<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>The relation of hand-harvesting cost in plum and prune production to the total costs amounts to 25-40%. Mechanical harvesting makes it possible to cut drastically both the harvesting and total costs. To test the suitability of plum and prune species to be mechanically harvested, an experimental grove (area 0.8 ha) was established in 2008. Three plum cultivars and one prune cultivar grafted on semi-dwarf and vigorous rootstocks were planted at high density (1250; 1666; 2500 trees·ha<sup>−1</sup>). During the span of full yielding (2012-2014), fruits were harvested mechanically with a canopy contact, straddle harvester in continuous motion, designed at the Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice, to harvest tart cherry, and later adapted to harvesting plums and prunes. Trees grafted on semi-dwarf rootstock (‘Wangenheim Prune’) appeared to be more suitable for mechanical harvesting than strong-growing trees grafted on <italic>Prunus cerasifera</italic> clone ‘Myrobalan’. Cumulative yield per ha (years 2012-2014) was the highest at the highest planting density. Trees grafted on the semi-dwarf rootstock had a higher productivity index than trees grafted on the vigorous rootstock. There was no significant difference in fruit quality related to planting distance. Mechanical harvesting was nearly 40 times more efficient than hand picking. The efficiency of mechanical harvest was from 85% to 90%. Over 5% of fruits were lost on the ground and from 1 to 5% of fruits were left on the tree. Up to 18% of the plums and no more than 10% of the prunes harvested mechanically showed some damage. They can be fully acceptable for processing, for up to 10 days, providing the potential deterioration processes are inhibited by cold storage. The large-fruited cultivars seem to be more susceptible to bruising than the small-fruited ones. For the latter, the share of marketable quality fruits within the mechanically harvested crop amounted to about 80%, which could be a good prognostic justifying further trials on the prune harvester.</p></abstract>

The relation of hand-harvesting cost in plum and prune production to the total costs amounts to 25-40%. Mechanical harvesting makes it possible to cut drastically both the harvesting and total costs. To test the suitability of plum and prune species to be mechanically harvested, an experimental grove (area 0.8 ha) was established in 2008. Three plum cultivars and one prune cultivar grafted on semi-dwarf and vigorous rootstocks were planted at high density (1250; 1666; 2500 trees·ha−1). During the span of full yielding (2012-2014), fruits were harvested mechanically with a canopy contact, straddle harvester in continuous motion, designed at the Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice, to harvest tart cherry, and later adapted to harvesting plums and prunes. Trees grafted on semi-dwarf rootstock (‘Wangenheim Prune’) appeared to be more suitable for mechanical harvesting than strong-growing trees grafted on Prunus cerasifera clone ‘Myrobalan’. Cumulative yield per ha (years 2012-2014) was the highest at the highest planting density. Trees grafted on the semi-dwarf rootstock had a higher productivity index than trees grafted on the vigorous rootstock. There was no significant difference in fruit quality related to planting distance. Mechanical harvesting was nearly 40 times more efficient than hand picking. The efficiency of mechanical harvest was from 85% to 90%. Over 5% of fruits were lost on the ground and from 1 to 5% of fruits were left on the tree. Up to 18% of the plums and no more than 10% of the prunes harvested mechanically showed some damage. They can be fully acceptable for processing, for up to 10 days, providing the potential deterioration processes are inhibited by cold storage. The large-fruited cultivars seem to be more susceptible to bruising than the small-fruited ones. For the latter, the share of marketable quality fruits within the mechanically harvested crop amounted to about 80%, which could be a good prognostic justifying further trials on the prune harvester.

Suitability Of Plum And Prune Cultivars, Grown In A High Density Planting System, For Mechanical Harvesting With A Canopy Contact, Straddle Harvester

Research Institute of Horticulture, Konstytucji 3 Maja 1/3, 96-100 Skierniewice, Poland

Journal of Horticultural Research

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

The relation of hand-harvesting cost in plum and prune production to the total costs amounts to 25-40%. Mechanical harvesting makes it possible to cut...

Suitability Of Plum And Prune Cultivars, Grown In A High Density Planting System, For Mechanical Harvesting With A Canopy Contact, Straddle Harvester

Data publikacji: 30 gru 2015

Zakres stron: 69 - 81

Otrzymano: 01 paź 2015

Przyjęty: 01 gru 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2015-0017

Słowa kluczowe
plums ( L.), mechanical harvesting, yielding, fruit quality

© 2015 Augustyn Mika et al., published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Suitability Of Plum And Prune Cultivars, Grown In A High Density Planting System, For Mechanical Harvesting With A Canopy Contact, Straddle Harvester

Data publikacji: 30 gru 2015

Zakres stron: 69 - 81

Otrzymano: 01 paź 2015

Przyjęty: 01 gru 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2015-0017

Słowa kluczoweplums ( L.), mechanical harvesting, yielding, fruit quality

© 2015 Augustyn Mika et al., published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Słowa kluczowe
plums ( L.), mechanical harvesting, yielding, fruit quality