_ ^. .. 



is making to mechanize the harvesting and handling of fruits. A few 

 of the examples cited in this publication are as follows: "During 1962, 

 about 2 million i^ounds of sour cherries were harvested mechanically at 

 a cost approxima cely % cent per pound against 3 cents per pound usually 

 paid handpickers." "Compared to handpicking, mechanically harvesting 

 Stanley Prune plums saves the grower about 23 cents per bushel." "One 

 man can mechanically harvest as many blueberries as six handpickers and 

 six men can harvest as many cherries as 33 handpickers." 



Growers have constructed and tried apple picking aids of various 

 types for many years: stilts, mobile ladders, and platforms, and hy- 

 draulic lifts, etc. The platforms and lifts are in use by some growers 

 for pruning and thinning in addition to picking. Growers' use, however, 

 has been limited because many of these devices have failed to perform 

 the necessary functions satisfactorily and economically. 



Use of Mobile Towers Studied in Virginia 



Dr. Howard Rollins, Jr. reported on the use of mobile towers in 

 Virginia during the fall of 1963 (Proceedings of the 68th Virginia 

 State Horticultural Society). He is quoted directly as follows: "Two 

 different types of mobile orchard towers were used in 1963 studies. One, 

 referred to as the "wish basket", is manufactured by the Friday Tractor 

 Company of Hartford, Michigan. It is a tractor drawn unit with hydraulic 

 controls powered by a tractor -powered ptimp. The man in the basket is 

 able to place himself anywhere in the tree that he might wish. The 

 equipment is basically designed for pruning. To adapt it to harvesting, 

 a two and a half bushel bucket was fitted to the front of the basket. 

 The bucket contained a bladder which was gradually deflated allowing 

 the fruit to settle slowly to the bottom of the container. A trailer 

 carrying bulk bins was drawn behind the "wish basket", and the picker, 

 upon filling the two and a half bushel basket, maneuvered himself to 

 the bulk bin and released the fruit. 



The second mobile tower included in the test was manufactured by 

 the Edwards Equipment Company of Yakima, Washington, and is referred 

 to as the "Dynasoar". It is a self-propelled mobile unit. The "Dyna- 

 soar" tower was fitted with a specially constructed conveyer system and 

 automatic bulk bin filler by Dr. Cunningham and Mr. Pfost in order to 

 provide a means of continually moving fruit from the picker. 



In order to evaluate the potentials of the mobile orchard towers, 

 a detailed comparison of the ability of a picker to harvest fruit using 

 each of the two towers and a conventional ladder was made. A total of 

 13 5 trees were harvested during the course of the tests. Each of the 

 three pickers harvested 15 trees with each of the three methods. Each 

 step of the harvest operation was timed with a stop watch. Fruit samples 

 were collected and later appraised for bruising. 



A critical evaluation of the data revealed that under the condi- 

 tions of this test the use of mobile orchard towers did not increase 

 the efficiency of the pickers. In fact, their rate of picking was slow- 



