{"title":"波森莓:影响机械收获效率的因素","authors":"C. Kingston","doi":"10.1080/03015521.1987.10425600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Boysenberries were machine harvested for two consecutive seasons using a fingerdrum harvester. In the second season a ‘Littau’ (beater) harvester was also used. Yield losses always occurred when plots were mechanically harvested; saleable yield was 51–66% that of handpicked plots. The major source of yield loss was fruit loss to the ground during harvest. The lower mean berry weight of machine harvested fruit, removal of immature fruit, and breakage of fruiting laterals resulted in much smaller losses. We were unable to account for some of the yield loss. Quality of harvested produce was influenced by the harvester type used and temperature at harvest. Fruit harvested by the fingerdrum machine were always more acidic than fruit harvested by the Littau or by hand. Handpicked fruit were firmer than machine harvested fruit only when harvesting was done during the cooler part of the day. Delaying the time of first harvest until 60% of fruit were visually ripe did not significantly reduce saleable yie...","PeriodicalId":19285,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand journal of experimental agriculture","volume":"17 1","pages":"477-484"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boysenberry: Factors influencing efficiency of machine harvesting\",\"authors\":\"C. Kingston\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03015521.1987.10425600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Boysenberries were machine harvested for two consecutive seasons using a fingerdrum harvester. In the second season a ‘Littau’ (beater) harvester was also used. Yield losses always occurred when plots were mechanically harvested; saleable yield was 51–66% that of handpicked plots. The major source of yield loss was fruit loss to the ground during harvest. The lower mean berry weight of machine harvested fruit, removal of immature fruit, and breakage of fruiting laterals resulted in much smaller losses. We were unable to account for some of the yield loss. Quality of harvested produce was influenced by the harvester type used and temperature at harvest. Fruit harvested by the fingerdrum machine were always more acidic than fruit harvested by the Littau or by hand. Handpicked fruit were firmer than machine harvested fruit only when harvesting was done during the cooler part of the day. Delaying the time of first harvest until 60% of fruit were visually ripe did not significantly reduce saleable yie...\",\"PeriodicalId\":19285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand journal of experimental agriculture\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"477-484\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand journal of experimental agriculture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03015521.1987.10425600\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand journal of experimental agriculture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03015521.1987.10425600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Boysenberry: Factors influencing efficiency of machine harvesting
Abstract Boysenberries were machine harvested for two consecutive seasons using a fingerdrum harvester. In the second season a ‘Littau’ (beater) harvester was also used. Yield losses always occurred when plots were mechanically harvested; saleable yield was 51–66% that of handpicked plots. The major source of yield loss was fruit loss to the ground during harvest. The lower mean berry weight of machine harvested fruit, removal of immature fruit, and breakage of fruiting laterals resulted in much smaller losses. We were unable to account for some of the yield loss. Quality of harvested produce was influenced by the harvester type used and temperature at harvest. Fruit harvested by the fingerdrum machine were always more acidic than fruit harvested by the Littau or by hand. Handpicked fruit were firmer than machine harvested fruit only when harvesting was done during the cooler part of the day. Delaying the time of first harvest until 60% of fruit were visually ripe did not significantly reduce saleable yie...