DRUDGERY REDUCTION USING SCIENTIFICALLY DESIGNED MANGO HARVESTERS OVER CONVENTIONAL METHODS

Transcription

1 J. Dairying, Foods & H.S., 29 (3/4) : , 2010 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE / indianjournals.com DRUDGERY REDUCTION USING SCIENTIFICALLY DESIGNED MANGO HARVESTERS OVER CONVENTIONAL METHODS S.M. Savita*, K.N. Srinivasappa*, S.V. Suresha**, B.G. Vasanthi*, G.M. Anand*, G.M.Sujith* Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hadonahaili , ABSTRACT of fruits is generally followed by Indian farmers. The tree branches are shaken to speed up the harvesting, which results in post harvest losses due to physical damage, stem end rot due to sap bleeding in mangoes due to absence of pedicel. Mango harvester is one which has conical shaped frame for easy pushing in to canopy, blade for shearing the pedicel, collecting net and a pole to avoid damage due i to dropping of fruits on the ground. The mango is held within the frame and the fruit is harvested by shearing action of blade. Harvesting efficiency of different harvesters were studied in comparision to hand plucking & tree shaking to reduce the drudgery due to fatigue on labour, to save time. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (UAS) model was compared with that of Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore (IIHR) model. IIHR model is found to have higher efficiency as compared to the other models. Key words : Mango harvester, Conventional methods. INTRODUCTION India produces around 40 million tones of fruits per year. Timely harvesting of fruits is important for maintaining quality and shelf life. Harvesting of fruit trees is a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Different methods are being practised. The variety of mango is being harvested by shaking the tree manually and by plucking the fruits manually by climbing the tree. The fruits are allowed to fall on the ground and then picked up. This causes internal injury to the fruits and subsequent spoilage during ripening. The fruit is held between frame and the pole and get detached while pulling the harvester (Gowda et.al 1995). The fruits harvested without pedicel oozes out the sap from the pedicel end, there by reducing the shine of fruit, making it susceptible to the diseases like stem end rot. The local mango harvester generally consists of a bamboo pole fixed with a small wooden piece at an angle to make v shape at the end. The fruits are harvested by cutting the pedicel and dropped on the ground. In conventional harvesting the labourers climb the tree to harvest and throw the fruits on a gunny bag held by a person on the ground to reduce the injury to the fruit. This is a time consuming process and some times can be dangerous to the labour. The fruit harvesters have been modified to increase the harvesting capacity of the person and reducing damage to the fruits. The harvesting capacity depends upon the plant height, yield and type of fruit (Prabhakar, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, Phone: , kvkbrd@gmail.com

2 2006). The two different harvesters used to compare the efficacy have been shown in (UAS model & IIHR model). METHODOLOGY To study the efficacy of these harvesters, conducted 30 trials at 6 different places of Doddaballapur & Devanahalli taluks. Manual plucking (Fig 1) & tree shaking (Fig 2) methods along with use of local harvesters (Fig 3) were the methods of harvesting normally followed in the study area. A profile of the Mango orchards is presented in Table 1. The efficacy of different harvesters namely UAS model (Fig 4) & IIHR model (Fig 5) selected for the study was determined on the basis of the number of fruits harvested per hour, drops & damaged fruits/ hour. Fifteen individuals having a minimum of 1 ha Mango orchid were selected to conduct the field trials using different types of harvester in comparison to manual plucking & tree shaking. Profile of the individuals was colleted by interview using a well developed questionnaire (Annexure 1). The economic analysis of different methods of harvesting was also calculated per hectare per day. RESULTS & DISCUSSION The trials were carried out at 6 different places of Doddaballapur & Devanahalli taluks. The plant heights ranged from feet height. Area of mango orchard ranged from Hectare. The varieties found in this area were,, Raspuri, Neelam,. The comparative results of different methods are presented in Table 2. The local & UAS model harvests fruit without pedicel. IIHR Mango harvester, an improvement on the conventional harvester harvests the fruit with pedicel. The harvesting capacity of UAS & IIHR model are 103 and 130 kg/hour respectively as Vol. 29, No. 3/4, 2010 Fig.1 :. Fig. 2 : Tree shaking. Fig. 3 : Local harvester. 223

3 224 J. DAIRYING, FOODS & H.S. Area Place (ha) Alurduddanahalli 1.2 Beerasandra 1.0 Anatharahalli 1.4 Tapasihalli 7.0 Kannamangala Palya 10.0 Chimachanahalli 5.0 Table 1 : Profle of Mango orchards. Harvesting No. of Trials Plant height varieties methods IIHR UAS model followed model (Range in feet) Banganpalli Raspuri Banganpalli Neelam Tree shaking & Tree shaking & Manual Plucking Tree shaking, Tree shaking, TOTAL Fig. 4 : UAS Model. Fig. 5 : IIHR Model

4 Vol. 29, No. 3/4, Table 2 : Comparison of different mango harvesters with conventional techniques of harvesting mangoes. Methods of Fruit harvest Damages Per hour Drops per hour Fruit harvest/ net Preferable Harvesting per hour unload of fruits/ net No. No. No. Manual Plucking Tree shaking Local Harvester UAS Model IIHR Model Table 3 : Economic analysis of different methods of harvesting of one hectare/day. Cost of No. of labour / day Amount Amount saved compared Harvester (Rs.) required / day (Rs.) to hand plucking (Rs.) Tree shaking (9%) Local harvester (18%) UAS model 100/ (27%) IIHR model 150/ (42%) compared to 83, 75 and 64 kg/hour for local harvester, manual plucking & tree shaking methods. The damage to the fruit is found to be high in tree shaking method followed by manual plucking & use of harvesters. The results are in agreement with the results reported by Mandhar and Senthil (1993) The subjects of the study opined that manual plucking & tree shaking were labour intensive process, time consuming with more per cent of damaged fruits (Fig. 6) & had high chances of breakage of the branches (Fig. 7). The local model harvested fruits without pedicel resulting in oozing out of sap thereby reducing the shelf life and had a high percent of damage to fruits as they were dropped to the ground, whereas UAS model was said to have weak net with higher drops & harvested fruits without pedicel & pulled the branches with high chances of breakage. The IIHR model was observed to be slightly heavy and found difficulty to harvest plants with higher height, but harvested fruits Fig. 6 : Fruit Damage due to drop in conventional methods. with pedicel thereby increasing the shelf life of the fruit. The results are in accordance with the results of IIHR report. IIHR model is comparatively highly suitable for harvesting the fruits for export. The cost economics of use of harvester over other conventional methods of harvesting for one hectare per day is presented in Table 3. The amount saved is highest for IIHR model

5 226 J. DAIRYING, FOODS & H.S. (42%) followed by UAS model (27%) as compared to hand plucking. Thus use of harvesters helps to save some economy by reducing the number of labour required to harvest one hectare. CONCLUSION It could be inferred that the mango harvester can be used for harvesting mango fruits with less drudgery & fatigue on labour, also preventing damage to the tree branches & fruits as compared to manual plucking and tree shaking. Among harvesters IIHR model has higher efficiency over UAS & local model. Fig. 7 : Breakage of branch due to tree shaking. REFERENCES Gowda, S.J., et.al (1995). Comparative evaluation Mango harvesting techniques. Abstract of National Seminar on Post harvest technology of fruits, Phala Samskarana 95, UAS, Bangalore, Aug. 7-9,5. Mandhar, S.C. and Senthil Kumaran, (1993). Development of mango harvester. Abstracts of Goldern Jubilee Symposium Horticultural Research Changing Scenario, Bangalore, May 24-28:473. Prabhakar, M. (2006). Technologies of section of Agricultural Engineering: Scientists Extension Officials interaction meet held on Nov. 22, 2006 IIHR.