A promising test that needs further practical validation
Selective broccoli harvesting requires considerable labour and accurate decisions in the field. This field test examined how a selective harvesting machine from Automated Harvesting Solutions (AHS) performs compared with manual selective harvesting. The test looked at three points: labour time, missed harvest-ready broccoli and the quality of the harvested heads. It provides an initial view of what the machine can do in the field. At the same time, it shows which questions still need to be answered to assess wider practical use.
Innovation package, use case and type of test
Open Field Cultivation
Handsfree Autonomous Harvesting of Open-Field Vegetables
Status: completed
Technical functionality
Broad knowledge question
Can robotic selective harvesting save labour without compromising harvest quality?
The test was designed to show how the AHS machine compares with manual selective harvesting in the field. It looked at harvesting accuracy, product quality and the labour time required. The underlying practical question is recognisable for field vegetable cultivation: can robotic selective harvesting save labour while still keeping harvest quality in view?
Approach
A one-day field test with fixed trial plots
The test was carried out over one day on two broccoli fields near Zwaagdijk, the Netherlands. Cameras identify the broccoli, and the machine harvests heads with a measured diameter of approximately 14 to 20 cm. In fixed trial plots, the team measured what was harvested, what remained in the field, the size classes, missed heads, harvest quality, damage, cutting quality, stem length and labour time per hectare. These results were compared with manual harvesting in comparable trial plots.
Goal
Testing the tool version on quality and labour time
The objective was to test a tool version of AHS’ selective robotic harvesting system and compare its performance with manual selective harvesting. The focus was on quality aspects and labour time. AHS is the challenge owner; TEC 4 Motion and Wageningen Research were involved in this completed test within NXTGEN Hightech Agrifood.
Result and reflection
Promising results, with questions for the next practical test
The field test shows positive results, but also raises questions for follow-up research. In that sense, the test shows the value of improving through practice: by measuring in the field what works and what does not yet work, the next step becomes clearer.
What worked
In this test, the machine reduced the required labour time by more than half.
The machine appears to miss fewer harvest-ready broccoli heads than manual harvesters.
Most harvested heads were in the correct size class.
Learning points
There were some quality issues, such as minor damage.
In some trial plots, the cuts were less clean.
Setting up the test took a long time, around two hours.
The number of trial plots was limited.
More testing is needed in different fields and under different conditions.
Follow-up work should also include the full practical time, such as turning, transport, set-up and downtime, not only the net harvesting time