Almeida, Arlindo

Dias, António

Gomes, José

Lopes, João

Peça, José

Pinheiro, Anacleto

Reynolds, Domingos

Santos, Luís S.S. dos

Santos, Luís S.S.

Biblioteca Digital do IPB

Farmer’s Evaluation of a Rolling Canvas Prototype Against his own System for Harvesting OlivesA.Almeida(1); J. Peça (2); A. Pinheiro(2); A. Dias(2); L. Santos(3); J. Lopes(4) ;J. Gomes(4); D.Reynolds(5)(1) Escola Superior Agrária de Bragança, Bragança – Portugal – acfa@ibp.pt(2) Universidade de Évora, Évora - Portugal(3) Departamento de Olivicultura da E.N.F.V.N., Elvas - Portugal(4) Direcção Regional de Agricultura de Trás-os-Montes, Mirandela.- Portugal(5) R&O, Monte da Granja, Estremoz - PortugalABSTRACTAn olive grower was invited to organise a full day harvesting test based ontwo rolling canvas prototypes, using his own trunk shaker, tractors andlabour. This paper reports the results observed, making also a comparisonwith the usual harvesting method followed by the farmer, based on a trunkshaker and canvas manually placed under the trees.Results show the rolling canvas based system production slightly higherwork rate, and according to the workers, less demanding in terms ofphysical effort.INTRODUCTIONAlmeida et al (2003) revealed the potential of the inverted umbrellalinked to the trunk shaker, as the most cost effective system for oliveharvesting.However, towards densities of approximately 300 or 400 trees perhectare, which means 4 to 5 metres between plants in the row, there isnot enough space to open the inverted umbrella.Alternatives should be contemplated. A mechanical rolling canvasinterceptor prototype, Peça et al (2004), was design to solve thisproblem (Fig. 1 and 2).Fig.1 and 2. Rolling canvas prototype at work.MATERIAL AND METHODSOlive orchardsField tests took place in Alentejo region (Portugal), in a olive orchard of cultivarCobrançosa, planted with the spacing of 7 m x 3,5 m.The average yield per tree is 20 kg.Harvesting systemsSystem 1 – Is the usual farmer harvesting system (Fig. 3). A 75 kW tractor with afront mounted multidirectional tree shaker is moved along the tree lines,harvesting olives onto canvas placed under the trees by six workers witch alsomove the canvas along the tree lines (Fig.4). When the load on the canvas is tooheavy the fruits are transferred to a small canvas witch is left behind. Later atractor with a rear mounted hydraulic crane and a trailer, load the small canvasinto the trailer (Fig.7).Fig. 3. System 1:usual farmer harvesting system.Fig.4. System 1:canvas being moved manually.System 2 – The alternative harvesting system is based on two rolling canvasprototypes, each one moving along its own line of trees. The tractor/shakerunit, previously used in System 1, moves between the two rows of trees,harvesting alternatively trees from each row. Four of the workers of System 1(two per prototype), are employed to unroll the canvas (Fig.5), as well as toassist at the discharge of the olives when full storage capacity is attained(Fig.6). In System 2 is also used the same equipment and method used inSystem 1 to load the olives into a farm trailer.Fig. 5. System 2: based on two rolling canvas prototypes, using farmer’s equipment  Fig.6. Rolling canvas prototype dischargeoperation of rolling canvas prototype.Fig.7. Rear mounted hydraulic crane, loading olives.RESULTS With the usual farmer harvesting system (System 1), 91 olive trees wereharvested over the period of the trial. The average performance results arepresented on Table 1 and 2.With the alternative harvesting system (System 2), 209 olive trees wereharvested over the period of the trial. The average performance results arepresented in Table 3 and 4.The following measurements were taken:T1 – average vibrating time per tree; T2 – average time between the vibration oftwo consecutive trees; T3 – average time of actual manoeuvre/shaker betweentwo consecutive trees; T4 – average time of discharge.Table 1. Results obtained with farmer’s harvesting system (System 1).T1 – average vibrating time per tree; T2 – average time between the vibration of two consecutive trees; T3 – average time of actualmanoeuvre/shaker between two consecutive trees; T4 – average time of discharge.Measurements Average time (seconds)T1 6,9T2 30,8T3 28,5T4 67,7Table 2. Work rates obtained with farmer’s harvesting system (System 1)Trees per hour Trees/man hour77,4 11,1Table 3. Results obtained with alternative harvesting system (System 2).T1 – average vibrating time per tree; T2 – average time between the vibration of two consecutive trees; T3 – average time of actualmanoeuvre/shaker between two consecutive trees; T4 – average time of discharge.Measurements Average time (seconds)T1 7,3T2 32,4T3 30,3T4 234,5Table 4. Work rates obtained with alternative harvesting system (System 2)Trees per hour Trees/man hour79,8 11,4DISCUSSIONSimilar results were obtained by the two systems, with a slightadvantage to System 2, witch is able to harvest an extra 358 kg of olivesover a full 7 hours work day.Without any reduction in labour and with two more tractors and twoprototypes, one can expect that cost are a major issue in System 2.However, and according to the workers, System 2 is less demanding onphysical effort, something that is extremely relevant when contractinglabour in an increasingly difficult market.LITERATURE CITED- Almeida, A., Peça, J.O., Pinheiro, A.C., Dias, A.B., Santos, L.S.,Reynolds,D., Lopes, J. (2003). Estudo Comparativo do Desempenho de Três Sistemasde Colheita Mecânica de Azeitona. Proc III Simpósio Nacional de Olivicultura.Castelo Branco, Portugal 29-31 Outubro 2003.- Peça et al (2004) “Mechanical harvesting of 400 trees per hectare oliveorchards based on a rolling canvas prototype” in this Symposium.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the olives growers for their collaboration and the research programme AGRO 271 for the financial support.Keywords: olives / mechanical harvesting / ±400 trees/ha.

Farmer’s evaluation of a rolling canvas prototype against his own system for harvesting olives

https://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bitstream/10198/5498/2/Poster%20Turquia%20final%202.pdf

Farmer’s evaluation of a rolling canvas prototype against his own system for harvesting olives

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Biblioteca Digital do IPB