Evaluation of a New Machine for Flower and Fruit Thinning in Stone Fruits
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Thinning Machine
Performance
2.2. Orchard Description
2.3. Methodology
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Machine Performance
3.2. Thinning Efficiency
3.2.1. Apricot Flowers
3.2.2. Apricot Fruits
3.2.3. Peach Flowers
3.2.4. Peach Fruits
3.3. CO2 Emission of the Mechanical versus Manual Thinning
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marini, R.P.; Reighard, G.L. Crop load management. In The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses; Layne, D.R., Bassi, D., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2008; pp. 289–302. [Google Scholar]
- Glenn, D.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Giovannini, D.; Faust, M. Mechanical Thinning of Peaches is Effective Postbloom. Hortscience 1994, 29, 850–853. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, G.; Vizzotto, G. Fruit thinning of peach trees. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 31, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meier, U.; Graf, H.; Hess, M.; Kennel, W.; Klose, R.; Mappes, D.; Seipp, D.; Stauss, R.; Streif, J.; Boom van den, T. Phenological growth stages and identification keys of pome fruit. In Growth Stages of Mono-and Dicotyledonous Plants; Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1994; pp. 52–54. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, A.D.; Spencer, J.E. Fruit thinning plums and apricots. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 31, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Son, L. Effects of hand and chemical thinning on fruit size and quality of ‘Priana’ and ‘Beliana’ apricot (Prunus armeniaca) cultivars. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2004, 32, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IRTA. Estudio de la eficiencia del cepillo Eclairvale 2500® en el aclareo de frutales de hueso. Solicitado por: VIVERSA. Informe número: V2999-4435 Codigo Orgánico: 1200, Fecha: 29/ Noviembre / 2015 (Rev. 4. R-75-00-02), pp. 1–55. Available online: http://www.lacannevale.fr/rapport-IRTA.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2017).
- Schupp, J.R.; Baugher TAuxt Miller, S.S.; Harsh, R.M.; Lesser, K.M. Mechanical Thinning of Peach and Apple Trees Reduces Labor Input and Increases Fruit Size. HorTechnology 2008, 18, 660–670. [Google Scholar]
- Glozer, K.; Hasey, J. Mechanical thinning in cling peach. HortScience 2006, 41, 995. [Google Scholar]
- Neri, D.; Giovannini, D.; Massai, R.; Di Vaio, C.; Sansavini, S.; Del Vecchio, G.; Guarino, F.; Mennone, C.; Abeti, D.; Colombo, R. Efficienza produttiva e gestionale degli impianti di pesco: Confronto fra aree geografiche. Italus Hortus 2010, 17, 50–66. [Google Scholar]
- Asteggiano, L.; Giordani, G.; Bevilacqua, A.; Vittone, G.; Pellegrino, S.; Costa, G. Bloom mechanical thinning improves fruit quality and reduces production costs in peach. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1084, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlage, A.G.; Langmo, R.D. Machine vs. Hand thinning of peaches. Trans. ASAE 1982, 25, 538–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrožič Turk, B.; Fajt, N.; Stopar, M. Tergitol as a possible thinning agent for peach cv. Redhaven. Hort. Sci. 2014, 41, 2–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baugher, T.A.; Shupp, J.; Miller, S.; Hars, M.; Lesser, K.; Reichard, K.; Sollenberger, E.; Armand, M.; Kammerer, L.; Reid, M.; et al. 2010. Chemical and Mechanical Thinning of Peaches. Available online: http://www.newenglandvfc.org/pdf_proceedings/ChemMechThinningPeaches.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2017).
- Byers, R.E. Effects of bloom-thinning chemicals on peach fruit set. J. Tree Fruit Prod. 1999, 2, 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coneva, E.; Cline, J.A. Gibberellic Acid Inhibits Flowering and Reduces Hand Thinning of Redhaven Peach. HortScience 2006, 41, 1596–1601. [Google Scholar]
- Fallahi, E.B.; Fallahi, J.R.; McFerson, J.R.; Byers, R.E.; Ebel, R.C.; Boozer, J.P.; Wilkins, P.S. Tergitol-TMN-6 surfactant is effective bloom thinner for stone fruits. HortScience 2006, 41, 1243–1248. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, J.D.; Cohen, S. Thinning nectarines and peaches at flowering with organosilicone surfactants. HorScience 2000, 35, 385–519. [Google Scholar]
- Osborne, J.L.; Robinson, T.L.; Parra-Quezada, R. Chemical blossom thinning agents reduce crop load of ‘Rising Star’ peach in New York. Acta Hortic. 2005, 727, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milà i Canals, L.; Clemente Polo, G. Life cycle assessment of fruit production. In Environmentally Friendly Food Processing; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 29–53. [Google Scholar]
- Myers, S.C.; Savelle, A.T.; Tustin, D.S. Partial flower thinning increases shoot growth, fruit size, and subsequent flower formation of peach. HortScience 2002, 37, 647–650. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, S.S.; Schupp, J.R.; Baugher, T.A.; Wolford, S.D. Performance of Mechanical Thinners for Bloom or Green Fruit Thinning in Peaches. HortScience 2011, 46, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
- Schupp, J.R.; Baugher, T.A. Peach Blossom String thinner performance improved with selective pruning. HortScience 2011, 46, 1486–1492. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, G.; Vizzotto, G. Flower and fruit thinning of peaches and other Prunus. Hort. Rev. 2010, 73, 351–387. [Google Scholar]
- Martin-Gorritz, B.; Torregrosa, A.; Brunton, J.G. Feasibility of peach bloom thinning with hand-held mechanical devices. Sci. Hort. 2011, 129, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Diezma, B.; Rosa, U.A. Monitoring of fruit removal for mechanical thinning of peaches. Frutic 2005, 5, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
- Baugher, T.A.; Elliott, K.C.; Leach, D.W.; Horton, B.D.; Miller, S.S. Improved Methods of Mechanically Thinning Peaches at Full Bloom. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1991, 116, 766–769. [Google Scholar]
- Asteggiano, L.; Vittone, G. Diradamento del pesco—L’esperienza italiana. In Proceedings of the VI Simpósio Internacional de Fruticultura Temperada em Região Sub-Tropical. Avaré/ São Paulo, Brasil, 11–13 September 2014. In Agricultural Machinery Management; Standard ASAE EP 496.3; American Society of Agricoltural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, February 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ASAE. Agricultural Machinery Management; Standard ASAE EP 496.3; American Society of Agricoltural Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, February 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ASAE. Agricultural Machinery Management; Standard ASAE EP 497.7; American Society of Agricoltural Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, March 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bodria, L.; Pellizzi, G.; Piccarolo, P. Meccanica Agraria; Il Sole 24 Ore Edagricole: Bologna, Italy, 2006; Volume II. [Google Scholar]
- Confagricoltura di Forlì-Cesena e Rimini, Tabelle Salariali in Vigore dal 01/05/2015 Applicazione del CCNL 22/10/2014. Available online: http://www.confagricolturatreviso.it/lavoro/rinnovo-del-ccnl-operai-agricoli-e-florovivaisti (accessed on 25 September 2018).
- Camera di Commercio Agricoltura, Industria e Artigianato Provincia Forlì Cesena, Nota Informativa sui Prezzi dei Carburanti, 15/09/2018. Available online: http://www.fc.camcom.it/download/prezzi/listino-prodotti-petroliferi-del-15-09-2018.pdf?DWN=16066 (accessed on 26 September 2018).
- APIMAI, Associazione Provinciale Imprese di Meccanizzazione Agricola e Industriale, Tariffario 2018 per le Provincia di Forlì-Cesena e Rimini, 2018. Available online: http://www.caiagromec.it/sites/unima.it/files/tariffari/apima_libretto_2018_8.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm#calculating (accessed on 1 October 2018).
- Corelli-Grappadelli, L.; Coston, D.C. Thinning pattern and light environment in peach tree canopies influence fruit quality. HortScience 1991, 26, 1464–1466. [Google Scholar]
- Marini, R.P.; Sowers, D.L. Peach Fruit Weight Is Influenced by Crop Density and Fruiting Shoot Length but not Position on the Shoot. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1994, 119, 180–184. [Google Scholar]
- Bukovac, M.J.; Gaston, H.P.; Hedden, S.L.; Levin, J.H. Fruit thinning of peaches with machines. Q. Bull. 1963, 45, 518–532. [Google Scholar]
- Hancock, B.G.; Powell, A.A.; Worthington, J.W. Mechanical thinning of peaches. Peach-World Cultivars Market. 1988, 667–672. [Google Scholar]
Parameters | Value |
---|---|
Category of three-point linkage | 2° |
Height, m | 3.23 |
Length, m | 3.50 |
Width, m | 3.05 |
Machine mass, kg | 682 |
Total mass (machine + transport frame), kg | 993 |
Working tools, n. | 2808 |
Working tools length, m | 1.3 |
Parameter | Apricot | Peach | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers Trial | Fruits Trial | Flowers Trial | Fruits Trial | |
Orchard site | 44°10′00.74′′N | 44°10′20.10′’ N | 44°10′00.74′′N | 44°30’23.30′′N |
12°13′38.41′′E | 12°14′07.20′′E | 12°13′38.41′′E | 12°09′06.83′′E | |
Variety | Flopria* | Orange Rubis® Couloumine* | Royal Glory® Zaifisan* | Royal Glory® Zaifisan* |
Tree age, years | 4 | 7 | 12 | 8 |
Training system | Palmette | Palmette | Palmette | Central leader |
Canopy height, m | 3.0 ÷ 3.5 | 3.5 ÷ 4.0 | 4.0 ÷ 4.5 | 4.0 ÷ 4.5 |
Canopy thickness, m | 0.8 ÷ 1.0 | 1.1 ÷ 1.2 | 0.9 ÷ 1.2 | 1.2 ÷ 1.4 |
Tree spacing | 4.0 × 3.0 | 4.0 × 3.5 | 4.5 × 4.0 | 4.5 × 2.0 |
Planting density, plant ha−1 | 833 | 714 | 555.6 | 1111 |
Working speed tested, m s−1 | 1.67 | 1.11 | 1.67 | 1.67 |
Parameter | Unit | Apricot | Peach | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers | Fruits | Flowers | Fruits | ||
Mechanical Thinning | h ha−1 | 0.51 | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.44 |
Hand thinning follow up | h ha−1 | 22.2 | 37.3 | 87 | 120 |
Control (only manual thinning) | h ha−1 | 45.4 | 72 | 152 | 125 |
Labor saving | % | 51.1 | 48.2 | 42.8 | 4.0 |
Parameter | Unit | Apricot Flowers | Apricot Fruits | Peach Flowers | Peach Fruits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Working speed | m s−1 | 1.67 | 1.11 | 1.67 | 1.67 |
Theoretical field capacity | ha h−1 | 2.40 | 1.60 | 2.40 | 2.70 |
Effective field capacity | ha h−1 | 1.92 | 1.31 | 1.98 | 2.29 |
Field efficiency | % | 79.85 | 81.60 | 82.46 | 84.68 |
Speed | Shoot Length | Flower Density | Flower Drop | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classes of Length | Frequency in the Canopy | Before Thinning | After Thinning | ||||||
m s−1 | cm | % | N° cm−1 | n° cm−1 | % | ||||
1.67 | <15 | 49.0 z | c | 0.56 z | b | 0.46 z | b | 18.0 | NS |
15 ≤ x < 25 | 26.3 | b | 0.39 | a | 0.31 | ab | 20.5 | ||
25 ≤ x < 35 | 9.0 | a | 0.35 | a | 0.22 | a | 37.1 | ||
≥35 | 15.7 | a | 0.28 | a | 0.22 | a | 21.4 | ||
Average | 0.45 | 0.36 | 20.8 |
Thinning Treatment | Apricots | Peach | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers | Fruits | Flowers | Fruits | |
Manual | 496.00 | 786.60 | 1660.60 | 1365.63 |
Mechanical | 43.92 | 64.89 | 42.93 | 37.12 |
Hand finishing | 242.54 | 475.24 | 950.48 | 1311.00 |
Mechanical + hand finishing | 286.45 | 540.12 | 993.40 | 1348.12 |
Savings of mechanical + hand finishing vs. manual | 209.54 | 246.48 | 667.20 | 17.51 |
Speed | Shoot Length | Fruit Density | Fruit Drop | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classes of Length | Frequency in the Canopy | Before Thinning | After Thinning | ||||||
m s−1 | cm | % | n° cm−1 | n° cm−1 | % | ||||
1.11 | <15 | 39.6 z | c | 0.66 z | b | 0.38 z | b | 42.4 | NS |
15 ≤ x < 25 | 22.9 | b | 0.47 | ab | 0.26 | ab | 44.6 | ||
25 ≤ x < 35 | 11.3 | a | 0.26 | a | 0.15 | a | 42.3 | ||
≥35 | 26.3 | b | 0.31 | a | 0.17 | a | 45.1 | ||
Average | 0.48 | 0.32 | 43.6 |
Speed | Shoot Length | Flower Density | Flower Drop | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classes of Length | Frequency in the Canopy | Before Thinning | After Thinning | ||||||
m s−1 | cm | % | n° cm−1 | n° cm−1 | % | ||||
1.67 | ≤15 | 9.7 z | a | 0.64 z | c | 0.29 z | b | 54.7 | NS |
15 ≤ x < 25 | 25.0 | b | 0.51 | b | 0.21 | ab | 58.8 | ||
25 ≤ x < 35 | 35.2 | c | 0.34 | a | 0.13 | a | 61.8 | ||
≥35 | 30.0 | c | 0.31 | a | 0.09 | a | 71.0 | ||
Average | 0.40 | 0.22 | 63.0 |
Speed | Shoot Length | Fruit Density | Fruit Drop | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classes of Length | Frequency in the Canopy | Before Thinning | After Thinning | ||||||
m s−1 | cm | % | n° cm−1 | n° cm−1 | % | ||||
1.67 | <15 | 6.2 z | a | 0.33 z | c | 0.28 z | c | 15 z | b |
15 ≤ x < 25 | 20.8 | b | 0.24 | b | 0.22 | b | 8 | ab | |
25 ≤ x < 35 | 20.9 | b | 0.18 | a | 0.17 | a | 6 | ab | |
≥35 | 52.1 | c | 0.19 | a | 0.18 | a | 5 | a | |
Average | 0.21 | 0.20 | 6.7 |
Thinning Treatment | Apricots | Peach | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers | Fruits | Flowers | Fruits | |
Manual * | 182.51 | 289.44 | 611.04 | 502.50 |
Mechanical | 12.12 | 17.98 | 11.73 | 10.16 |
Hand finishing * | 89.24 | 174.87 | 349.74 | 482.40 |
Mechanical + hand finishing | 101.36 | 192.85 | 361.47 | 492.56 |
Reduction of CO2 emission of Mechanical + hand finishing vs. manual | 81.15 | 96.59 | 249.58 | 9.94 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Assirelli, A.; Giovannini, D.; Cacchi, M.; Sirri, S.; Baruzzi, G.; Caracciolo, G. Evaluation of a New Machine for Flower and Fruit Thinning in Stone Fruits. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114088
Assirelli A, Giovannini D, Cacchi M, Sirri S, Baruzzi G, Caracciolo G. Evaluation of a New Machine for Flower and Fruit Thinning in Stone Fruits. Sustainability. 2018; 10(11):4088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114088
Chicago/Turabian StyleAssirelli, Alberto, Daniela Giovannini, Mattia Cacchi, Sandro Sirri, Gianluca Baruzzi, and Giuseppina Caracciolo. 2018. "Evaluation of a New Machine for Flower and Fruit Thinning in Stone Fruits" Sustainability 10, no. 11: 4088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114088