<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Brian
The "pull meters" you refer to, I assume are some sort of dynamometer. Are they
a standard readily available device in Italy?
Semi mechanised harvesting systems such as air driven rakes and limb shakers are
ideal for harvesting juvenile trees. Another machine I saw recently, from
Greece, involved a long aluminium shaft, an electric motor on one end, and
oscillating fingers on the other. It achieves good fruit removal, was much
lighter than the rakes or motorised limb shaker, and did not take off as much
leaf as the rakes. It may not have been as fast as these other machines either,
but a field comparison would be interesting.
What we have to get a handle on though is fully mechanised harvesting systems,
which will achieve efficient harvest of fruit at optimal timing for oil quality.
Semi mechanised harvesting is likely to cost >$400 per tonne.
In Australia, many new olive growers have been sold the line, that if they just
train the trees to a single trunk, and prune to an open vase or monocone
(depending on variety and adviser), then mechanical harvesting will be straight
forward and efficient!! This is reflected in the harvest costings of some
investment schemes, research reports and scoping studies, where harvesting costs
of $200-300 per ha or $25-$35 per tonne are common place.
Promotional video clips for fully mechanised harvesting machines invariably
feature black fruit, fully ripe, low detachment force, and removal percentage is
good. This might be a reasonable strategy where the target market is general
supermarket and food service retail, where organoleptic quality is not so
important.
Of course producing very high quality EVOOs requires harvest before full
ripening, and some sacrifice of oil yield for the sake of quality. This also
means harvesting when detachment force is relatively high.
The discussions prompted by the problems with Manzanillo in Australia,
emphasised the need to stick with proven oil varieties, such as Frantoio,
Moraiolo, Maurino, Corregiola, Leccino, Picual, Koroneiki etc etc. All are
proven varieties for good yields of high quality oils. They are also all small
fruited varieties.
High detachment force and small fruit mass, are the enemies of efficient
mechanical harvesting. Conventional shakers, traditonally used in fruit such as
prunes, and various nut crops have proven to be relatively ineffective for
harvesting oil olives. I spoke to one harvester operater in South Australia who
said he could get 90% removal from a verdale, but less than 20% off a turning
colour frantoio type. The new generation shakers (vibrators), using
multidirectional, low amplitude, high frquency shaking actions seem to be more
effective, but we still have a lot to learn.
Apart from the obvious questions on efficiency, age of trees, cost and rates of
harvest. Another question I have relates to the effect of shaker harvesting on
yield the following year/s. Shaker/vibrator harvesters cause significant root
disturbance and stress to the tree above ground. This does not seem to effect
subsequent yields in other shaken crops. Is this the case with olives?
I don't want to be too much the kill joy here. I think we have the resource base
for an excellent industry. We also have a strong core of committed people who
understand the challenges ahead and there is a strong sense of optimism in the
industry that we can meet these challenges. What we don't have (and I have said
this before), is a means of generating the necessary research and development
funds. The obvious way to do this, is through a production levy. All major
horticultural and other agricultural industries in Australia have a production
levy to support organisational structures and fund R&D. If we don't establish a
levy system, we will continue to feel our way in the dark. If we do, we send a
clear message to Government and research funding organisations that we are
investing in the future of the industry, and they will find it mush easier to do
the same.
Regards
Damian
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: [OliveOil] mechanical harvesting
Author: <
OliveOil@egroups.com>
Date: 13/09/2000 12:49
Those who have read our book will know we are not fans of mechanical
harvesting with shakers but to be fair to them at the Loxton field day:
* Were "Pull" meters used to test whether the olives were ready to pick?
* Did the machines use an orbital or back and forth motion or both?
* Were the shaker heads rigid or flexibly mounted?
Cheers Brian Chatterton.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This link is the key to an exciting bonus for you! Read below.
https://trading.etrade.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/applogic+lpmasterpage?SCS=ONCR759&RID=
1830155029
JOIN E*TRADE AND EARN A $75 SIGN-UP BONUS FOR YOURSELF, ALONG WITH $50 FOR
OLIVEOIL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five steps to help promote OliveOil:
1- Add a general link to the group on your website:
http://www.egroups.com/group/OliveOil
2- Mention the group and its URL in your newsletters and publications.
3- Invite others to visit:
http://www.egroups.com/group/OliveOil
4- Add a subscription link on your website. See how here:
http://www.egroups.com/promote/OliveOil
5- If you would like me to send a formal invitation to people you know, write to
me at
OliveOil-owner@egroups.com
----------
Received: from vogon.agric.nsw.gov.au [148.145.12.1] by smtpgwy.agric.nsw.gov.au
(ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25)
; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:53:34 +1000
Return-Path:
<
sentto-60195-2482-968755963-damian.conlan=agric.nsw.gov.au@returns.onelist.com>
Received: from ho.egroups.com (ho.egroups.com [208.50.99.200])
by vogon.agric.nsw.gov.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8CAqou13648
for <
damian.conlan@agric.nsw.gov.au>; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:52:51 +1100
X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-60195-2482-968755963-damian.conlan=agric.nsw.gov.au@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Sep 2000 10:52:43
-0000
Received: (qmail 3850 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2000 10:52:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Sep 2000
10:52:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.edisons.net) (212.104.1.245) by mta3 with SMTP;
12 Sep 2000 10:52:41 -0000
Received: from [212.104.8.32] by big.orvienet.it (NTMail
5.06.0014/NT6125.00.c870d48c) with ESMTP id rtgcpaaa for
OliveOil@egroups.com;
Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:55:50 +0200
Message-ID: <
39BF5BA6.7515F937@orvienet.it>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Olive List <
OliveOil@egroups.com>
From: Brian Chatterton <
tn7685@orvienet.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list
OliveOil@egroups.com; contact
OliveOil-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list
OliveOil@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:
OliveOil-unsubscribe@egroups.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:49:10 +0200
Reply-To:
OliveOil@egroups.com
Subject: [OliveOil] mechanical harvesting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
</pre>
</td></tr></table>