Mechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical HarvestingMechanical Harvestingofof

C lif i C lif i

Mechanical HarvestingMechanical Harvestingofof

C lif i C lif i California California Black Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table Olives

California California Black Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table OlivesBlack Ripe Table Olives

Louise Ferguson Uriel Rosa, Jacqueline Burns, Sergio CastroKitren Glozer, Neil O’Connell, Bill Krueger, Soh Min, JX Guinard

John Ferguson, Peter Kaleko, Paul VossenJaime Ortiz, Jorge LaDux, Fabricio FernandezPeter Searles and Cecelia Rosseaux Searles

andandDave and Karen Smith of DSE

Rocky Hill Ranch and Burreson Ranch Bell Carter Olives and Musco Family Olive Company

Fi L B ll d M TFinca La Bella and MaqTecErick Nielsen, Matt Coe, Don Mayo

47% of Gross Return

Objectives: 1996 Objectives: 1996 -- 20092009

Economically feasible mechanical harvesting:g– for existing orchards– future orchardsfuture orchards

Major Factors: 1996 Major Factors: 1996 -- 20092009

Final goal: – commercially competitive productcommercially competitive product

Develop picking method:Develop picking method:– harvester second

How must orchards change?g

Evaluated Existing Mechanical Harvesters

Evaluated Existing Mechanical HarvestersHarvesters

2006, 2007, 2008Harvesters

2006, 2007, 2008Canopy Contact

DSE DSE Harvester

2006 7 82006,7,8

Commercially Marketable Processed Olives

DSE 006, 007 and 008DSE 006, 007 and 008

DSE 008 Results: 2006, 2007, 2008DSE 008 Results: 2006, 2007, 2008

Final Efficiency: 57.8% (44.1 – 77.6%)% Cannable: 88*** vs 96% Cannable: 88 vs 96Adj. value/Ton ($): 1,013*** vs. 1137

DSE 008 Research Conclusions: DSE 008 Research Conclusions: DSE 008 Research Conclusions: 2006, 2007, 2008DSE 008 Research Conclusions: 2006, 2007, 2008

Canopy contact head is viable– marketable processed olivesmarketable processed olives

The harvester is marginalslow and inefficient– slow and inefficient

Evaluated Existing Mechanical Harvesters

Evaluated Existing Mechanical HarvestersHarvesters

2006, 2007, 2008Harvesters

2006, 2007, 2008MaqTec Colossus

ArgentinaArgentina

Portugal

2008

Commercially Marketable Processed Olives

Rabodoa, Portugal: September Rabodoa, Portugal: September 2008 2008

Hand Harvest 24 hours Machine Harv

MacTeq Research Conclusions: MacTeq Research Conclusions: MacTeq Research Conclusions: Argentina and Portugal, 2008MacTeq Research Conclusions: Argentina and Portugal, 2008

Colossus is very efficient:– > 90% efficiency 90% efficiency

Fruit damage is unacceptablebut it could be improved – but it could be improved

Evaluated Existing Mechanical Harvesters

Evaluated Existing Mechanical HarvestersHarvesters2007, 2008Harvesters2007, 2008

Trunk Shakers

ENEENE

COE

OMC

Spanish pWraparound

2007 2008Commercially Marketable Processed Olives

2007, 2008

Training Harvest % Can. Adj/ton Handg Harvest Eff. %

% Can. Adj/ton Hand

ConvenConventional 100% 97.1 1,035 HandFreeEsp. 100% 96.3 1,042 HandWovenEsp. 100% 94.4 1,031 HandTied Esp. 100% 92.8 1,101 HandEsp. 100% 92.8 1,101 Hand

Training Harvest % Can. Adj/ton Shakerg Harvest Eff. %*

% Can.NSD

Adj/tonNSD

ShakerHand

Conven 67 4 95 0 974 ShakerConventional

67.4100

95.097.1

9741,035

ShakerHandSFree

Esp.63.100

96.496.3

8721,042

ShakerHand

WovenEsp.

65.3100

95.394.4

9631,031

ShakerHand

Tied Esp.

69.4100

96.192.8

1,1311,101

ShakerHandEsp. 100 92.8 1,101 Hand

Trunk Shaker Research Trunk Shaker Research Trunk Shaker Research Conclusions: 2008Trunk Shaker Research Conclusions: 2008

Trunk damage is unacceptableHarvest efficiency is marginalHarvest efficiency is marginalFruit quality is excellent

Summarized Harvester Research Summarized Harvester Research Summarized Harvester Research Conclusions: 2006 - 2008Summarized Harvester Research Conclusions: 2006 - 2008

Canopy and Trunk Harvesters– fruit damage is not limiting factorfruit damage is not limiting factor– harvest efficiency remains low

Major Factors: 1996 Major Factors: 1996 -- 20092009

Final goal: – commercially competitive productcommercially competitive product

Develop picking method first:Develop picking method first:– harvester second

How must orchards change?g

Harvester Evaluations: 2009Harvester Evaluations: 2009

Canopy Contact– Coe

A i ht– Agright

Trunk ShakersENE – ENE

Small Orchard Prototypes – AH RakeAH Rake– WHK Wheel Rake– CSU Chico Air Pulse Harvester

COE HarvesterCOE Harvester

AgRight Olivia

ENE Trunk ShakerENE Trunk Shaker

ENE Trunk ShakerENE Trunk Shaker

AH RakeAH Rake

WH Krueger WheelrakeWH Krueger Wheelrake

OXBOOXBO

Questions?Questions?Questions?Questions?

Groups ucanr edu/olive harvestGroups.ucanr.edu/olive_harvest