10.05.2021 Views

Progressive Crop Consultant May/June 2021

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Internal bruise damage (% of samples in each category)<br />

Cultivar Location 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />

Draper Before 33.5 1 .5 21 .5 30.0 1 1 .0 2.5<br />

After 22.5 7.5 26.5 30.0 1 1 .0 2.5<br />

Legacy Before 47.0 1 .0 21 .5 20.5 1 3.0 2.0<br />

After 23.5 1 .0 1 7.5 30.0 1 8.5 9.5<br />

Table 3. Determination of internal bruise damage in machine-harvested Draper and Legacy<br />

blueberry samples collected from packing line locations either before or after inspection<br />

with an optical sorter. Samples were sliced through their equator and the bruised area was<br />

assessed visually as the percentage of sliced area and converted to a value between 0 and 5<br />

using a 5rating scale: 0= no bruise, 1= 1% to 5% bruised, 2= 6% to 10%, 3= 11% to 20%, 4=21%<br />

to 50% and 5= greater than 50%.<br />

Continued from Page 9<br />

The analysis showed that at the site of<br />

the bruise damage, the average fruit<br />

firmness was 149 g/mm. However, at the<br />

sites that were 90 and 180 degrees from<br />

the impacted location, the firmness was<br />

greater than 162 g/mm. This meant that<br />

a lower firmness value was detected<br />

when the damaged area was purposely<br />

used to determine firmness, resulting<br />

in a much higher r-value between fruit<br />

firmness and internal bruise damage<br />

values. Fruit that were firm at the time<br />

of packing (e.g., >180 g/mm value using<br />

a FirmTech II instrument) were found to<br />

have internal bruise damage exceeding<br />

15%. In the near future, our research<br />

team will sort MH blueberries with<br />

this imaging system to separate whole<br />

unbruised and bruised blueberries and<br />

conduct postharvest quality evaluation<br />

for unbruised and bruised MH blueberries<br />

to determine the shelf life of each<br />

group with an eye toward exporting MH<br />

blueberries to distant Asian markets. Of<br />

course, taking this non-destructive imaging<br />

system from the laboratory bench<br />

to integrating it into commercial optical<br />

sorting machines for IBD detection and<br />

sorting is a challenge facing the machine<br />

manufacturers.<br />

Conclusions<br />

More blueberries for fresh market are<br />

being machine harvested.<br />

Machine harvested blueberries have<br />

more internal bruise damage.<br />

On-going research is developing a better<br />

understanding of what causes bruising<br />

and working with harvest machine manufacturer<br />

to reduce bruise damage.<br />

New sensor technologies for blueberry<br />

sorting could assist in reducing bruised<br />

berries in fresh packs.<br />

Our research has shown that to make<br />

MH more profitable for blueberry growers,<br />

the current OTR harvesters must<br />

be modified to reduce impact damage<br />

and ground loss. Cultivars with superior<br />

machine harvestability are being<br />

released by blueberry breeding programs,<br />

and research must continue to develop<br />

equipment capable of harvesting blueberries<br />

with less bruise damage. The sorting<br />

system on the packing line for MH<br />

fruit must be improved with a greater<br />

precision to eliminate fruit with severe<br />

internal bruise damage. This would ensure<br />

that the quality of MH blueberries<br />

going into clamshells would be as good<br />

as HH fruit. Blueberry growers in some<br />

regions can then contemplate having<br />

MH blueberries packed for export. Also,<br />

proper training and pruning of blueberry<br />

bushes to maintain a small crown can<br />

increase MH efficiency. These changes<br />

will help in making small, incremental<br />

improvements in increasing pack-outs<br />

and fresh quality of packed blueberries.<br />

Finally, in order for MH blueberries to<br />

have quality that is as good as HH fruit,<br />

the blueberry industry needs to be willing<br />

to make changes by growing superior<br />

varieties, modifying how blueberry bushes<br />

are grown and harvested, and improving<br />

how the fruit is sorted. This will take<br />

a concerted effort from growers, breeders,<br />

horticulturists, engineers and supply<br />

chain specialists. These changes could<br />

lead to blueberry fields that look different<br />

from what we see today, with radically<br />

different ways of harvesting blueberries<br />

and technological advancements for sorting<br />

blueberries with the goal of improving<br />

the quality of MH blueberries going<br />

into clamshells.<br />

In terms of harvesting and packing technology,<br />

it is envisioned that U.S. blueberry<br />

growers will be using robotic harvesting<br />

systems in the field or in warehouses<br />

with specialized automated or semi-automated<br />

harvesting machines that will<br />

avoid damaging berries, have better<br />

selectivity to reduce green berries picked<br />

and sort out over-ripe and diseased<br />

berries in the field. In packing houses,<br />

new non-destructive technologies are<br />

needed that will be capable of analyzing<br />

the blueberry fruit surface and below the<br />

skin and sort fruit for quality (large size,<br />

high sweetness, flavor, bloom, no bruise<br />

damage and color). These advances will<br />

facilitate market segmentation and high<br />

prices as one U.S. and several European<br />

blueberry distributors are doing already<br />

with HH blueberries.<br />

This research was supported in part by<br />

the U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />

agencies (Agricultural Research Service<br />

(Project No. 8080-21000-028, National<br />

Institute for Food and Agriculture<br />

(Agreement No. : 2008-51180-19579 and<br />

2014-51181-22471), Agricultural Marketing<br />

Service (FY 18 Oregon Department<br />

of Agriculture SCBG to WQY and<br />

FY18 Washington SCBG to LWD), U.S.<br />

Highbush Blueberry Council, Chilean<br />

Blueberry Committee and Naturipe<br />

Farms Blue Challenge.<br />

Our gratitude goes to blueberry growers<br />

and packers in Waldo, Fla.; Alma<br />

and Homerville, Ga.; South Haven and<br />

Grand Junction, Mich.; Kingsburg and<br />

Stockton, Calif.; Hillsboro, Independence<br />

and Roseburg, Ore.; and Burlington,<br />

Prosser, Lynden and Sumas, Wash.,<br />

and in Chile who provided much needed<br />

in-kind support to the harvest project. A<br />

special thanks goes to Oxbo International<br />

Corporation which has collaborated<br />

with the group since 2014.<br />

Authors are employees of USDA-ARS (FT,<br />

fumi.takeda@usda.gov) Oregon State<br />

University (WQY, wei.yang@oregonstate.<br />

edu), University of Georgia (CL, cyli@uga.<br />

edu), Washington State University (LWV,<br />

lisa.devetter@wsu.edu) and University of<br />

Florida (SS, sasa@ufl.edu and JW, jgrw@<br />

ufl.edu).<br />

Mention of trade names or commercial products<br />

in this publication is solely for the purpose<br />

of providing specific information and does not<br />

imply recommendation or endorsement by<br />

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an<br />

equal opportunity provider and employer.<br />

Comments about this article? We want<br />

to hear from you. Feel free to email us at<br />

article@jcsmarketinginc.com<br />

10 <strong>Progressive</strong> <strong>Crop</strong> <strong>Consultant</strong> <strong>May</strong> / <strong>June</strong> <strong>2021</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!