EVALUATION OF AIRLEG SORTING Kathy Kelley, Bill Olson, Steve Sibbett, Ron Snyder ABSTRACT To evaluate the possible economic benefit of on-farm dry side airleg sorting, 74 lots of walnuts comprising six cultivars col- lected from the Southern and Central San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley were submitted to airleg sorting, separating each lot into three sublots based on quality: number 1, number 2 and culls. Each sublot was weighed to calculate the percent in each category. The sublots, plus an original nonairlegged sample, were submitted for quality evaluation and value determina- tion. OBJECTIVES Sorting walnuts with "airlegs," machines which remove lightweight nuts through exposure to an airstream or vacumm, is becoming more common in the on-farm walnut operation. The objective of this research was to determine whether or not the removal of poor quality nuts (weight loss) by use of a dry side airleg results in sufficient value increase (quality improvement) of the remaining lot to improve net profit of the load. PROCEDURE In this trial, 74 50-lb. samples of dry, in-shell, orchard run walnuts comprising six varieties: Ashley (11 samples), Payne (8 samples), Vina (12 samples), Serr (10 samples), Hartley (16 samples) and Franquette (17 samples), were collected from the Southern and Central San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley. Thus, an array of qualities were obtained due to both district and harvest timing differences for each cuItivar. A two to five pound non-airlegged control sample of each lot was taken. The remaining sample was subjected to strong air velocity which separ- ated the heaviest nuts. These were reserved as first quality "No.1. " The remainder of the sample was subjected to less air velocity and separated into a second quality, "No.2" and "culls." Each of these subsamples were collected, weighed to determine the percent in each category and submitted for quality analysis and value determination. In addition, quality and value determina- tions were also made after combining the No. 1 and No. 2 segments as if only a single separation was made, good nuts and culls. RESULTS For purposes of comparison, the data has been adjusted to represent one ton of walnuts thus allowing comparison of potential total value from similar, one-ton lots of walnuts either submitted to an airleg or left untreated. The airleg separated from 1 highest percent was removed to 5% of the weight as culls. from early leafing cultivars, The those -59-
7
Embed
EVALUATION OF AIRLEG SORTING Kathy Kelley, Bill …walnutresearch.ucdavis.edu/1984/1984_59.pdf · EVALUATION OF AIRLEG SORTING Kathy Kelley, Bill Olson, Steve Sibbett, Ron Snyder
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EVALUATION OF AIRLEG SORTING
Kathy Kelley, Bill Olson, Steve Sibbett, Ron Snyder
ABSTRACT
To evaluate the possible economic benefit of on-farm dry sideairleg sorting, 74 lots of walnuts comprising six cultivars col-lected from the Southern and Central San Joaquin Valley and theSacramento Valley were submitted to airleg sorting, separatingeach lot into three sublots based on quality: number 1, number2 and culls. Each sublot was weighed to calculate the percentin each category. The sublots, plus an original nonairleggedsample, were submitted for quality evaluation and value determina-tion.
OBJECTIVES
Sorting walnuts with "airlegs," machines which remove lightweightnuts through exposure to an airstream or vacumm, is becoming morecommon in the on-farm walnut operation. The objective of thisresearch was to determine whether or not the removal of poor qualitynuts (weight loss) by use of a dry side airleg results in sufficientvalue increase (quality improvement) of the remaining lot to improvenet profit of the load.
PROCEDURE
In this trial, 74 50-lb. samples of dry, in-shell, orchard runwalnuts comprising six varieties: Ashley (11 samples), Payne(8 samples), Vina (12 samples), Serr (10 samples), Hartley (16samples) and Franquette (17 samples), were collected from theSouthern and Central San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley.Thus, an array of qualities were obtained due to both districtand harvest timing differences for each cuItivar. A two to fivepound non-airlegged control sample of each lot was taken. Theremaining sample was subjected to strong air velocity which separ-ated the heaviest nuts. These were reserved as first quality"No.1. " The remainder of the sample was subjected to less airvelocity and separated into a second quality, "No.2" and "culls."Each of these subsamples were collected, weighed to determinethe percent in each category and submitted for quality analysisand value determination. In addition, quality and value determina-tions were also made after combining the No. 1 and No. 2 segmentsas if only a single separation was made, good nuts and culls.
RESULTS
For purposes of comparison, the data has been adjusted to representone ton of walnuts thus allowing comparison of potential totalvalue from similar, one-ton lots of walnuts either submitted toan airleg or left untreated.
The airleg separated from 1highest percent was removed
to 5% of the weight as culls.from early leafing cultivars,
Thethose
-59-
that usually have blight and sunburn problems which result inshriveled, lightweight kernels. Value of these culls, if separatedfrom one ton of walnuts, is shown in Table 1. Culls are of lowvalue and substantial amounts would have to accumulate to justifydelivery costs. For purposes of this study, they were considereddiscarded and not included in the value determinations.
Doubte Airleg Separation
The initial airleg (high air velocity) separated approximately76-90% of the nuts into the No. 1 (highest quality) category.The remaining 9-20% remained as No. 2's, a category of only mediocrequaIlty. Percentages in each category and potential pounds perton are shown in Table 2. As with culls, samples of early leafingcultlvars that suffer more from blight and heat contained morenuts in the No. 2 category than usually higher quality, late leafingcultivars, such as Hartley and Franquette.
Separating lots of nuts into a No. 1 quality category did notresult in a significant increase in value per pound for all testedcultivars except Franquette when compared to value of that culti-var's nonairlegged nuts. Value of the No.2 component was substan-tially less when compared to both No. 1 and nonairlegged controlnuts (Table 3).
To determine ultimate value of this practice, we assume a growerwould have one ton of nuts with an option to utilize the airlegfor double separation or leave them untreated. This benefit canbe calculated by using weights in each category, No. 1 and No.2 (Table 2), and values per pound (Table 3) for each separationand adding these together (Table 4). In all cases except Hartley,reduced value to the grower occurred by utilizing a double airlegseparation. The differences, however, are not significant whensubmitted to statistical analyses.
Single Airleg Separation
Quality and value of the airlegged samples were combined as onelot to compare value of a nonairlegged control with a similarlot submitted to an airleg adjusted to remove only culls.
Average value per pound of nuts was not significantly improvedby only removing culls (Table 5). Although value per pound wasgenerally, but not significantly increased, still, no significantimprovement in value per ton occurred.
CONCLUSIONS
Data collected from this experiment indicate that price gain byquality improvement did not usually offset value lost by weightreduction. Removal of cull nuts has no significant effect onultimate value of the .load. Further, separation into qualitycategories also does not improve value. As shown in Tables 4and 6, there appears to be as much chance of having a negativeeffect as a positive one. In both single and double separation,value of cull nuts is lost. Although, their value, if deliveredseparately, is minimal it can be substantial when their weight
-60-
-- - - - ----
is eliminated from a relatively valuable load.
An airleg can increase value if a small amount of material isremoved and a significant increase in value of the remainder isobtained as might occur if an in-shell premium is received followingremoval of a minimal amount of nuts.
Where quality is poor and high cullage expected, a negative impactcould occur. Table 7 provides a guide to determine value neededfor remaining nuts to be equivalent to original value under varyingremoval and values/ton.
-61-
- -- - ---
TABLE 1. QUALITY AND VALUE OF CULL WALNUTSSEPARATED BY AN AIRLEG