Progress 10/01/08 to 09/30/13

Outputs
Target Audience: growers tree fruit equipment manufacturers engineers and horticulturists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Fourteen trainers trained in collaborating universities and 18 in other institutions. A cumulative total of 68 students involved in CASC projects and who now have an interest in engineering solutions for specialty crops. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Mechanized thinning of fruit project: The Darwin 300 and PT-250 string thinners were extensively tested in Pennsylvania stone fruit orchards throughout the project period. The Darwin 300 string thinner was tested in apple orchards to determine efficacy, after successes in stone fruit. Blossom load, leaf damage, fruit load, fruit quality, and other parameters were measured for treatments of varying thinner rpm settings. In 2011, there were no significant differences in crop load and value between rpm treatments, which was in contrast to 2010 where increased thinning resulted in increased crop load. More testing is needed for use of the thinner in apples, particularly with the concern for fireblight spread. PA –PSU and CMU graduate students tested ultrasonic and laser sensors to detect canopy shape and distance and automatically control the position of the string thinner. Based on blossom removal comparisons between automated and operator controlled string thinning, the automated systems were generally as good as a human at maintaining canopy engagement and may be economically viable methods of augmenting mechanical thinning. Pennsylvania had three replicated trials with the Darwin string thinner. String thinner trials were with automated positioning systems to improve uniformity of thinning and were conducted on peach. Graduate students from PSU and Carnegie Mellon designed and tested sensor positioning systems. 440 growers representing 20,000 acres attended field day demonstrations and Mid-Atlantic fruit conventions. Selective thinner development included further machine vision testing, laser range finding, and image analysis of peach trees both in the lab and in the orchard. Two end effector blossom removal mechanisms were designed and one was fabricated and tested by hand. A prototype 1/4-scale unit was fabricated by Penn State and U. of Illinois personnel. It has been tested in the lab for precision of positioning. PA and WA producers participated in a socioeconomic survey designed to determine the needs and potentials for automation and sensor technologies in specialty crops. To improve precision and efficiency in orchard enterprises, the participants rated fruit thinning, and harvesting as the areas of greatest need. NE growers continued to purchase either Darwin (for planar tree canopies) or PT250 (for open vase-shaped canopies) string thinners and reported reduced labor requirement and improved fruit size. Over 60 units (valued at almost $1M) have been sold in North America. Labor savings in thinning are estimated in the several million dollar range. Socioeonomic survey results indicated that field trials to present evidence of increased management efficiency, improved fruit quality, and increased net income would result in a faster rate of adoption of new technologies. Demonstrations and presentations were held at extension outreach, industry conventions, and professional conferences, including the Washington State Horticultural, California Cling Peach Industry, Southeast Professional Fruit Workers, Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable, and NE Agricultural and Biological Engineering meetings. Additional outreach efforts included trade journal articles, videos, powerpoints, extension bulletins, and posters. Harvest assist project: Two new autonomous orchard platforms were delivered to The Pennsylvania State University and Washington State University. An upgraded orchard platform-mounted vacuum-driven harvest assist system for testing in Pennsylvania State orchard architectures was tested. Results from the Eastern and Northwestern grower socioeconomic surveys were published in HortTechnology. A new, low-cost harvest assist device has been designed and is being fabricated in Summer 2013. This device will mount on a low-cost, electric orchard platform. The unit will be tested in late Summer and Fall 2013. Grower’s Financial Indifference Value (gFIV) for the vacuum-driven harvest assist system was established. The gFIV could be as high as $746 per acre per year, depending on the system’s assumed use and apple production system. Orchard platforms we have developed autonomously drove 30 km, controlled by growers and other persons not involved in the creation of the vehicles. Testing with the upgraded orchard platform-mounted harvest assist system showed very low bruising but no significant improvement in efficiency compared with skilled pickers on ladders. During an Intensive Workshop on Economics, Horticulture and Technology, 80% of Turning Point survey respondents indicated they planned to plant trees at densities of 800 trees per acre or higher in their next renewal or expansion, 72% said the main reason for adopting an orchard platform was to improve productivity, and 77% said the main reason for pursuing harvest assist technologies was to improve harvest productivity. Surveys conducted at field days and grower meetings indicated positive KASA changes and a 10% increase in planned practice changes compared to the previous year. Trials comparing workers using the CASC autonomous orchard platforms vs. workers using ladders resulted in as much as a 58% increase in worker efficiency in PA and 89% in WA.A cumulative total of 6,271 direct contacts were made through field days and presentations, and 10,000+ hits on CASC web sites (cascrop.com, YouTube, SlideShare, and Facebook).

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Auxt Baugher, T., J. Schupp, C. Lara, S. Prozo. 2012. Blossom thinning results in an early bloom season. Horticultural News 93(1):1-8.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Auxt Baugher, T. 2012. Mechanization research in the United States. Compact Fruit Tree 45(3):18-20.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Schupp, J., T. Auxt Baugher, E. Winzeler, T. Kon and M. Schupp. 2013. Labor efficient apple peach production. PA Fruit News 93(1):35-37.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2013 Citation: Schupp, J., T. Auxt Baugher, P. Heinemann, E. Winzeler, T. Kon and M. Schupp. 2013. Labor efficient apple peach production. Compact Fruit
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2013 Citation: Kon, T. M. and J. R. Schupp. 2013. Hand-thinning tall spindle apple trees with the Equilifruit disc. HortTechnology 23: (HORTTECH-02575 accepted for publication July 9, 2013).
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Kon, T. M., J. R. Schupp, H. E. Winzeler and R. P. Marini. 2013. Influence of mechanical string thinning treatments on vegetative and reproductive tissues, fruit set, yield and fruit quality of apple. HortScience 48:40-46.

Progress 10/01/11 to 09/30/12

Outputs
OUTPUTS: PA -PSU and CMU graduate students tested ultrasonic and laser sensors to detect canopy shape and distance and automatically control the position of the string thinner. Based on blossom removal comparisons between automated and operator controlled string thinning, the automated systems were generally as good as a human at maintaining canopy engagement and may be economically viable methods of augmenting mechanical thinning. Selective thinner development included further machine vision testing, laser range finding, and image analysis of peach trees both in the lab and in the orchard. Two end effector blossom removal mechanisms were designed and one was fabricated and tested by hand. A prototype 1/4-scale unit was fabricated by Penn State and U. of Illinois personnel, with an identical copy made and sent to Illinois for further testing. PA and WA producers participated in a socioeconomic survey designed to determine the needs and potentials for automation and sensor technologies in specialty crops. To improve precision and efficiency in orchard enterprises, the participants rated fruit thinning, and harvesting as the areas of greatest need. Demonstrations and presentations were held at extension outreach, industry conventions, and professional conferences, including the Washington State Horticultural, California Cling Peach Industry, Southeast Professional Fruit Workers, Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable, and NE Agricultural and Biological Engineering meetings. Additional outreach efforts included trade journal articles, videos, powerpoints, extension bulletins, and posters. 440 growers representing 20,000 acres attended field day demonstrations and Mid-Atlantic fruit conventions. Two new autonomous orchard platforms were delivered to The Pennsylvania State University and Washington State University. An upgraded orchard platform-mounted harvest assist system for testing in Pennsylvania State orchard architectures was tested. A four-hose vacuum assisted harvest system for NE tree architectures in three orchards was tested. In-depth case studies of 17 producers to assess knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes, based on diffusion of innovation research, regarding implementation of harvest technologies were completed. Results from the Eastern and Northwestern grower socioeconomic surveys were published in HortTechnology. Grower's Financial Indifference Value (gFIV) for the harvest assist system was established. The gFIV could be as high as $746 per acre per year, depending on the system's assumed use and apple production system. A cumulative total of 6,271 direct contacts were made through field days and presentations, and 10,000+ hits on CASC web sites. Trained cumulative total of 40 trainers, including 25 from other institutions. A cumulative total of 83 students involved in engineering solutions projects and who now have an interest in engineering solutions for specialty crops. PARTICIPANTS: Project Members - Director: Paul Heinemann, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Tara Baugher, Tree Fruit Extension Educator, Penn State Extension; Michael Delwiche, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis; Tony Grift, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois; Karen Lewis, Tree Fruit Regional Specialist, Washington State University Extension; Jude Liu, Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Gregory Reighard, Professor, Horticulture, Clemson University; James Schupp, Associate Professor, Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University Fruit Research and Extension Center; David Slaughter, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis; Yang Tao, Professor, Biological Engineering, University of Maryland; Christopher Walsh, Professor, Plant Science, University of Maryland; Cooperators - Stephen Miller, USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station; Scott Johnson, University of California Kearney Agricultural Center; Roger Duncan, University of California Extension; Janine Hasey, University of California Extension; Greg Henderson, Clemson University, Katie Ellis, Penn State Extension; Edwin Winzeler, The Pennsylvania State University Fruit Research and Extension Center; Catherine Lara, Penn State Extension; Sladjana Prozo, Penn State Extension; Mike Rasch, Charles Dietrick, Phil Brown, DBR Conveyor Systems; Sanjiv Singh, Marcel Bergerman, Bill Messner, Carnegie Mellon University; Gwen Hoheisel, Washington State University Extension. Partner Organizations - USDA; Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission; California Canning Peach Association; State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; South Carolina Peach Council.. Training: student participants - Clemson University: Will Henderson. Washington State: Meng Wang, Engela Martinson, Nataliya Shcherbatyuk, Dennis Hehnen. Penn State: Tom Kon, David Lyons, Celine Kuntz, Ryan Hilton, John Paul Baugher, Amelia Jarvinen, Danijel Lolic, Alana Anderson. TARGET AUDIENCES: Fruit growers, particularly tree fruit throughout the U.S. and Canada; and, Potential commercial developers of machinery. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
NE growers continued to purchase either Darwin (for planar tree canopies) or PT250 (for open vase-shaped canopies) string thinners and reported reduced labor requirement and improved fruit size. Socioeonomic survey results indicated that field trials to present evidence of increased management efficiency, improved fruit quality, and increased net income would result in a faster rate of adoption of new technologies. Orchard platforms we have developed autonomously drove 30 km, controlled by growers and other persons not involved in the creation of the vehicles. Testing with the upgraded orchard platform-mounted harvest assist system showed very low bruising but no significant improvement in efficiency compared with skilled pickers on ladders. During an Intensive Workshop on Economics, Horticulture and Technology, 80% of Turning Point survey respondents indicated they planned to plant trees at densities of 800 trees per acre or higher in their next renewal or expansion, 72% said the main reason for adopting an orchard platform was to improve productivity, and 77% said the main reason for pursuing harvest assist technologies was to improve harvest productivity. Testing of modified platform with vacuum assisted harvest system for NE tree architectures demonstrated 33% increases in harvest efficiency compared to ladder and hand harvest; robust ergonomics studies conducted on vacuum harvest system for PNW orchards. Surveys conducted at field days and grower meetings indicated positive KASA changes and a 10% increase in planned practice changes compared to the previous year. Trials comparing workers using the CASC autonomous orchard platforms vs. workers using ladders resulted in as much as a 58% increase in worker efficiency in PA and 89% in WA. Surveys conducted at field days and grower conventions indicated positive KASA changes and that producers felt the greatest technological needs in the next 10 years will be for harvest-assist, spray application, improved labor efficiency, and crop load estimation. Trials with the autonomous orchard platforms demonstrated the following increases in production efficiency compared to ladders: 51% for pheromone dispenser placement, 30% for peach green fruit thinning, and 45% for green apple thinning.

Publications

• Miller, S., J. Schupp, T. Baugher, and S. Wolford. 2011. Performance of mechanical thinners for bloom or green fruit thinning in peaches. HortScience 46:43-51.
• Schupp, J. R. and T. A. Baugher. 2011. Peach Blossom String Thinner Performance Improved with Selective Pruning. HortScience 46(11):1486-1492.
• Baugher, T., J. Schupp, and P. Heinemann. 2011. Innovations in peach thinning. Proc. New England Vegetable and Fruit Convention, Manchester, New Hampshire. pp. 61-64.
• Schupp, J., T. A. Baugher, J. L. Frecon, J. Remcheck, and K. Ellis. 2011. Evaluation and Demonstration of New Stone Fruit Varieties and Tree Forms. PA Fruit News pp. 91.
• Schupp, J. and E. Winzeler. 2011. A Precision Electronic Fruit Grading System for the PSU Fruit Research and Extension Center. PA Fruit News 91(1):38.
• Peters, M. 2011. Current status and future refinements for the Darwin string thinner. Proc. Great Lakes Fruit Expo. Grand Rapids, MI. http://www.glexpo.com/summaries/2011summaries/webStoneFruit.pdf.
• Winzeler, H. E. and J. R. Schupp. 2011. Image analysis of blush coverage extent and measures of categorical blush intensity in 'Honeycrisp' apples. HortScience 46:705-709.
• Hehnen, D., I. Hanrahan, K. Lewis, J. McFerson, and M. Blanke. 2012. Mechanical flower thinning improves fruit quality of apples and promotes consistent bearing. Scientia Horticulturae 134:241-244.
• Baugher, T. A., J. R. Schupp, and P. Heinemann. 2012. Innovations in peach thinning - A summary report. PA Fruit News 92(2):19-22.
• Kon, T., J. Schupp, H. Winzeler, and R. Marini. 2012. Influence of mechanical thinning severity treatments on vegetative and reproductive tissues, fruit set, yield, and fruit quality of 'Buckey Gala.' J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 2012 Convention Abstracts. http://ashs.org/abstracts/m/abstracts12/abstract_id_11688.html.
• Lewis, K. M. and M. Robinson. 2012. Mechanized string thinners, an effective tool for cropload management in organic apricot production. ISHS 2nd International Organic Fruit Research Symposium. Symposium Abstract. p. 14.
• Reighard, G. L. and W. G. Henderson. 2012. Mechanical blossom thinning in South Carolina peach orchards. International Symposium on Mechanical Harvesting & Handling Systems of Fruits and Nuts. Lake Alfred, FL. April 1-4, 2012. (Abstract). Book. pp. 18-19.
• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, P. Heinemann, L. Hull, R. Crassweller, G. Krawczyk, R. Marini, C. Lara, S. Prozo, and C. Snyder 2012. Specialty Crop Innovations - Progress and Future Directions. Penn State Cooperative Extension Ag Innovations Pub. Pp. 5.

Progress 10/01/10 to 09/30/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: WA - WSU conducted 1 apricot, 2 apple, and 3 sweet cherry replicated on-farm trials. In addition, they have 3 hand held thinner trials in Chile that include the WSU hand held thinner and the commercial "electr-flor" and they provided a WSU hand held device for PA growers to evaluate. In apricot, there were 3 treatments - Darwin string thinner, WSU hand held thinner, and green fruit thinning. Apple trial treatments included Darwin and Bonner mechanical string thinners, WSU hand held thinner, and chemical thinners. Follow up BA treatments were evaluated in one apple trial and a 6 year study was established at WSU to evaluate Bonner string thinner only, chemical thinning only, and mechanical/chemical thinning on alternate years. Field days and demonstrations were attended by 125 growers, and talks at conventions were attended by 200 growers. SC - Clemson collaborators conducted 2 commercial-scale (25+ acres) replicated trials and 1 non-replicated trial in peach. String thinning treatments included top, underneath, and/or side spindle orientations, and control treatments included hand blossom and green fruit hand thinning. A mechanical thinning demonstration was held in March, and 3 presentations were given at SC peach meetings and 2 at meetings in other states (UT, TN) for a total of 450 growers. CA - California extension educators reported that growers from their three major peach growing regions conducted commercial-scale trials on mechanical blossom thinning, with support from UC Extension and the CA Canning Peach Association. PA - Pennsylvania had 3 replicated trials with the Darwin string thinner. String thinner trials were with automated positioning systems to improve uniformity of thinning and were conducted on peach. Graduate students from PSU and Carnegie Mellon designed and tested sensor positioning systems. 440 growers representing 20,000 acres attended field day demonstrations and Mid-Atlantic fruit conventions. Selective thinner development included further machine vision testing, laser range finding, and image analysis of peach trees both in the lab and in the orchard. Two end effector blossom removal mechanisms were designed and one was fabricated and tested by hand. Further design details on the second mechanism have been developed. A prototype 1/4-scale unit was fabricated by Penn State and U. of Illinois personnel, with an identical copy made and sent to Illinois for further testing. PA and WA producers participated in a socioeconomic survey designed to determine the needs and potentials for automation and sensor technologies in specialty crops. To improve precision and efficiency in orchard enterprises, the participants rated fruit thinning, and harvesting as the areas of greatest need. Demonstrations and presentations were held at extension outreach, industry conventions, and professional conferences, including the Washington State Horticultural, California Cling Peach Industry, Southeast Professional Fruit Workers, Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable, and NE Agricultural and Biological Engineering meetings. Additional outreach efforts included trade journal articles, videos, powerpoints, extension bulletins, and posters . PARTICIPANTS: Project Members - Director: Paul Heinemann, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Tara Baugher, Tree Fruit Extension Educator, The Pennsylvania State University, Adams County Cooperative Extension; Michael Delwiche, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis; Tony Grift, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois; Jayson Harper, Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University; Karen Lewis, Tree Fruit Area Extension Educator, Washington State University Extension; Jude Liu, Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Marvin Pitts, Associate Professor, Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University; Gregory Reighard, Professor, Horticulture, Clemson University; James Schupp, Associate Professor, Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University Fruit Research and Extension Center; David Slaughter, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis; Yang Tao, Professor, Biological Engineering, University of Maryland; Christopher Walsh, Professor, Plant Science, University of Maryland; Cooperators - Stephen Miller, USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station; Scott Johnson, University of California Kearney Agricultural Center; Roger Duncan, University of California Extension; Janine Hasey, University of California Extension; Greg Henderson, Clemson University, Katie Ellis, Penn State Extension; Penn State Extension; Edwin Winzeler, The Pennsylvania State University Fruit Research and Extension Center. Partner Organizations: USDA; Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission; California Canning Peach Association; State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; South Carolina Peach Council. Training: student participants Clemson University: Will Henderson Penn State: Tom Kon, David Lyons, Robin Pritz, Reuben Dise, Celine Kuntz, Ryan Hilton, John Paul Baugher, Amelia Jarvinen Carnegie Mellon: Matt Aastad TARGET AUDIENCES: Fruit growers, particularly tree fruit throughout the U.S. and Canada; Potential commercial developers of machinery PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
WA - Hand-held /'Lapin' cherry - A clipped green fruit treatment resulted in a greater percentage of fruit in size 10 and larger when compared to the hand held blossom thinned treatment. Time to apply the hand held treatment was several seconds compared to a minute or longer for green fruit clipping. Hand held/'Sweetheart' cherry - There was no significant difference in surviving flower numbers across bloom stage and head / spine treatments. Fruit size row 10 and larger was best achieved by hand fruitlet thinning (100%) and hand flower thinning at 20-40% full bloom (92%). In a PA trial on this variety, the percentage of 10 row and larger was highest in a heavy thinning treatment, followed by fast thinning treatment. There was no significant difference between light thinning and control treatments. 'Robada' apricot responded favorably to the hand held device. Hand held treated fruit peaked on sizes 64 and 72. Darwin thinned fruit peaked on sizes 72 and 96. Green fruit thinned only fruit peaked on sizes 80 and 96. First pick volume was largest on Darwin thinned rows, followed by hand held thinned rows. CA - Interest in mechanical string thinning in CA continues to increase, especially among cling peach growers. The manufacturer is designing modifications to the thinner for accommodating the tall tree architectures common in this peach growing area. SC - In a replicated trial on 'Coronet' peach (25 acres) grown in traditional open center culture, labor cost savings with the string thinner (used over the tops of the trees; 61% blossom removal) followed by green fruit thinning, compared to hand bloom thinning or green fruit hand thinning was $491 per acre. The labor cost savings along with a modest increase in size distribution increased gross revenue by 7.6%, or $1041 per acre. In a replicated trial with open center-trained 'Clemson Lady' (26 acres), cost savings with the string thinner (operated underneath or on the sides of trees; 30% removal) was only $58 per acre. In a high density non-replicated 'Fire Prince' trial (non-replicated), mechanical thinning (underneath or side treatment; 39% removal) vs a hand bloom thinned control treatment (60% reduction) reduced total thinning costs from $1188 to $560 per acre. PA -PSU and CMU graduate students tested ultrasonic and laser sensors to detect canopy shape and distance and automatically control the position of the string thinner. Based on blossom removal comparisons between automated and operator controlled string thinning, the automated systems were generally as good as a human at maintaining canopy engagement and may be economically viable methods of augmenting mechanical thinning. A video on this new technology is on-line at www.abe.psu.edu/scri. NE growers continued to purchase either Darwin (for planar tree canopies) or PT250 (for open vase-shaped canopies) string thinners and reported reduced labor requirement and improved fruit size. Socioeonomic survey results indicated that field trials to present evidence of increased management efficiency, improved fruit quality, and increased net income would result in a faster rate of adoption of new technologies.

Publications

• Baugher, T. A. and J. Schupp. 2010. Relationship between 'Honeycrisp' crop load and sensory panel evaluations of the fruit. J. Amer. Pomological Soc. 64:226-233.
• Ellis, K., T. A. Baugher, and K. Lewis. 2010. Use of survey instruments to assess technology adoption for tree fruit production. HortTechnology 20:1043-1048.
• Miller, S., J. Schupp, T. Baugher, and S. Wolford. 2011. Performance of mechanical thinners for bloom or green fruit thinning in peaches. HortScience 46:43-51.
• Aasted, M., R. Dise, T. A. Baugher, P. H. Heinemann, and S. Singh. 2011. Autonomous mechanical thinning using scanning LIDAR. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. ASABE Paper No. 11-011. 11 pp.

Progress 10/01/09 to 09/30/10

Outputs
OUTPUTS: "Innovative Thinning" project activities focused on further testing and modification of non-selective mechanical thinner technologies, field trials to assess horticultural and economic benefits of non-selective thinning, further development of selective thinning components, outreach demonstrations and publications to promote technology transfer and commercialization, and reports for advisory panels and other stakeholder groups. Pennsylvania had 6 replicated trials with the string thinner and 2 with a USDA drum shaker with a new rod displacement system to improve thinning efficiency and reduce trunk damage. String thinner trials focused on string pattern arrangements and an automated positioning system to improve uniformity of thinning. 300 growers representing 20,000 acres attended presentations. Selective thinner development included further machine vision testing, laser range finding, and image analysis of peach trees both in the lab and in the orchard. Two end effector blossom removal mechanisms were designed and one was fabricated and tested by hand. Further design details on the second mechanism have been developed. Two used FANUC M-16 industrial robots were purchased and delivered to the University of Illinois and Penn State. These will provide the positioning of the blossom removal mechanisms guided by the vision system. Demonstrations and presentations were held at several extension outreach, industry conventions, and professional conferences, including the Cumberland-Shenandoah, Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers, USDA Systems, National Peach, Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable, International Fruit Tree Association, Nuffield International Farming Scholars, New Jersey Tree Fruit IPM, American Society for Horticultural Science, and NE Agricultural and Biological Engineering meetings. Additional outreach efforts included trade journal articles, videos, powerpoints, extension bulletins, and posters that are available at the project web site (http://www.abe.psu.edu/scri/). PARTICIPANTS: Director: Paul Heinemann, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Tara Baugher, Tree Fruit Extension Educator, The Pennsylvania State University, Adams County Cooperative Extension; Jayson Harper, Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University; Jude Liu, Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; James Schupp, Associate Professor, Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University Fruit Research and Extension Center; Katie Ellis, Penn State Extension; Jim Remcheck, Penn State Extension; Edwin Winzeler, The Pennsylvania State University Fruit Research and Extension Center. Partner Organizations: USDA; Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission; California Canning Peach Association; State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; South Carolina Peach Council. Training: student participants Penn State: Russell Rohrbaugh, Tom Kon, Robin Pritz, David Lyons; Carnegie Mellon: Matt Aastad; Millersville: Celine Kuntz; Grove City College: Evan Moore; McDaniel College: Jennifer Rouzer; Madison University: Ryan Hilton; Oberlin College: Amelia Jarvinen; Modesto Jr College: Rose Lorenzo. TARGET AUDIENCES: Fruit growers, particularly tree fruit throughout the U.S. and Canada; Potential commercial developers of machinery. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
A 6 column helix string arrangement compared to a 2 column 9 string arrangement increased thinning uniformity in 1 out of 3 trials. A string thinner modified to automatically adjust to canopy width and angle increased thinning efficacy and uniformity, and the thinner manufacturer plans to model a new thinner based on the Penn State prototype. Eight string thinners were purchased in 2010 by NE growers, and all reported reduced labor requirement. The drum shaker reduced crop load and follow-up hand thinning time significantly over a conventional hand thinning technique only when operating at 300 to 400 cycles per minute. Preliminary data suggest bark damage was less than obtained with previous prototypes, but damage was not eliminated, which is one of the ultimate goals.

Publications

• Ellis, K. 2009. Developments in Technology and Automation for Tree Fruit. Proc. Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable, and Farm Market Expo, Grand Rapids, MI. pp. 4-7.
• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, K. Ellis, J. Remcheck, E. Winzeler, R. Duncan, S. Johnson, K. Lewis, G. Reighard, G. Henderson, M. Norton, A. Dhaddey, and P. Heinemann. 2010. String blossom thinner designed for variable tree forms increases crop load management efficiency in trials in four U.S. peach growing regions. HortTechnology 20:409-414.
• Schupp, J., P. Heinemann, T. Baugher, S. Miller, J. Liu, R. Dise, and A. Leslie. 2010. Innovative technologies for thinning of fruit. 2010. Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers Association Today. Pataskala, OH. pp. 6-9.
• Schupp, J., T. A. Baugher, R. Crassweller, K. Ellis, E. Winzeler, J. Remcheck, and T. Kon. 2010. Labor efficient production systems. PA Fruit News 90(2).
• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, P. Heinemann, S. Miller, K. Ellis, E. Winzeler, K. Reichard, J. Remcheck, C. Musselman, A. Leslie, R. Rohrbaugh, S. Wolford, M. Schupp, C. Kuntz, E. Moore, J. Koan, C. Anders, and T. Kon. 2010. Innovative technologies for thinning fruit. PA Fruit News 90(3).
• Heinemann, P., J. Schupp, and T. A. Baugher. 2010. Innovative technologies for thinning of fruit. HortScience 45(8):S199 (Abstract).
• Schupp, J., T. A. Baugher, K. Ellis, J. Remcheck, E. Winzeler, R. Duncan, S. Johnson, K. Lewis, G. Reighard, G. Henderson, M. Norton, A. Dhaddey, and P. Heinemann. 2010. String blossom thinner designed for variable tree forms increases crop load management efficiency in trials in four peach growing regions. HortScience 45(8):S199 (Abstract).
• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, K. Ellis, E. Winzeler, J. Remcheck, K. Lesser, and K. Reichard. 2010. Mechanical string thinner reduces crop load at variable stages of bloom development of peach and nectarine trees. HortScience 45(9):1327-1331.
• Kon, T. M., W. E. Winzeler, and J. R. Schupp. 2010. Golden Delicious cropload adjustment with the Equilifruit disk. HortScience 45(8):S256 (Abstract).

Progress 10/01/08 to 09/30/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Innovative Thinning project activities focused on non-selective mechanical thinner modifications to increase adaptation to variable tree architectures, developing and integrating electronic and mechanical technologies for selective thinning, field trials to assess horticultural and economic benefits of non-selective thinning, outreach demonstrations and publications to increase technology transfer and commercialization, and reports for advisory panels and other stakeholder groups. Trials with the mechanical blossom string thinner were performed Spring 2009 in 13 PA, 3 SC, 8 WA, and 4 CA commercial and research orchards. The USDA drum shaker was tested in 3 PA orchards during the bloom and green fruit stages. Conventional hand thinning at the green fruit stage was the control treatment. Varying operational speeds, blossom stages, and pruning modifications to improve access by the thinner were assessed. Data were uniformly collected across all regions to determine blossom removal rates, fruit set, labor required for follow-up hand thinning, fruit size distribution at harvest, yield, and economic impact. Case study interviews of 11 growers and orchard managers were conducted to assess sociological implications relative to stakeholder adoption. These growers had cooperated in trials on a total of 154 acres. Selective thinner development included machine vision testing, laser range finding, and image analysis of peach trees both in the lab and in the orchard. Design criteria for selective thinning were developed based on blossom identification and removal force assessments. Demonstrations and presentations were held at 21 extension outreach and industry conventions, including the SE Peach Convention, CA Peach Canning Conference, WA Horticultural Convention, Mid-Atlantic Fruit & Vegetable Convention, Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Convention, NY Fruit & Vegetable Expo, Cornell Extension Fruit School, Clemson Fruit Producer Meeting, New Zealand Summerfruit Meeting, Penn State Engineering Solutions Workshop, Penn State Fruit Research & Extension Center Field Day, Clemson Research Center Peach Field Day, WA Fruit Research Field Day, UC Davis Thinning Field Days, UC Kearney Research Center Thinning Demonstration, Penn State Workshop on Tree Architecture for Mechanization, Penn State Spotlight on Peach Thinning, and Pacific NW Engineering Solutions Workshop. Additional outreach efforts included the production of videos, powerpoints, extension bulletins, and posters that are available at the project web site (http://www.abe.psu.edu/scri/). Twenty-five outreach stories were circulated through trade magazines and newspapers, including the Good Fruit Grower, Cling Peach Review, Ag Alert, Fruit Grower News, American Fruit Grower, and Peach Times. The project advisory panel met during the Mid-Atlantic Fruit & Vegetable Convention and is regularly updated by list-serve reports and timely updates at the web site. Team members also were invited to give special presentations to 8 stakeholder organizations, including PA legislators, the PA Fruit Industry Task Force, CA Peach Canning Association, WA Tree Fruit Research Commission, and Horticultural Association of PA. PARTICIPANTS: Project Director: Paul Heinemann, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Tara Baugher, Tree Fruit Extension Educator, The Pennsylvania State University, Adams County Cooperative Extension; Michael Delwiche, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis; Tony Grift, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois; Jayson Harper, Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University; Karen Lewis, Tree Fruit Area Extension Educator, Washington State University Extension; Jude Liu, Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Marvin Pitts, Associate Professor, Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University; Gregory Reighard, Professor, Horticulture, Clemson University; James Schupp, Associate Professor, Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University, Fruit Research and Extension Center; David Slaughter, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis; Yang Tao, Professor, Biological Engineering, University of Maryland; Christopher Walsh, Professor, Plant Science, University of Maryland; Stephen Miller, Research Horticulturist, USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV; Scott Johnson, Kearney Agricultural Center, CA; Roger Duncan, UC-Davis; Katie Ellis, Penn State Extension, Jim Remcheck, Penn State Extension. Partner Organizations: USDA Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission; California Canning Peach Association; State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; South Carolina Peach Council. TARGET AUDIENCES: Fruit growers, particularly tree fruit throughout the US and Canada; Potential commercial developers of machinery PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
String thinner trials to assess optimum operational parameters for varying growing regions and tree forms showed reduced labor costs compared to hand thinned controls and increased crop value due to a larger distribution of fruit in higher market value sizes. Blossom removal ranged from 20-55%, hand thinning requirement was reduced by 25-65%, and fruit size distribution improved in all but one trial. Net economic impact at optimum tractor and spindle speeds was $462-$1490 and $230-$847 per acre for processing and fresh market peaches, respectively. Trials with the string thinner at varying bloom stages showed the thinning window is from pink to petal fall. Trials on modifications in tree training to improve access by the string thinner indicated detailed pruning for targeted crop loads was superior to standard pruning. Studies with a new drum shaker prototype adapted from a blackberry harvester demonstrated increased thinning consistency compared to previous research with a citrus drum shaker. Yield was reduced in some fresh fruit trials, and future trials will address this concern. Several combination treatments, including the string thinner + hand blossom thinning, the string thinner + the drum shaker, and string thinner treatments on both the sides and tops of trees suggested additional strategies for achieving the most desirable thinning results. Experiments for selective thinning validated 3-D and UV imaging precision and established force required to remove blossoms (avg. 0.10 lb). All the growers who agreed to participate in case study interviews indicated the string thinner impacted orchard management by making crop load management more efficient and by reducing follow-up hand thinning time. Eighty percent of the growers noted fruit from trees that had been thinned were larger. Observations included the following: hand thinning of peaches completed earlier allowing more timely work in other crops, employee satisfaction with thinners as they saved them time and minimized ladder use, improved work load distribution. Of the stakeholders who were surveyed following the workshop on tree architecture for mechanization, 78% indicated workshop outcomes included planting new competitive orchard systems at higher tree densities and adopting peach pruning and training strategies for better targeting crop load. Horticulture conference participants surveyed following a technology session rated thinning and harvesting as the areas of greatest need to improve precision and efficiency in orchard enterprises. On-farm trials demonstrating management benefits were noted to be effective tools for encouraging technology adoption. Five refereed papers have been published in journals such as HortTechnology and HortScience. Professional papers were presented at the NE Agricultural and Biological Engineering Conference and the ISHS Precision Agriculture Conference. The new peach tree thinner version of the string thinner (PT250) developed specifically for this project has been commercialized and will now be manufactured in North America. Distributors have been identified in CA and PA.

Publications

• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, L. Hull, H. Ngugi, J. Travis, and K. Ellis. 2009. Specialty Crop Innovations - Progress and Future Directions. Penn State Cooperative Extension Pub. 16 pp.
• Lesser, K., T. A. Baugher, J. Schupp, S. Miller, M. Harsh, and K. Reichard. 2008. Mechanical peach thinners reduce labor inputs and increase fruit size. ACTA Horticulturae. Proc. International Society for Horticultural Science. Application of Precision Agriculture for Fruits and Vegetables. p. 58.
(Abstract).
• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, S. Miller, M. Harsh, K. Lesser, K. Reichard, E. Sollenberger, M. Armand, L. Kammerer, M. Reid, L. Rice, S. Waybright, B. Wenk, M. Tindall, and E. Moore. 2008. Chemical and mechanical thinning of peaches. PA Fruit News 88(3).

• Ngugi, H. and J. Schupp. 2009. Evaluation of the risk of spreading fire blight in apple orchards with a mechanical string blossom thinner. HortScience 44(3):1-4.

• Heinemann, P., J. Liu, T. Baugher, and J. Schupp. 2009. Mechanized fruit thinning. Proc. Northeast Agricultural & Biological Engineering Conference. Halifax, NS. 6 pp.

• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, K. Lesser, and K. Reichard. 2009. Horizontal string blossom thinner reduces labor input and increases fruit size in peach trees trained to open-center systems. HortTechnology 19(4):755-761.

• Lesser, K., T. A. Baugher, J. Schupp, S. Miller, M. Harsh, and K. Reichard. 2008. Mechanical peach thinners reduce labor inputs and increase fruit size. Proc. Empire State Fruit and Vegetable Expo. pp. 7-9. 

• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, S. Miller, M. Harsh, K. Lesser, and K. Reichard. 2008. Thinning Peach Trees: Tools to Meet your New Years Resolutions. Proc. International Fruit Tree Association Annual Conference. February. p. 11.
(Abstract).
• Schupp, J., T. A. Baugher, S. Miller, R. M. Harsh, K. Lesser, and K. Reichard. 2008. Mechanical thinning of peach trees reduces labor inputs and increases fruit size. HortTechnology 18:660-670.

• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, S. Miller, M. Harsh, K. Lesser, and K. Reichard. 2008. Thinning peach trees: Tools to meet your New Years resolutions. Compact Fruit 41:8-9.

• Baugher, T. A., J. Schupp, M. Harsh, L. Hull, J. Travis, and K. Lesser. 2008. Ag Innovations - Progress and Future Directions. Penn State Cooperative Extension Pub. 16 pp.