Pistachio Harvester Evaluations

Trunk Shaking Harvesters

Final Harvester % Efficiency

dry weight harvested split in-shell (harvested) + (unharvested)

2009 Preliminary Trials

• Effect of tree size on shaker efficiency – Efficiency decreased with increasing

girth – High percentage edible nuts

unharvested • 2nd shake year

Objective: 2010 Evaluate Harvester Efficiency

• 6 Harvesters • 4 commercial • 2 experimental

• 5 trees of varying girths • 8 second shake

• Weigh – dry - grade • Hand harvest

• Weigh – dry – grade

Harvester % Efficiency (dry in-shell splits)

Average Trunk Circumference (“)

I 86 b 47.8

II 79 b 46.8

III 82 b 49.2

IV 84 b 49.6

V - experimental 96 a 44.0

VI - experimental 96 a 47.4

Harvester Comparison: 2010

y = -0.0108x + 1.3844 R² = 0.3063

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70% H

arv

est

er

eff

icie

ny

Trunk Circumference (Inches)

Harvester Efficiency as a Function of Trunk

Circumference

2010 Trial Conclusions • Difference in trunk shakers:

– Technology can be improved • Pruning could improve efficiency:

– Height and width – Branch angle – Circle ties (?)

Pistachio Harvester Evaluations: 2011

Two Trunk Shakers

Canopy Contact

Objective: 2010 Evaluate Harvester Efficiency

• 3 Harvesters • 1 control trunk shaker • 2 experimental: trunk and canopy

• 12 – 36 tree replications • 4 - 6 second shake

• Weigh – dry - grade • Hand harvest

• Weigh – dry - grade

Control vs. Experimental Trunk Shaker*

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Control Experimental

Column1HandMachine

1.8 lbs./tree Shelling stock

Control vs. Experimental Trunk Shaker

• 1.8 lbs/tree X 120/trees acre

• 216 lbs/acre X $1.00/lb

$216.00/acre

Canopy Contact Harvester

Canopy Contact vs. Trunk Shaker*

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Canopy Trunk

Harvest typeHandMachine

Canopy Contact

Slower: 1.1 vs. 0.3”/tree* Removed tips: 7.4 vs. 1.6/tree*

2011 Trial Conclusions • Currently, trunk shakers work well

– For trees < 40” in circumference • 86 % on larger trees (> 25 years) • 95% on smaller trees (< 12 years)

• But we need to be improving efficiency now

Harvester

Tree

Final Harvester Efficiency

12 Feet

6 Feet

New Orchards: > 200 trees/ac

1/24/2012

Hedgerow Orchards: 200+/acre

Since 2000: > 25% acreage

2011 Trial Conclusions • Difference in trunk shakers:

– Efficiency can be improved • Proprietary engineering • Orchard adaptation

2011 Trial Conclusions • Canopy contact technology: 4 steps Demonstrate removal technology Determine if harms tree or

product – Develop carrier + catch frame – Increase final efficiency • Engineering •Orchard adaptation

Special Thanks

Paramount Farming Company

Dennis Elam Rob Goff Johnnie Etchamendy Ron Kohl Brenda Hansen Candace Rogers Eric Mercure Andy Anzaldo

Pistachio Harvester EvaluationsTrunk Shaking HarvestersSlide Number 3Final Harvester % Efficiency��dry weight harvested split in-shell �(harvested) + (unharvested)2009 Preliminary TrialsObjective: 2010�Evaluate Harvester EfficiencySlide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 162010 Trial ConclusionsPistachio Harvester Evaluations: 2011Objective: 2010�Evaluate Harvester EfficiencyControl vs. Experimental Trunk Shaker* Control vs. Experimental Trunk Shaker Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Canopy Contact vs. Trunk Shaker*Canopy Contact 2011 Trial ConclusionsFinal Harvester EfficiencySlide Number 29Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32Slide Number 332011 Trial Conclusions2011 Trial ConclusionsSpecial Thanks�Paramount Farming Company