Sofralık zeytinde farklı mekanik hasat sistemlerinin değerlendirilmesi (Olea europaea cv. Gemlik)

Abstract

Denemeler, Gemlik çeşidi zeytin bahçelerinde farklı zeytin hasat yöntemleri; elle toplama dal sarsıcı ve gövde sarsıcının farklı frekanslarındaki hasat performanslarının belirlenmesi amacı ile yürütülmüştür. Gövde sarsıcı sekiz farklı frekansta çalıştırılmıştır. Denemelerin birinci ve ikinci yılında optimum hasat zamanında, meyve hacmi, meyve kopma kuvveti, meyve ağırlığı, meyve kopma kuvvetinin meyve ağırlığına oranı sırasıyla 3.9-4.0 cm3, 3.27-3.99 N, 4.23-4.28 g, 0.77-0.94 N g-1 olarak bulunmuştur. Genel performans kriterleri incelendiğinde, en olumlu sonuçlar gövde sarsıcının 22 Hz. Frekans değerinde alınmıştır. İki yıllık çalışmalar sonucunda, meyve hasarı, ağaç hasar seviyeleri, hasat etkinliği, ağaç başına hasat süresi iş başarısı 2012 ve 2013 yılları için sırasıyla, %1.5’den az, %2.86-%7.24, %93.93-%92.92, 2.51-2.81 min ağaç-1 ve 286.22-355.72 kg işçi-1 saat-1 olarak bulunmuştur.

Keywords

• Gövde sarsıcı,Titreşim,Makinalı zeytin hasadı,Hasat performansı

Evaluation of different mechanical harvesting systems of table olive (Olea europaea cv. Gemlik)

Abstract

The experiments were conducted in Gemlik olive variety (Olea europaea cv. Gemlik)’s orchard to determinate the harvesting performance of different harvesting methods namely hand, branch shaker and trunk shaker at different frequencies and compare the harvesting methods. Trunk shaker with eight different frequencies were operated. In the first and second year of the experiments at the optimum harvest time, fruit volume, fruit detachment force, fruit weight, the ratio of fruit detachment force to fruit weight were found to be 3.9-4.0 cm3, 3.27-3.99 N, 4.23-4.28 g, 0.77-0.94 N g-1 respectively. Best results were obtained by using the trunk shaker with low frequencies as trunk shaker machine (TSM) 22 Hz. Fruit damage, tree damage levels, harvesting efficiency, duration of operation per tree and work productivity of trunk shaker with 22 Hz were found as less than 1.5%, 2.86%-7.24%, 93.93%-92.92%, 2.51-2.81 min tree-1 and 286.22-355.72 kg worker-1 h-1 respectively in two-years (2012 and 2013) trials.

Keywords

• Trunk shaker,Vibration,Olive harvesting with machine,Harvest performance

References

1. Boskou D (1996) Olive Oil: Chemistry and technology. Mountain, (Champain, II). USA: AOCS Press, pp. 52-83.
2. Castro-Garcia S, Castillo-Ruiz FJ, Jimenez-Jimenez F, Gil-Ribes JA, Blanco-Roldan GL (2015) Suitability of Spanish ‘Manzanilla’ table olive orchards for trunk shaker harvesting. Biosystems Engineering 129: 388-395.
3. Cemeroğlu BS (2013) Basic operations in food engineering. Gıda Teknolojisi Derneği Yayınları, pp. 872.
4. Çiçek G, Sümer SK, Kocabıyık H (2010) Farklı hasat yöntemlerinin iş başarıları ve zeytin verimine etkisi üzerine bir araştırma (2. Yıl Sonuçları). 26. Tarımsal Mekanizasyon Ulusal Kongresi, Hatay, s. 23.
5. Çiçek G (2011) Determination of harvesting costs and cost analysis for different olive harvesting methods. International Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 9(3-4): 201-204.
6. FAO (2016) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org. Accessed 06 November 2014.
7. Farinelli D, Tombesi S, Famiani F, Tombesi A (2012) The fruit detachment force/fruit weight ratio can be used to predict the harvesting yield and the efficiency of trunk shakers on mechanical harvested olive. Act Horticulture 965: 61-64.
8. Gezer İ, Güner M (2000) Determination of the effect of the clamp connection point of cable shaker and eccentric shaker on the harvesting rate in the harvest of apricots. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6(1): 21-24.

9. Güner M, Gezer İ (2001) Determination of some parameters of hand shaker in apricot harvesting. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 7(1): 5-8.
10. Hoshyarmanesh H, Dastgerdi HR, Ghodsi M, Khandan R, Zareinia K, (2017) Numerical and experimental vibration analysis of olive tree for optimal mechanized harvesting efficiency and productivity. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 132: 34-48.
11. Jiménez-Jiménez F, Castro-García S, Blanco-Roldán GL, González-Sánchez EJ, Gil-Ribes JA (2013) Isolation of table olive damage causes and bruise time evolution during fruit detachment with trunk shaker. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 11(1): 65-71.
12. Keçecioğlu G (1975) Atalet kuvvet tipli sarsıcı ile zeytin hasadı imkanları üzerine bir araştırma. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No: 228, Bornova İzmir.
13. Leone A, Romaniello R, Tamborrino A, Catalano P, Peri G (2015) Identification of vibration frequency, acceleration, and duration for efficient olive harvesting using a trunk shaker. Transaction of ASABE 58(1): 1-8.
14. Mayo D (1994) Mechanical harvesting (Adopted from the June 1997 Australian Olive Grover). http://www.Oliveaustralia.com.au/home.htm. Accessed 09 September 2014.
15. Qabatty A (2010) Effects of different harvesting methods on fruit quality in Domat variety olives. PhD Thesis. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey.
16. Saraçoğlu T, Özarslan C (2003) The determination of some hand type olive harvest machines’ performances. Tarımsal Mekanizasyon 21. Ulusal Kongresi Bildiriler, Konya, s. 302-309.
17. Saraçoğlu T (2006) Effective parameters on the mechanic olive harvest. Tarımsal Mekanizasyon 23. Ulusal Kongresi, Bildiriler Çanakkale, pp. 109-114.
18. Saraçoğlu T (2008) Comparison of harvest performance three different types of hand held olive canopy shakers. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science 4(1): 105-110.
19. Saraçoğlu T, Ulusoy E (2009) Determination of mechanical harvest criteria of some Ege region olive variety. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science 5(1): 71-81.
20. Tombesi S, Poni S, Palliotti A, Farinelli D (2017) Mechanical vibration transmission and harvesting effectiveness is affected by the presence of branch suckers in olive trees. Biosystems Engineering 158: 1-9.