage as was found with the slow brush speed of 24 RPM . Through-put was controlled by the retainer brush speed because the retainer brush tended to hold the grape clusters while the stripper brush 3) 48 pulled the single grapes from the clLsters. Overall, as retainer brush speed, stripper/retainer brush speed ratio, bristle stiff- ness, and/or brush intermesh were increased, single grape remnval efficiency improved and is under further investigation. Test results '- 1976 - The cluster breaker was further tested in July, 1976 using California “Thompson Seedless' grapes (Table 3). These tests demonstrated the effect of shorter bristles and closer brush intermesh on grape removal efficiency. At a retainer brush speed of 16 RPM and a stripper/retainer brush speed ratio of 27:1, the Thompson Seedless responded in web the same way as the Michigan varieties tested. However, shorter bristle length and/or intermesh greater than 3.81 cm (1.5 in) demonstrated no improvement over the previously discussed settings; only increasing damage. The cluster breaker was operated at optimum settings throughout the 1976 Concord tests. No partial or whole clusters were found with the vine debris indicating that the cluster breaker was breaking up 100 percent of the clusters it encountered. It was noted that the cluster breaker did not break up the undesirable "second crop" grape clusters which are immature at harvest time and very high in acid. An appreciable quantity of "second crop” in the mechanically harvested product can effect quality. Since these clisters passed unharmed through the cluster breaker, they were sorted as vine debris. 49 fig pH n women swan eocheoh .amop Hoe mcoHpmoHHeop m gem n 038v 2% m? u 88m :95 umafifim 63389 59535 Egg n A5 9: Eu w.m~ 62: .mm 33. £88QO someone Sfiohdao 0.83 868 when? hm N.O we ®.H N.OH um.m m.©H h.NH b mm ¢.H om N.N ¢.HH H.m m.©H m.wH m OOH o wv N.o b.NH w.m m.©H m.©H m Hm H v.0v ¢.¢ m.mH v.0 m.ON n.®H w mm N.o N.ON ®.m ©.¢H w.m m.om n.®H m mm m em N o.¢H ¢.® m.ON m.ON N OOH ®.N be 0 m.®H m.m m.ON m.ON H . 5%.. a... was .5 s a .5 . . . mMBsz.OB . mEHms< mmHsz mmmzfl mmgmHmHm mmzngmm Hmmm. @898ch emfim 5:83ch 9:68. 33QO 8883mm 8:85 86:8 cease .mbmH I mmoHeoom :89.an I fineness.“ swan use £09883 53.5 cu Homeboy cams monoaofimmo Manage .8995 .m mHnt Figure 18. The Polypropylene and Nylon Cluster Breaker Brushes - 1976. 51 4) Bristle durability - It was found in the 1975 tests that the poly- propylene bristles would not withstand extended use without splitting. The polypropylene bristle is fibrous and when the end splits, it would soon separate down to the base of the bristle, reducing the effectiveness of the cluster breaker. Two alterna- tives were pursued in 1976 ; heat sealing the ends of the poly- propylene bristles and testing a nylon bristle brush (Figure 18). Heat sealing the polypropylene bristles did not reduce splitting. The nylon brush was significantly more durable, but some splitting still occurred. Upon detailed inspection of the nylon bristles, it was found that the bristles that were split, were hollow. This problem has been discussed with the bristle manufacturer. B. Chain Belt Stationary Test Results. Extensive chain belt evaluation was completed in 1975 and 1976. After gaining experience with the chain belt, statistical analysis verified the trends observed during testing. The influence of five system variables (vibration frequency, vibration amplitude, belt speed, belt angle and feed rate) on grape recovery and petiole removal was studied using a factorial analysis of variance computer program from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie. gt__a_l_., 1975). The influence of these five system variables is shown in Table 4 for 1975, 1976, and both years combined. The four-way factorial analysis of variance indicated that petiole removal was influenced by vibration frequency and vibration amplitude for Table 4. 52 Factorial analysis of variance of five system variables on experimental vine debris removal system, 1975 and 1976. SIGNIFICANCE* YEAR SYSTEM VARIABLES Pet iole Grape Remval Recovery 1975 Vibration frequency S 1 S Vibration amplitude S S Belt speed N32 3 Belt angle 3 NS S 1976 Vibration frequency S S Vibration amplitude NS S Belt speed NS NS Feed rat e“ NS S 1975 Vibration frequency S S 8: Vibration amplitude S S 1976 Belt speed NS NS s=SQMfimm(e&mmucsawy 2N8 a Net Significant (FLStatistic > 0.05). 3Belt Angle tested.in 1975 only. “Feed rate tested in 1976 only. 53 the 1975 data and for both years combined (Table 4). In 1976, petiole removal was affected by vibration frequelcy, but there was insufficient evidence to show any influence from vibration amplitude, belt speed, or feed rate. However, more limited ranges of vibration frequency and vibration amplitude were tested in 1976. The analysis of variance for 1975 data indicated that grape recovery was influenced by vibration frequency, vibration amplitude, be1t speed and belt angle. The 1976 analysis of variance showed that grape recovery was influenced by vibration frequency, vibration amplitude and feed rate. The three-way factorial analysis of variance for the two years combined indicated that grape recovery was influenced by vibration frequency and vibration amplitude . These system variables appeared to contribute to the aggressiveness of the chain belt. Feed rate was important in that the more grapes fed onto the belt, the more would tend to stick to the belt. The 1975 and 1976 data indicated a trade-off between optimum petiole removal and optimum grape recovery. As shown in Figures 19 and 20 for 1975, and 21 and 22 for 1976, an inverse relationship exists between petiole removal and grape recovery. This relationship is particularly evident in the 1976 data (Figures 21 and 22) . As vibration amplitude and/or vibration frequency increased, the percentage of gapes recovered generally increased and the percentage of petioles removed generally decrease. Determination of maximum grape recovery and maximum petiole removal is difficult. Figure 23 and Table 5 combine into one graph and table the data for petiole removal and grape recovery for 1975, and Figure 24 and Table 6 for 1976. Coordinates closest to the origin of each graph represent the most satisfactory results. Each letter indicates a data point, unless a point is present adjacent to a letter. Coordinate G (Figure 24, Table 6) ( 25 mm vibration amplitude, 2.0 Hz vibration frequency) represents an N2es.e ~=_e.m Nzea.~ N:_e.~ SSEE ess e .3 .Se N: «.6 me ~: Ya .m N: :V .N N: 9m A Belize EEMQ "unoo >02u=Om~E es 3. 5:. mm e=_m~ as m 20.52;; 0004 “moon. m::.....EE< zc: .32 u E988 e35 no names 38 Re seeming .832; .3 Beam .2 33mg 332. m 3.52. e 3.33 o L..oz< 5mm .2: EVE—Sum”. 20.2mm; e m N _ e m N _ e m ~ ~ - p p p u 5 mm 9 Nu v .d m 9 . .. .3 no 0 4 E .m o m n UllIIIID D 3 \\\\\.e \\\\\\ . \\\ .se m o 4 o . ) M\ \ \ d 3 o / N \o Wm?“ wk \\\\\\0 N mnuuutq o e.we _ . eezmm I.— 55 .22 I 229mm ofiofioe no 2mg fiom ooe $8832 69235. Ho poets .om oars. s... e es. e see . see :2. .2: $2233: 2323;; e m N s. e N N _ e m N l P go A L p . — 0 d q _ m 4 r \o . .. m. , I oneV S Nu 3 o . o , c . m M /.D\\\\\\\.D ooom 23.5 :o boom boom one .>o:8§m Josefina—5 yo poowwm .HN oedema 2:23 a: 2:283 5:3. ~30 . 35.3: a: 78. came . “Exam: :2. >ozm_=o-: 23.2mm; 2:. >o2maom~i zo:<~_m_> 9 es 5N .: as 5N .eN w . . 3 u S HO 3 3 . 2. m m 3 O a D . .2 N m \D .mo\\\\\\\\o o \OIIIII/Voancg U ..:__.=:=m~.o 7:. 2: 5.: my .. O 7:. E: SE n .. D ”mooo maze—45.52 zo:<~_m_> 57 .32 .. GEEm 2038 no 3% 3mm 23 .mozmswoé «8333 mo 88% .mm QSmE 3:: a: zr‘cx NE: 2...: 3 5:3. emme . whozm_=om_mn_ 20:53; :1. >ozm50mz“. zo:<~_m_> . :0 ca mg .3 9m m.~ cg n n m. n I. ll 0 0 .I O. . 3 D S . I“ 10% NM. . W O \O . m 11 io .. 0 w 9% ) w 3 w. m m. .75 3 ES .3 .O 7:. 2: EE 2 .O .5. 3: as m .U ”mace monk—gas: zo:<~_m_> Figure 23. Table 5. 90 95 GRAPES RECOVERED (PERCENT) 100 Effect of Vibration Amplitude and Vibration Frequency on Grapes I P\H 0L1 80 60 L40 PETIOLES REMOVED (PERCENT) Recovered and Petioles Removed - 1975. Effect of vibration amplitude and vibration frequency on grapes recovered and petioles reroved - 1975 VIBRATICN VIBRAT ION GRAPES PETIOUES POINT AMPLITUDE FREQUENCY RECDVERED REMOVED (Inn) (Hz) (Percent) (Percent) A 3 3.0 93.6 89.4 B 3 4.1 94.9 88.6 C 3 5.4 97.1 83.3 D 3 6.7 98.8 75.7 E 16 2.1 96.4 84.5 F 16 3.0 98.4 76.4 G 16 4.1 99.4 63.6 H 16 5.4 99.4 43.2 I 29 2.1 94.5 91.4 J 29 3.0 95.6 87.6 K 29 4.1 99.3 69.8 L 29 5.4 99.5 41.5 M 41 2.1 93.4 92.4 N 41 3.0 97.9 82.3 0 41 4.1 98.8 72.3 P 41 5.4 99.2 44.9 g 90E E3. 8 E3 ' A g 95 L. . “a: n E «a i F L-J ._C '2‘ g 3‘ c: H l o ' L o /. 1 J 100 80 60 4o PET! OLES REMOVED (PER CENT) Figure 24. Effect of Vibration Amplitude and Vibration Frequency on Grapes Recovered and Petioles Removed - 1976. Table 6. Effect of vibration amplitude and vibration frequency on grapes recovered and petioles rempved - 1976. VIBRATICN VIBRATION GRAPES PETIOLES POINT AMPLITUDE FREQJEMZY RECOVERED RENDVED (mm) (Hz) (Percent ) (Percent ) A 3 2.0 94.6 89.0 B 3 2.5 98.4 85.0 C 3 3.0 98.2 83.7 D 13 2.0 96.5 92.0 E 13 2.5 96.1 85.7 F 13 3.0 97.6 83.4 G 25 2.0 99.1 89.7 H 25 2.5 99.4 83.6 I 25 3.0 99.8 74.6 6O optimum setting for petioles removed (89.7 percent) and grapes recovered (99.01 percent) in 1976. During a. year that a frost has occurred, the primary concern may be that mnre than 90 percent of the petioles be rennved, point D, improving petiole removal (93.9 percent), but reducing grape recovery (96.6 percent). The trade-off between petiole rempval and grape recovery is shown in Figures 20 and 21, and Tables 5 and 6. Data for 1975 clearly demonstrates the trade-off because of the wide ranges of vibration frequency and vibration amplitude tested. Though the basic theory of operation of the 1975 and 1976 debris removal systems is the same, there are several factors that can affect the response of the system and for this reason, comparison of the 1975 and 1976 results is not advisable. The physical properties of the grape and vine debris may vary enough to prevent accurate comparison of specific responses from year to year. The most apparent machine factor that could effect the response of the debris rempval system from 1975 to 1976 is the width of the cluster breaker. 'nle brushes on the 1976 mndel were two times wider than the 1975 model. Dispersion of the grape material out of the cluster breaker onto the chain belt was less than the full width of the belt [38.1 cm (15 in)]. Therefbre, the load per unit width on the 1975 chain belt could have been as much as 1—1/2 times higher than the 1976 model employing a 45.72 cm (18 in) wide cluster breaker. This would result in a potentially higher grape loss requiring a mpre aggressive vibration which results in reduced petiole removal due to the trade-off mentioned above. line grape industry has indicated that it would be desirable to main- tain greater than 99 percent grape recovery, even if petiole removal is less than 100 percent. ’lhe stationary tests have shown that the 1976 debris 61 removal system shows potential for approaching these requirements, possibly achieving close to 100 percent petiole removal. C. Chain Belt Down-'The-Row Test Results. The preliminary trials down-the-row permitted "real world" testing that could not be accomplished in the stationary tests. Table 7 presents the data obtained. The factors affecting the down-the—row tests were not concluded; many more factors were preselt in down-the—row testing (e.g. variation of vineyards and time of season). Therefore, the results discussed are not statistically representative of results obtained from more extensive testing. Some trends do exist, however. - The average control sample contained 0.142 percent petioles (by weight). The debris removal system reroved an average of 51.6 percent of the petioles. In vineyard 5 (runs 7 and 8), a frost prior to harvest froze the upper 15 to 20 percent of the foliage. The petiole content was 0.31 percent, triple the average petiole content of 0.108 percent for the other ten runs Shown. Over 75 percent of the petioles were removed in this partially frosted vineyard. The average control sample contained 0.072 percent leaves (by weight). 'me debris removal system removed an average of 60.7 percent of the leaves. During some of the trial ms, the harvester operator turned the debris fans off and the leaves removed by the debris reroval system more than tripled. The debris output of the removal system was not analyzed during these runs. . Rachae (grape Stems) made up 1-039 percent of the mechanically harvested product . The debris removal system removed about 25 percent 62 .weaoum «o co» Queue! a s—vucfiuxOuaac seem ganHOH So anon. :00: no mucosa nn "oe>oseu 044a loanxm ~a>420u nausea \o .moasum me say nausea — saoael~x0uada scum .~ou0¢ am m—~. muouaauu nuancesu scene a o:a .AqsuOu 5? cam. poo) u: menu‘s on noo>oseu cane loue>u «o>oaee «dunno .u:eucau vacquQ oz» asaaauuu >deoec .ceNOeu xuduquuea no: omsagom \m .aOQaue no see venue! u saeeaequHaau acne .IHOumsqu ouaunaew :oeam a ecu «anuOU I so fine. poo: wanna «o mounds hm .on:u 30 m >~euasax0uaao memo; 552.4:35 no aaqua "oo>oacu 0m~¢ Seaman da>esuu nausea \v .noaehe mo :0» omuuua u xaeuqemx0uaae iauu Adquu so oNN. too: we manage ea «59>063u owns Eonasa ac>039u n.saya \m 9:52.383: 9.: 1 $55.. ~§ . seizes“. .. 4.5: .122. \M :aovsz :2 u :2 \m a.~: .n. 9.9m m.vm c.m~ ~.co w..m n_~. was. 0:0. amo._ -o. ~:.. 24w: I ll! --- Illlgzl 1111:- «2 es. m..n ¢z :2 co. _.4m an.. o moo. «2 ago. .nno. mm M.“ m ee._ w.\a. ~— e.~m ------- ------.-------T :2 -.-------.------- :o~. o ewe ~a~.. ~:_. :o.. “N m.« m em._ m\e_ ._ ~.o_ an. n.3m ¢z ~.w. ~.na ~.m~ ~m~. a mac. :©M.. or.. .N.. 3m. c.« m vm.— m\c_ @— ---u-uuuluu ¢z nuucuuu-u \M -uun-.-u zz o.-unuunn axe. mmo. m_o. csm. .eo. Neo. m~ c: o ~m.c cmxm Will :2 :~. ~.em \w ~.- «.mm ~.:~ ems. o om. mm~._ ~mo :_m. m~ m.. m n~.° oM\m a c.mm JN. ~.m~ \m n.~m ~.:m ~.m~ :an. o smo. co... mzo. n_n. mw m.~ m m~.c mwxm ~ a.m~ m.. o.«: m.@. o.- onmm :.mm :~.. o NNo. mNm. omo. :e.. «N m.~ : em._ m~\m e o.:: JN. o.:: o.em _.:~ e.me m.om oo.. o -o. ~m... one. __.. me n.n : ea._ m~xe m :2 e~. co. \m ------i- «2 --.------ “mo. ez «z o.m. .ee. mac. «N ..~ n mm.o m~\m e e: KN. m.~n \m ..~n :.- o.m~ .n.. men. o o_m. .ee. one. n _.~ n am.o m~xm m m.mm u:una-fi-:a-uugcunno-l- a: a .o..... -ua-u:a _:_. c ~mo. :2 «no. mac. n m.n ~ mm.o m~xm N c.mm mo. m.om \mo.mn a: o.~o o.w: era. a ore. \dxz «9.. MN.. m «.4 . c—.— :Nxm — ooahwwzu Aquowwmu non_u .um.l oLoo_u oneoOU uc_u Rafi. czxu :uaee a cameo _o.Oh ecmu mao.m mo>aoa no.0..oa \~_¢uep macoce_.oum_z wee.m :a>cea mo.o_.oa eenu Aezv .oz usages .02 90.33 u._esa .oonu .uom ouao .0. acoimmsvu ~030§c¢ wanna go >0:0sowuuu «a. «Assam «onuccu an nausea .nu> .a_> oee>0c_> 0.0.» sec 5.333: 5 ”39533 3959 mfleooo Hepegeonfio mo mfiumou 68H .eeeezsmeeoo one 38:27:38 .8 39an .b manna. 63 of the rachae. Since rachae are not considered vine debris, this category was measured to determine how much the debris reroval system would reduce the weight of the mechanically harvested product by removing 25 percent of the rachae. The result of this calculation is approximately 2.27 kg per metric tom (5 lb per ton). The average control sample contained 0 .040 percent fine miscellaneous debris (cane tips, shoots, and tendrils that were 5 mm, or smaller in diameter). The coarse miscellaneous debris from each pallet box (e.g. trunk or cordon wood and concrete post parts) was recorded and is footnoted in Table 7. Although the reloval of coarse miscellaneous debris is extremely desirable, it is not included because of its variability. In some processing plants, coarse debris would be rejected by the destemer. In others, in which pumps transport the product to the destemer, this type of debris would present plugging problems . Grape (and juice) loss was 0.31 percent compared to 1 percent in the stationary tests. The down-the—row settings were selected to maximize. grape recovery for the grower. Therefore, the petiole removal was lower than desired. This illustrates the trade—off between grapes recovered and petioles reroved. The total fiber content of the control samples average 0.213 percent compared to 0 .142 percent for petiole content . By considering total fiber content, the debris which is a potential problem for processing equipment is 1-1/2 times that of petiole content alone. The average juice depth in a 0.9 metric ton control pallet box of grapes was 530 mm (20.9 in), whereas the average juice depth in a 0.9 metric ton pallet box of grapes handled by the debris removal system was 757.37 mm (29.8 in). The extra handling through the debris removal system increased the juice depth 42 .9 percent . 64 Hand-sorting and evaluation of the material sorted by the debris reroval system took 3 to 4 man-hours. Some of the rows in Table 7 show no record, which indicates that we did not have time to sort the sample. The trade-off between petiole removal and grape recovery observed in the stationary and chwn-the—row tests is due to too aggressive operation of the vibratory unit . In general , a setting above a vibration frequency of 2 Hz, and vibration amplitude of 25 mm, the petioles were observed to rise off of the chain belt and slip end wise through the belt openings. This characteristic was most apparent directly over the vibratory 1mit where vibration was the most aggressive. It was observed that well over 80 percent of the petioles fell through the belt in the second 76 cm (26 in) of belt length. (11 the other hand, close to 90 percent of the grapes fell throng: the belt openings within the first 76 cm of belt lelgth. In further development of the debris reroval system, the margin between optimum petiole removal and optimum grape recovery must be increased. Vibration characteristics must still be aggressive enough to ensure maximum grape recovery, but the petioles must not be allowed to leave the belt surface . VIII . (DNCLIJSICNS The specific conclusions of the project were: 1) A mechanical self-cleaning method of separating vine debris from mechanically harvested grapes was successfully tested. 2) A cluster breaker was developed that maximized the separation of grapes from their clusters. 3) A trade-off was found between grape recovery and vine debris reroval. 4) The cluster breaker reroved 100 percent of the grapes from their clusters, the chain be1t reroved 90 percent of the petioles with more than 99 percent recovery of grapes , at feed rates up to 9.1 metric tons per hour (10 tons per hour). 65 IX.SUMMARY Two years of testing deronstrated the efficiency of a concept uti- lizing a cluster breaker and vibrating chain belt for the removal of vine debris from mechanically harvested grapes . During stationary tests at feed rates of 4.5 and 9.1 metric tons per hour (5 and 10 tons per hour), the debris removal system removed approximately 90 percent of the petioles in the mechanically harvested product with grape losses of less than 1 percent . These results were achieved—using a 25 mm (1 in) vibration amplitude and 2 Hz Vibrat ion frequency . Down-the-row trials were not sufficiently extensive to conclude definite results. However, the limited down-the—row tests at feed rates of 1.8 to 9.1 metric tons per hour (2 to 10 tons/hr), the debris removal system operated satisfactorily. Down-the-row tests averaged 0. 142 percent petiole content with 51 . 6 percent reroval efficiency . Leaf content averaged 0.072 percent with 60.7 percent removal efficiency. The observed efficiency of the debris reroval system and field capacity warrant incorporation of the debris removal system into a commercial harvest system. X. UNFINIEED WCBK AND WATICNS The down-the—row trials should be completed in more detail. A larger sample size will minimize irregularities in results and the data will becoue more reliable. The down-the—row tests will supply very’ useful results when carpleted to the degee the stationary tests were carried out in 1975 and 1976. Tests conducted during February, 1977 integrating a barrier over the cinin be1t surface indicated that this concept should be tested further during the 1977 season. A plywood barrier was mounted at 2.54 cm (1 in) and 1.77 cm (0.5 in) heights above the chain belt to keep the petioles in a horizontal posit ion when they leave the belt because of the higher levels of amplitude and/or vibration frequency. For the same reason, a plastic fabric was also draped over the belt. At various levels of vibration frequency ranging from 2 to 3 Hz, 20 petioles were fed onto the chain belt and percent petioles reroved was calculated. Control tests using the unit without the barriers were run in order to compare the petiole removal efficiency to previous tests. As the petioles rode along the chain belt and were subject to vibration, they would leave the belt, came in contact with the barrier and fall, maintaining their horizontal position. The results indicated that the Closer the barrier is to the belt the more efficient the petiole removal, especially at higher vibration frequencies. The fabric drape yielded the best results, improving petiole removal by 20 percentage points 67 68 at the highest vibration frequency. The plywood barrier improved petiole reroval 15 percentage points at 1.77 cm and 10 percentage points at 2 .54 cm above the belt at the highest vibration frequency (Figure 22) . Although these tests were conducted with only petioles, it may be assumed that the barrier would have little effect on gape recovery. The data indicated that the integration of a barrier would allow the use of higher vibration frequencies which would improve gape recovery . Detailed analysis of the acceleration characteristics of petioles are currently being conducted at Michigan State University to determine the best type of vibration for the vine debris removal system. Limited tests have been conducted in Michigan in conjlmction with Professor Vincent Petrucci, Fresno State University, Fresno, California. Thompson Seedless gapes were singulated with the cluster breaker and debris (dried canes and tips) were removed from on-the—vine dried raisins fran California. I In order to reduce damage to the single gapes, two chain be1t tmits could be used. The first chain belt would receive the raw product, separating single gapes from the clusters and debris. In turn, the clusters and debris would feed onto the cluster breaker and then singulated _ gapes would be separated from the debris on the second chain belt. This version of the debris reroval system would reduce damage due to single grapes being handled by the cluster breaker. Location of the debris reroval system is subject to industry recommenda— tions. Incorporation on a harvester would be an extensive project , requiring many alterations. In addition, the debris removal system must be smaller. The potential of the fabric drape may make this possible. If not, the debris removal system could be placed in the receiving line at the 69 .RE .. 8,83 385a 9895 on eons 858 one noehnm e mofifioonoos 38QO flea 586 tensions .nm was .2... >02m=cmmm 23:4... _> om AN a; . cm H. H. 0 N r60 S 4 no 3 w m L: 3 0 “m 3 “0 2.7.2.2 L... m “33.: 033$. { m 3.73-2 ._o~:zoo . I < . Eve .5 as e O p// .2. Eve .5 l e D 01 ’fl... mm.~.~.>>..n. 0- .2373 sompzoo 4 .2: 7O processing plant. Locating at the processing plant will leave the vine debris in contact with the grapes longer, but would require fewer, larger debris rennval systars. This decision is ultimately up to the industry. XI. APPENDIXA Foms used for Data Collection 72 :9.me I 909% spam Hfimm sumac—U: F. mofifiom . mo~wwmom . 8555 . _ i I I —o- —.. .-——————- v .n ‘- .na -._ moamsfim . . _ 35 u: . 3%... . l mo~wwmom . 86.2 . momm:wm .85 a: moaamwoa . 83$“... . Buss . -II.-.I 1 1r glib?! III - .6 - . 41-, i I II -vllrlalr. u I mofiusflm #05; 2mm m>~¢a puma rmmm :mmz at Q. E mm RPM .BhHA I1 I. 2.29.28 6»: as: ”SF“: 525. “mug 28:8 35:28 «$32 “53> £3933 \ \ "Eda 73 :32 I 82m 38 3mm Ego: 8.353 . mo~wwmom . $5.5m . moamcflm . ne>o n: A l pl-.-l~l‘. 1| .. .I¢nt. I'll IIIII'I'I'II‘I” .- a meammwoa . muawwmmm . 86:5 . moamcnm ., no>o u: ‘I. -‘.I lll‘ll . 'lll .Il..|!...(0 .I‘IIII'II‘I I: n!".|ll’l“ll'.. muawmwma . “0*wwmua . mocucsm . moamcmm . no>o a; .|-_- I I n I u l “*0...- ~_o~—- ~'o~-- - . 'lll'lI‘II- l 2%. m>§ Him 8 S QN on ON 3 H ”.3072 .5mm £302" .Smm u 507?. .Smm 502 «Em: 50—sz Emm>z<= "fig—9.0 3250 go MESA—,2 Eoucou “95338 gamma: " EE<> mhx \ umhm<= A“ adoq cacawmm a a a a a A>soov Amy. Amy umxaohm hmvmsao .omuz «cash cognac mason: mw>amA odouuom homo>coo meazovao xsmuu .mpcoesoo Cause .mnmmmm .vamd» .vpaho:u> .hvoaua> A<fioa nozadmz mama nlllln * mansam XII. APPENDIX B letter from John Norton, National Grape Oooperat ive May 31 , 1977 77 NATIONAL GRAPE COOPERATIVE @8- Prod/cars of Welch's Quality Grapes Carter D. Clary Graduate Assistant Dept. of Agricultural Engineering Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Dear Mr. Clary: Your letter to Bill Grevelding Re: our views and comments on the need for trash removal was forwarded to me for reply. We at National have felt since the advent of mechanical harvesting that there is a need for some kind of trash removal from mechanically harvested grapes prior to the time they are received at the plant. The bin attendant was our first effort in this area. However this activity is not the complete answer to the problem. At the present time the bin attendant is at best only doing a mediocre job of removing foreign material. As a matter of fact, some bin attendants do little or nothing. This is one reason we encouraged the work on a mechanical trash remover. Because of the possible contaminating effect (whether it be flavor or filth) of the leaves, petioles, vine parts, foreign plants, post parts and other foreign material, it should be removed as soon as possible after harvesting. Apart from contaminating the product, the large vine parts or other large foreign material, if not removed, at times causes damage to the plant equipment. This more often results from grapes picked at night when it is more difficult for the bin attendant to see the objects, but it also happens during the daylight hours. Further, late in the season (or after a frost) when excessive quantities of petioles are harvested with the grapes, the bin attendant cannot possibly remove enough of the petioles to prevent slowing down of the whole receiving process due to the clogging of the equipment. This of course increased the cost of processing not to mention the waiting time in the yard for the grower or his driver. Therefore to achieve our goals of receiving the most debris free grapes possible and making the receiving operation NATIONAL DEAF: COOPERATIVC ASSOCIATION. INC.. WESTI’IELD. N. Y. 14787 0 716~325-3l3l 78 Carter D. Clary May 31, 1977 Page 2 as efficient as possible we have urged the development of the mechanical trash remover. Hopefully the present model will result in a commercial model in the very near future. It cannot come too quickly for us. We thank you for all your efforts in the development of the mechanical trash remover to date. Very truly yours, a a z ‘77 x g, .4 -~~~-»- ‘7J‘77 C) /£’C 216“"). g; - John E. Norton Coordinator - Member Service Projects JEN/d3 cc: B. Grevelding XIII . REFERENCES XIII . REFERENCES CITED Berlage, A. G. and D. Black. 1969. Chapter XI, Grapes, (Inz) Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Implications , B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossniller; Editors. Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569-621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Cargill, B. F. and G. E. Rossmiller. 1969. Chapter XI, Grapes, (Inz) Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Implications, Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569—621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Encyclopedia Britannica. 1973. William Benton Publisher. The University of Chicago. Vol. 10. i Harvest Magazine. 1946. National Grape Cooperative, Westfield, NY l(2):4-5. Johnson, Wallace and Mike Grgich. 1975. "Another Look at Machine Harvesting/ Wine Qiality". ‘ Wines and Vines. 57(2):40. Jordan, T. D. and B. A. Daninick, Jr. 1969. "Economic Aspects of Mechanical Harvesting". Chapter XI, Grapes, (Inz) Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Implications, B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossniller; Editors. Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569-621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Marshall, D. E., J. H. Levin, and B. F. Cargill. 1971. "Properties of 'Concord' Grapes Related to Mechanical Harvesting and Handling". Trans. ‘ASAE. l4(2):373—-376. Marshall, D. E., J. H. Levin, B. F. Cargill, and R. T. Whittenberger. 1972. "Quality of Bulk Handled 'Conoord' Grapes". ;_AS_E_. Paper presented at the June 22-24, 1972 meeting in Coronado, CA. Marshall, D. E. 1973. "New Bulk Handling System Benefits Grape Industry". Proc. 1973 Chio Grape - Wine Short Course. (1110 State Univ. Horticultme Department Series 401:68-73. Marshall, D. E., T. J. George, J. H. Levin, and B. F. Cargill. 1975. "Trash Removal fran Mechanically Harvested Grapes". ASAE Paper #75—1062. Monroe, G. E., S. L. Hedden, and J. H. Levin. 1963. "Machine for Picking up Filled Grape Boxes". ABS-USDA Paper #42—83. 81 Moyer, James C. 1968. "Washing Grapes Before Mechanical Harvesting". Am J. Enol. Viticult. 19(4):266-272. Nie, N. H., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bent. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York. Noble, A. C., C. S. Ough, and A. N. Kasimatis. 1975. "Effect of Leaf Content and Mechanical Harvest on Wine 'Quality'". Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 26(3):158-163. Norton, John E. May 31, 1977. National Grape Cooperative, Personal correspondence. Petrucci, Vinceit E., and Robert Siegfried. 1976. "Research Note: The Extraneous Matter in Mechanically Harvested Wine Grapes". Am J. Enol. Viticult. 27(1):40-41. Sears, F. C. 1920. PrOductive Small Fruit Culture. Lippinoott's Farm Manuals. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia. pp 279—291. Shepardson, E. S. 1969. "Engineering Aspects of Mechanical Harvesting". Chapter XI, Grapes, (In:) Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Implications, B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller; Editors. Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569-621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Shepardson, E. 8., Nelson Shaulis, and J. C. Moyer. 1969. "Mechanical Harvesting of Grape Varieties Grovm in New York State". Chapter XI, Grapes, (In:) Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Implications, B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller; Editors. Rm‘al Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569-621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Shoemaker, James S. 1975. Shall Fruit Culture. AVI. 4th ed., Westport, Conn. Studer, H. E. and H. P. Olmo. 1969. "Mechanical Harvesting of Grapes in California: Cultural Practices and Machines". Chapter XI, Grapes, (In:) Fruit and 'Vgggtable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Imglications, B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossniller; Editors. Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569—621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Whittenberger, R. T., D. E. Marshall, B. F. Cargill, and J. H. Levin. 1971. "Bulk Handling of 'Conoord' Grapes for Processing: Quality Evaluation". ASAE, Paper #71-373B. Wildenradt, H. L., E. N. Christensen, B. S. Stackler, A. Caputi, Jr., K. S. Slinkard, and K. Scutt. 1975. "Volatile Constituents of Grape Leaves. I. Vitis vinifera Variety ‘Ghenin blanc'". Am J. Enol. Viticult. 26(3):l48-153. Williams, P., B. F. Cargill, D. E. Marshall, and J. H. Levin. 1971. "Bulk Handling of 'Conoord' Type Grapes for Processing - Efficiency Evaluation of Various Systems". ASAE Paper #71—373A. 82 Wines and Vines. 1976. 33rd Annual Statistical Issue. 57(5):4-70. Winkler, A. J., J. A. Cook, W. M. Kliewer, and L. A. Lider. 1974. General Viticulture. University of California Press, Ltd. London. OI‘HERREFEBENCES Bourne, M. C., D. F. Splittstoesser, I. E. Friedman, E. F. Taschenberg. 1969. Chapter XI, Grapes, (In:) Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Technological Implications, B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller; Editors. Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. pp. 569-621, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Cargill, B. F. and G. E. Rossmiller. 1969. Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization - Manpower Implications. Rural Manpower Report No. 17. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Johnson, Stanley S. 1973. "Mechanization of the Wine Grape Harvest - and Economic Perspective". Fruit, Vegetable, Ornamental and Sweetener Group, ERS-USDA. David, CA 95616. Johnson, S. S., R. T. Rogers. 1974. "Progress in Mechanization of Wine Grapes". California Agriculture. 28(8):4-6. Shaulis, N., E. S. Shepardson, and J. C. Moyer. 1975. "Yield Losses in the Mechanical Harvesting of Grapes in New York". Proc. of New York State Hort. Soc. 120(1):96-104. Snobar, B. A., B. F. Cargill, J. H. Levin, and D. E. Marshall. 1973. "An Engineering Economics Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting and Handling Systems for 'Conoord' Grapes". Trans. ASAE. l9(2):227-229. Snobar, B. A., B. F. Cargill, J. H. Levin, and D. E. Marshall. 1973. "Grape Harvesting Recovery and Losses". Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 24(1):lO-13. Snobar, B. A., B. F. Cargill, D. E. Marshall, and J. H. Levin. 1974. "Harvesting Efficiency of Mechanical Harvesters in 'Conoord' Grapes". ASE. Paper presented at the June 22-24 meeting in Coronado, CA. Snobar, Bassam. 1973. "Systems to Eliminate Foreign Materials fran the Final Grape Product Harvested by Machine". Ph.D. Preliminary Examination. Agricultural Engineering Dept., Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824. Studer, H. E., and H. P. 011m. 1975. "Evaluation of Fruit Loss through the Cleaning Fans of Mechanical Grape Harvesters". Trans. ASAE. 19(2):219—221,226. Studer, H. Dec. 1, 1974. "Effects of Cleaning System Configuration on Debris Content of Machine Harvested Fruit". Research Note. University of California—Davis, Agicultural Engineering Dept. , Davis, CA 95616. HICHIGAN STATE UNIV, LIBRARIES WWWI“W”WWWNIHWHIWIHIHI 31293000608988