...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Acta Horticulturae >Comparing the efficiency of future harvest technologies for sweet cherry.
【24h】

Comparing the efficiency of future harvest technologies for sweet cherry.

机译：比较未来甜樱桃收获技术的效率。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The objective of this research was to compare the efficiency of potential mechanical and mechanical-assist harvest systems with manual harvest of sweet cherries. Data were collected from harvesting Y-trellised sweet cherries using a prototype fully mechanical harvester, hand-held shakers (portable, high-speed, reciprocating, gasoline-powered tool), and commercial picking crews in Washington. In Prosser, a USDA-ARS-designed mechanical harvest system comprised of two independently operated, mirror-image halves was used to harvest entire rows of 'Bing'. In Pasco, two teams of three used hand-held shakers (Stihl SP200) and canvas catching surfaces to harvest 'Skeena'. In these teams, one person operated the hand-held shaker and two held the catching surface. Both mechanical systems remove fruit at the fruit-pedicel junction (i.e., harvest stem-free fruit). A portable labor monitoring system (LMS) comprised of a digital weighing scale, a RFID reader and a computational unit was used to calculate the harvest rate of the mechanical-assist system and hand harvest. Three approaches were compared: traditional hand harvest (i.e., fruit with pedicel), hand harvested stem-free and mechanically-assisted harvest. All tests were conducted in a commercial 'Skeena'/Mazzard orchard. The pickers and each mechanical-assist team were identified with RFID tags. As fruit were dumped into a standard collection bin (capacity ~170 kg), the LMS read simultaneously a picker's ID and measured the weight of fruit. These data were compared with previously collected assessments of machine harvest efficiency in a 'Bing' orchard. The mean picking rate for stem-free 'Skeena' cherries was 40-50% greater than fruit with stems when picked by the same crew in the same orchard. Preliminary tests showed that the mean harvest rate for the mechanical-assist systems was 3.75 kg/min (1.25 kg/person/min) and for the mechanical harvester was 22 kg/min. These results show the potential to vastly improve harvest efficiency.
机译：这项研究的目的是将潜在的机械和机械辅助收获系统与手工采摘甜樱桃的效率进行比较。在华盛顿，使用原型全机械收割机，手持式振动筛（便携式，高速，往复式，汽油动力工具）和商业采摘人员，从Y型格子甜樱桃的收割中收集了数据。在Prosser中，USDA-ARS设计的机械收割系统由两个独立运行的镜像半部组成，用于收割整行“ Bing”。在帕斯科（Pasco），两支团队使用了三个手持式振动筛（Stihl SP200）和帆布捕捉表面来收获'Skeena'。在这些团队中，一个人操作了手持式振动筛，两个人握住了捕获面。两种机械系统都在果实与花梗交界处除去果实（即收获无茎果实）。便携式劳动监控系统（LMS）由数字秤，RFID阅读器和计算单元组成，用于计算机械辅助系统的收获率和人工收获。比较了三种方法：传统的手工收获（即带花梗的水果），无茎的手工收获和机械辅助的收获。所有测试均在商业“ Skeena” / Mazzard果园中进行。拣选人员和每个机械协助团队都使用RFID标签识别。当将水果倒入标准收集箱（容量约170公斤）时，LMS会同时读取采摘机的ID并测量水果的重量。这些数据与先前在“必应”果园中收集的机器收获效率评估进行了比较。当由同一工作人员在同一果园采摘时，无茎“ Skeena”樱桃的平均采摘率比有茎的果实高40-50％。初步测试显示，机械辅助系统的平均收获速度为3.75千克/分钟（1.25千克/人/分钟），机械收获器为22千克/分钟。这些结果表明，可以极大地提高收获效率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号