Search Results

In this 2-year study of ‘Brown Snout’ specialty cider apple (Malus ×domestica) grafted onto Malling 27 (M.27) and East Malling/Long Ashton 9, we compared weight of total harvested fruit, labor hours for harvest, tree and fruit damage, and fruit and juice quality characteristics for machine and hand harvest. Machine harvest was with an over-the-row small fruit harvester. There were no significant differences due to rootstock; however, there were differences between years for most measurements. Weight of harvested fruit did not differ because of harvest method; however, harvest efficiency was 68% to 72% for machine pick and 85% to 89% for machine pick + clean-up weight (fruit left on trees and fruit knocked to the ground during harvest) as compared with hand harvest. On average for the 2 years, hand harvest required 23 labor-hours per acre at a total cost of $417, while machine harvest required 5 labor-hours per acre at a cost of $93. There were no differences due to harvest method on damage to spurs (four to eight spurs damaged per tree) or limbs (0.5–0.8 limbs damaged per tree). Although there were also no differences due to harvest method on fruit bruising (100% for both harvest methods in this study), 10% of fruit were sliced and 4% of fruit were cut in half inadvertently with machine harvest, and none were sliced or cut with hand harvest. Harvest method had no effect on fruit quality characteristics, specifically, soluble solids concentration (SSC), pH, specific gravity, titratable acidity (malic acid equivalents), or percent total tannin, when fruit was pressed immediately after harvest or stored for 2, 3, or 4 weeks before pressing. Juice quality characteristics were affected by storage, and SSC increased 11% in 2011 (3 weeks storage), and 12% and 18% in 2012 (2 and 4 weeks storage, respectively). Similarly, specific gravity increased both years after storage, 1% in 2011, and 1% and 2% in 2012 (a 1% increase in juice specific gravity corresponds to a potential 1.3% increase in alcohol by volume after fermentation for cider). Both years, juice pH tended to decline when fruit was stored (0.01 pH units in 2011, 0.06–0.12 pH units in 2012). Overall, cider apple harvest with an over-the-row small fruit machine harvester used four times less labor than hand harvest, yield reached 87% that of hand harvest (when clean-up yield was included), and juice quality characteristics were not negatively affected. These results suggest that machine harvest may be suitable for cider apples if equipment is available and affordable.

The Puget Sound American Viticulture Area (AVA), located west of the Cascade Mountain Range in Washington State, is a large and uniquely situated area with diverse topography and mesoclimates. Given the young age of the AVA, little formal information exists on the appropriate rootstock–scion combination in wine grapes (Vitis vinifera) for the region. This project reports on a series of rootstock trials from 2003 to 2007, which evaluated the influence of ‘420A Millardet et de Grasset’, ‘3309 Couderc’, ‘101-14 Millardet et de Grasset’ (all Vitis hybrids), and a self-rooted control on basic harvest metrics of the wine grape scion ‘Pinot noir clone 02A’. At the warmer site in Everson, WA, rootstocks had no effect on final juice harvest metrics measured by soluble solids, titratable acidity (TA), and pH. At the cooler site in Mount Vernon, WA, the use of rootstocks did not always influence soluble solids or pH but did reduce final harvest TA, a desired effect for the region that is typified by low sugar–high TA wines. Even with a reduction in TA in some rootstock–scion combinations, overall, TA remained at the upper end or above the range typically desired for many wine styles.

In this 2-year study, ‘Brown Snout’ specialty cider apples (Malus ×domestica) that had been hand harvested or machine harvested with an over-the-row shake-and-catch small fruit harvester were ambient stored (56 °F mean temperature) for 0, 2, and 4 weeks to evaluate yield, fruit damage, yield loss, and juice quality characteristics. The average yield (pounds per acre) of fruit picked and retained by the mechanical harvester was 74% that of the hand-harvest yield and 81% that of the hand-harvest yield when fruit that fell out of the harvester was included in the machine-harvest yield. Percent fruit bruised and cut were greater for machine harvest (97.5% and 25.5%, respectively) than for hand harvest (47% and 0.5%, respectively), on average for 2014 and 2015. Yield loss to rot was greater for machine harvest than for hand harvest, and increased for both methods over time; percent rot doubled from 2 to 4 weeks storage for machine harvest (22% to 41%), and while negligible, tripled from 2 to 4 weeks storage for hand harvest (0.7% to 2.1%). Juice quality characteristics did not differ due to harvest method, but did differ due to year and storage time. Soluble solids concentration [SSC (%)] and specific gravity (SG) did not change due to storage in 2014, but in 2015, SSC and SG were greater on average for 2 and 4 weeks storage duration (15% and 1.062, respectively) than at harvest (13.31% and 1.056, respectively). Titratable acidity (grams per liter malic acid) decreased in 2014 from 2.98 g·L⁻¹ at harvest to 2.70 g·L⁻¹ on average for 2 and 4 weeks storage duration, but did not differ due to storage in 2015. Tannin [tannic acid equivalent (%)] was unchanged in 2014 from harvest to 4 weeks storage, but increased in 2015 from 0.16% at harvest to 0.19% by 4 weeks storage. These results indicate that harvest efficiency could be improved with some engineering modifications of the over-the-row mechanical harvester and training modifications for the trees. A comparison of the aromatic and phenolic contents of mechanically harvested and hand-harvested ‘Brown Snout’ would be a valuable next step in evaluating shake-and-catch mechanical harvest technology for cider apple production.