IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zib/zbsfna/v2y2021i2p84-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation Of Manual Fruit Harvesters And Storability Characteristics Of Harvested Sweet Orange Under Ordinary Room Storage Condition

Author

Listed:
  • Shailendra Khatri

    (National Agricultural Engineering Research Centre (NAERC), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Bagmati, Nepal.)

  • Shreemat Shrestha

    (National Agricultural Engineering Research Centre (NAERC), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Bagmati, Nepal.)

  • Keshab Prasad Pokharel

    (National Agricultural Engineering Research Centre (NAERC), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Bagmati, Nepal.)

Abstract

Harvesting is considered as one of the crucial and critical activities in fruit production, handling and storage and market cycle. Traditional harvesting and post-harvest technique are responsible for deteriorating the fruit quality and shortening the postharvest shelf-life. Hand-picking by climbing tree, tree shaking and stick biting are most common practices for majority of the fruit orchards in Nepal that is risky, labour and timeintensive practices as well as affects market quality and nutritive value of the fruits. Therefore, there is a need for simple manual fruit harvesting tools suitable for smallholder farmers to replace the manual picking of citrus. Hence, a study was conducted to evaluate the performance of different available models of manual fruit harvester along with the evaluation of post-harvest quality (physiological loss of weight, fruit firmness, total soluble solids, acidity and rot incidence) and shelf-life assessment of those harvested fruits during storage under ordinary room condition for 26 days. Nine harvesting treatments were investigated as follows: a) Farmer practice-hand-picking (FPground), b) Farmer practice tree climbing (FPclimb), c) Hand-shaking of the tree branch (TS), d) Secateurs (SEground), e) Secateur + tree climb (SEClimb), f) Pole mounted cut and hold type picking shears (CH), g) Telescopic Long reach fruit picker (LRF), h) Fruit picker harvester with basket and cushion (PHB), i) Metal fruit picker with cotton bag (PC). The harvesting capacity of FPground, FPclimb, SEground, SEClimb, LRF, CH, PHB, PC and TS methods were 98.4±5.84, 57.52±12.43, 94.7±38.14, 49.05±5.73, 79.14±6.15, 75.08±12.44, 49.88±17.48, 52.27±11.47 and 63.12±22.27 kg/hr, respectively.. The harvesting output of CH and LRF type harvester was 29.03 (591 nos/hr) and 15.93% (531 nos/hr) higher than FPclimb practice (458 nos/hr) and that of PHB and PC method was 20.96 (362 nos/hr) and 6.11% (430 nos/hr) lower than FPclimb. Regarding storability characteristics, shelf-life was found better in SEground, SEClimb, CH, LRF than TS and FP practices.SE and CH method found effective in prolonging the average shelf-life and maintaining the quality of sweet orange compared to TS and FP. The button or calyx on the harvested fruit in SE, CH and LRF method help to control and delay the sap oozing, physiological loss of weight and lateral infection that maintain fruit firmness, prolong the shelf-life and minimize the fruit damage and rot incidence during ordinary storage. Based on our findings, hand-held secateur, cut and hold type harvester and long reach fruit picker (twist and turn) are recommended as appropriate harvesting tools for sweet orange fruit picking.

Suggested Citation

  • Shailendra Khatri & Shreemat Shrestha & Keshab Prasad Pokharel, 2021. "Evaluation Of Manual Fruit Harvesters And Storability Characteristics Of Harvested Sweet Orange Under Ordinary Room Storage Condition," Sustainability in Food and Agriculture (SFNA), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 84-91, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:zib:zbsfna:v:2:y:2021:i:2:p:84-61
    DOI: 10.26480/sfna.02.2021.84.91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sfna.org.my/download/1563/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26480/sfna.02.2021.84.91?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zib:zbsfna:v:2:y:2021:i:2:p:84-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Zibeline International Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://sfna.org.my/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.