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>