See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/374789548

Insights into the harvesting tools and equipment's for horticultural crops:
From then to now

Article in Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · October 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100814

CITATIONS READS

5 447

19 authors, including:

Sadhna Mishra Muzamil Rather

Institute of Agricultural Sciences Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir
40 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 628 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bindu Naik Dr. Vijay Kumar

Graphic Era University Swami Rama Himalayan University
88 PUBLICATIONS 437 CITATIONS 117 PUBLICATIONS 740 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Arun Kumar Gupta on 02 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-agriculture-and-food-research

Insights into the harvesting tools and equipment’s for horticultural crops:
From then to now
Balvinder Kaur a, Mansi a, Shivani Dimri a, Japneet Singh a, Sadhna Mishra b, Nikeeta Chauhan a,
Tanishka Kukreti a, Bhaskar Sharma a, Surya Prakash Singh a, Shruti Arora a, Diksha Uniyal a,
Yugank Agrawal a, Saamir Akhtar c, Muzamil Ahmad Rather d, Bindu Naik a, Vijay Kumar e,
Arun Kumar Gupta a, *, Sarvesh Rustagi f, Manpreet Singh Preet g
a
Department of Food Science & Technology, Graphic Era (Deemed to be University), Bell Road, Clement Town Dehradun, 248002, Uttarakhand, India
b
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India
c
Indian Institute of Packaging, E 2, MIDC Area, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093, India
d
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Tezpur University, Assam 784028, India
e
Himalayan School of Biosciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248016, India
f
Department of Food Technology, UCALS, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
g
School of Agriculture, Graphic Hill University, Clement Town, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The evolution of harvesting tools and equipment for horticultural crops has significantly shaped agricultural
Harvesting tools practices over time. This review paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the journey from historical methods
Sensor to modern innovations in harvesting technology. The intricate interplay between technological advancements
Agriculture
and horticultural practices is explored, highlighting pivotal developments that have revolutionized crop har­
Maturity
Farm machinery
vesting. Starting with traditional methods employed in the past, we delve into the challenges faced by early
horticulturists and the ingenious solutions they devised. The review then transitions to the contemporary
landscape, showcasing cutting-edge tools that have emerged through scientific breakthroughs and engineering
ingenuity. Noteworthy advancements in machinery design, automation, and precision techniques are discussed,
illustrating their profound impact on crop yield, labor efficiency, and overall sustainability.
Key insights into the integration of robotics, sensor technologies, and artificial intelligence in modern har­
vesting equipment are presented, underscoring their potential to further optimize horticultural practices. The
paper also addresses the importance of ergonomic considerations and environmental concerns in shaping the
future of harvesting tools. Through a comprehensive examination of historical roots and present-day innovations,
this review provides a panoramic view of the evolution of harvesting tools and equipment for horticultural crops.
By tracing this trajectory, we gain a deeper understanding of how technological progress continues to reshape
and enhance the dynamics of crop harvesting, paving the way for more efficient, sustainable, and productive
agricultural systems.

1. Introduction Machine harvesting offers a promising solution, with the potential to

significantly reduce harvesting costs and contribute to overall produc­
The increasing global population, projected to reach 9.7 billion in tion efficiency. However, challenges such as the cost and reliability of
2050 and 10.4 billion in 2100, presents a significant challenge for the agricultural robots need to be addressed for widespread adoption.
agricultural sector [1–4]. In response, there is a growing necessity to Mechanization is crucial for agricultural progress, but profitability re­
adapt agricultural practises to accommodate population growth. mains a concern [5,6]. The development of these new harvesting sys­
Traditional manual harvesting methods are labour-intensive and inef­ tems has been funded by the horticultural industry [1], driven by the
ficient [5–7]. need to reduce harvesting costs and increase consumer value.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A.K. Gupta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100814
Received 13 June 2023; Received in revised form 7 October 2023; Accepted 7 October 2023
Available online 17 October 2023
2666-1543/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

autonomous navigation, and dexterous manipulation. The grippers or

end-effectors on robotic manipulators that touch the fruit are another
important but frequently overlooked aspect [4,12,13]. Multi-joint
mechanisms may be more versatile than rigid end-effectors and can be
cheaper and simpler to build and regulate [12,14].
This comprehensive review delves into the evolution of harvesting
tools and equipment for horticultural crops, shaping agricultural prac­
tises across time. From historical methods to modern innovations, we
embark on a journey through technological advancements that have
redefined crop harvesting. The interplay between innovation and hor­
ticultural practises is intricately explored, highlighting pivotal de­
velopments that have revolutionized the field. Fig. 1 discusses the
novelty aspects of the present study.
By comprehensively examining historical roots and contemporary
advancements, this review presents a panoramic view of the evolution of
harvesting tools for horticultural crops. Through this lens, we attain a
profound comprehension of how technological progress continually re­
shapes and enhances the dynamics of crop harvesting. This trans­
formation paves the way for more efficient, sustainable, and productive
agricultural systems, ultimately contributing to the challenges posed by
global population growth and the critical demand for advanced agri­
cultural harvesting techniques. The review underscores the significance
of interdisciplinary efforts, private sector support, and diverse expertise
in driving agricultural innovation. It concludes by highlighting the
Fig. 1. Novelty aspects of present study. pressing need for innovative and holistic approaches to agricultural
harvesting, ensuring the sustainability of food production in our rapidly
Conventional harvesting methods are inefficient and labor-intensive in evolving world.
terms of both time and money [8,9]. Machine harvesting methods pro­
vide a partial solution by efficiently removing fruits from trees, reducing 2. Food dimension of harvesting
the cost of harvesting to 35–45% of the total production cost [2,3,10].
The primary sector, such as the agriculture sector, may employ in­ The food dimension of harvesting refers to the critical role that the
dustry technologies to transform (agricultures, forestry, fishing, agri­ harvesting process plays in the production of food and its impact on
cultural support service etc.) [8]. Automation and robots have improved various aspects related to food production, supply, and consumption. It
environmental adaptability and operating speeds [7]. However, the cost encompasses several key elements that are essential for ensuring a
and dependability of robots must be addressed to make their adoption in successful and sustainable food production system [7–10,12–14]. The
agriculture economically viable. Mechanization is essential for agricul­ food dimension of harvesting includes.
tural progress, but increasing farm value to achieve profitability can be
challenging [5,9].
Due to the factors mentioned, there is a trend in the agricultural 2.1. Yield and productivity
sector towards the development of intelligent and efficient machines
that can assist humans in labor-intensive and repetitive tasks, thereby Harvesting directly affects the yield and productivity of crops. Effi­
increasing output in traditional agriculture. One such advancement is cient and timely harvesting practises ensure that crops are gathered at
equipment upgrades for harvesting [7]. Harvesting is a crucial their peak ripeness and nutritional content, maximising the quantity and
post-harvest step in the separation, processing, and storage of grains. quality of the harvested produce.
Machine-based grain harvesting constitutes a significant portion of
mechanised agriculture [4,7]. Currently, all industrialized nations
worldwide utilize automatic combine harvesters for crop harvesting. 2.2. Food safety
Combine harvesters represent a high-end technology that is also used in
countries like Canada. Reapers, a medium-grade technology, are widely The harvesting process can significantly impact food safety. Proper
used in developing countries to lower production costs and increase handling and storage of harvested crops are crucial to minimise
agricultural profitability [9,11]. In Ethiopia, grain harvesting has contamination risks and maintain the freshness of the produce until it
traditionally been done by hand, with the main crops of grains, pulses, reaches consumers.
and oilseeds harvested using sickles. These traditional techniques are
labor- and time-intensive [7,9]. 2.3. Quality and nutritional value
In response to the rising demand for food, the agricultural sector has
undergone significant transformation over the past decade. Fruit and The way crops are harvested can influence their overall quality and
vegetable harvesting remain among the most time- and labor-intensive nutritional value. Gentle and careful harvesting methods help preserve
tasks in agricultural processes, negatively affecting efficiency and the flavour, texture, and essential nutrients of fruits and vegetables.
limiting competitiveness [11]. The lack of seasonal workers who can
travel between regions exacerbates the situation and leads to the accu­
mulation of fresh produce and significant food losses. Consequently, 2.4. Labour and employment
interdisciplinary sectors, including biological science, control engi­
neering, robotics, and artificial intelligence, are working to automate Harvesting often requires a considerable labour force, especially for
manual activities such as selective harvesting [4]. Prioritised areas labour-intensive crops. It contributes to rural employment and liveli­
include modifying plant peduncles to simplify harvesting, machine hoods, and the efficiency of harvesting practises can impact the avail­
vision and detection systems, decision-making architectures, ability of work opportunities in agricultural regions.

2
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Fig. 2. Ancient harvesting tools.

2.5. Post-harvest losses 2.7. Supply chain and distribution

The food dimension of harvesting extends beyond the field. Proper The timing and efficiency of harvesting impact the availability and
post-harvest handling, storage, and transportation are essential to distribution of food in the supply chain. Coordination between har­
minimise losses of perishable crops due to spoilage, pests, or inadequate vesting and transportation ensures that fresh produce reaches markets
storage conditions. and consumers in a timely manner.

2.6. Environmental impact 2.8. Food security

Harvesting practises can have environmental implications. Sustain­ The reliability and efficiency of harvesting practises play a vital role
able and eco-friendly harvesting methods aim to reduce soil erosion, in food security at both local and global levels. Efficient harvesting en­
conserve water resources, and minimise the use of harmful chemicals. sures that an adequate quantity of food is available to meet the

Fig. 3. Key changes, innovations, and challenges that marked the shifts in harvesting practices during each era.

3
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

nutritional needs of populations. production and the ability to support larger populations. With the use of
iron tools, farmers were able to create more sophisticated irrigation
2.9. Innovation and technology systems [20]. Channels, dikes, and reservoirs were constructed to
manage water flow and ensure a steady supply of water for crops
Advancements in harvesting equipment and technology have revo­ throughout the year. Improved irrigation techniques, combined with the
lutionized the food dimension of harvesting. From manual labour to use of iron tools, contributed to higher crop yields and greater food
mechanised and automated systems, technology has enhanced produc­ security. The Rig Veda and Yajur Veda, ancient Indian sacred texts
tivity and reduced post-harvest losses. dating back over three millennia, contain references to metals, including
iron. These texts provide insights into early metallurgical knowledge
2.10. Cultural and traditional practises and the significance of iron in ancient societies. The Rig Veda, in
particular, mentions the importance of iron in rituals and ceremonies,
Harvesting is deeply rooted in cultural and traditional practises emphasizing its valued status among metals [21]. Overall, the discovery
worldwide. The methods and rituals associated with harvesting vary and utilisation of iron brought about significant advancements in agri­
across regions and can be significant elements of cultural heritage [15]. culture, paving the way for more sophisticated farming techniques and
In a nutshell, the food dimension of harvesting encompasses a range contributing to the development and growth of ancient civilizations [15,
of interconnected factors that influence the availability, quality, and 22].
safety of food. Efficient and sustainable harvesting practises are essential Around 4500 BCE, the Indus Valley Civilization pioneered the
for meeting the growing global demand for food while ensuring the development of irrigation techniques, a significant innovation that
preservation of natural resources and environmental well-being. played a crucial role in the growth of their society. As a result of this
advancement, the Indus civilization flourished, leading to the estab­
3. History of harvesting tools lishment of well-planned settlements that utilised drainage and sewers.
The civilization further improved its irrigation and water storage sys­
The history of harvesting tools is deeply intertwined with the evo­ tems, constructing artificial reservoirs at Girnar around 3000 BCE and
lution of agriculture, spanning thousands of years. In the early days of implementing an early canal irrigation system by approximately 2600
human civilization, agriculture was a fundamental activity for survival, BCE. Archaeological findings also indicate the use of animal-drawn
and harvesting was done entirely by hand (Fig. 2). Simple hand tools ploughs in the Indus Valley Civilization as early as 2500 BC [23].
such as sickles, scythes, and knives were used to manually cut crops
close to the ground. These basic tools served their purpose but were 3.2. Early ancient period
time-consuming and labour-intensive. As societies progressed, the
domestication of animals brought about a significant change in agri­ Around 3000BP (Before the present), the Ganges River valley in
cultural practises. Humans harnessed oxen and horses to pull ploughs, South Asia experienced significant expansion in its agricultural area.
making it easier to prepare fields for planting and increasing crop yields This growth was accompanied by various advancements and cultural
[15]. This marked the first shift from purely manual labour to incor­ developments [24]. The region witnessed the introduction of several
porating animals as aids in the harvesting process. Progress in agricul­ important innovations through trade, including the domestication of
ture in different eras has been illustrated in the later sections (Fig. 3). horses, the use of coins as a medium of exchange, the development of the
Brahmi script (an ancient writing system), and the emergence of Vedic
3.1. Indian subcontinent literature [25]. One of the earliest references to agriculture and farming
practises in the region can be found in the Rigveda, the oldest literary
Indian agriculture has a rich and ancient history that dates back to text in India [17]. In a song from the Rigveda, the use of the plough is
the Indus Valley civilization. Among the world’s oldest water regulatory mentioned, indicating the agricultural importance of this tool: “Harness
structures is the Grand Anicut dam, situated on the river Kaveri [16]. In the ploughs, healthy on the yokes, now that the earth’s womb is ready to
ancient civilizations, particularly those situated near rivers prone to receive the seed inside.” Iron tools also played a crucial role in agri­
flooding, farmers developed innovative agricultural practices to adapt to cultural practises during this period [21,26,27]. The later Vedic litera­
their environment. One such practice involved planting crops in the fall ture (c. 3000–2500 BP) frequently mentions the use of iron instruments
on the fertile, flood-prone lands [17]. The rising waters of the river in farming. This innovation brought significant improvements in culti­
would inundate the fields, depositing nutrient-rich sediment and vation techniques, allowing farmers to grow a wide variety of cereals,
providing natural irrigation. This flooding also helped to control pests vegetables, and fruits. Additionally, the consumption of meat and dairy
and weeds. Once the waters receded, farmers would harvest the matured products and animal husbandry were common practises among farmers
crops in the spring, taking advantage of the fertile soil left behind by the during this time [22].
floods [18]. This method, known as floodplain farming, was practiced in Farmers in the Ganges River valley adopted various agricultural
various regions, such as the Nile River in ancient Egypt and the Meso­ practises to ensure productivity and sustainability. They followed a set
potamian civilizations. The precise method by which humans discovered pattern of cropping and fallowing, rotating crops to maintain soil
and made iron is not known. The process of smelting iron from its ores fertility. Ploughing the soil multiple times and broadcasting seeds were
likely evolved over time through experimentation and accidental dis­ common techniques employed for sowing crops [24]. Cowdung manure
coveries. The earliest evidence of iron smelting dates back to around served as a natural fertiliser to enrich the soil’s nutrients, and when
1800 BCE in ancient Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), and it gradually necessary, farmers utilised irrigation techniques to water their fields and
spread to other regions [17]. Iron was initially used for ornamental and ensure proper growth. These agricultural developments in the Ganges
ceremonial purposes but later found practical applications in agricul­ River valley were essential to fostering the growth of ancient South
ture, weaponry, and construction due to its superior strength and Asian civilizations. The expansion of agricultural practises, along with
durability compared to other metals like copper and bronze. The advancements in trade and cultural achievements, played a vital role in
widespread adoption of iron tools was a turning point in agricultural shaping the region’s history and society during this period [15,20,27].
history [19]. The transition from stone and copper tools to iron signif­
icantly enhanced farming practices. Iron plowshares were sturdier and 3.3. The Mughal century (c. 1600 CE)
could penetrate harder soils, allowing for more efficient and extensive
cultivation of land. Farmers could clear forests and open up new areas During the Mughal century, around 1600 CE, the Indian agricultural
for cultivation with greater ease, leading to increased agricultural landscape saw the emergence of an oceanic trade-based commercial

4
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

economy due to the interactions with Western powers during the height summary, the 21st-century agricultural landscape is a dynamic mix of
of the Mughal Empire. However, it is worth noting that scientific ad­ ancient wisdom and modern technology. Traditional methods coexist
vancements in farming equipment and methods have seen little progress with mechanization, digital tools, and sustainable practises, allowing
since the period of the Upanishads, which occurred around 2600 to 2300 farmers to adapt to the demands of a changing world while preserving
BP [27]. their rich cultural heritage.
In this era, the primary tool for agriculture in India was the plough.
The traditional Indian plough was drawn by oxen and differed from 3.5. Improvements in the developed countries
Western ploughs in that it lacked a wheel or a mouldboard. Instead, it
featured a wedge-shaped piece of hardwood that entered the soil. The 3.5.1. The Roman epoch: 200 BCE to 600 CE
draught pole was connected to the bullocks’ neck yoke, and a small In the 21st century, agricultural practises such as reaping, threshing,
upright stilt at the back acted as a guiding handle. This design did not and winnowing have continued to be carried out much in line with the
turn the soil upside down. The ploughs used in India varied in weight methods described in the Vedic writings [29]. The process of gathering
and size. Some were light enough for cultivators to carry them to and grain involves using a sickle to cut the crops, which are then tied in
from the fields on their shoulders daily [28]. Others, more substantial, bundles. Threshing is done either by using bullocks to trample over the
required teams of four to six pairs of oxen for operation. Before sowing, grain or by hand pounding to separate the edible part from the husk. To
farmers used levellers, clod crushers, and frequently a rectangular further refine the harvested grain, farmers use sieves made from grass or
wooden beam dragged by bullocks to clean and level the surface of the bamboo stalks to separate the grain from the chaff. Alternately, you can
fields. A common hand tool used during this period was the Kodali, an manually winnow by pouring the grain from a supah (winnowing scoop)
iron blade fitted with a hardwood handle, creating an acute angle for at a height and letting the wind blow away the lighter chaff while the
effective planting. An interesting traditional method practised in India heavier grain falls back down. Finally, the grain is weighed and pro­
involved drilling holes in the ground to plant seeds or saplings. For cessed further as needed. Despite modern advancements in agriculture,
example, cotton growers would push a pointed peg into the soil, place traditional methods, rooted in ancient practises, continue to find rele­
the seed into the hole, and cover it with earth, allowing the crop to grow vance and application in the 21st century (https://www.worldhistory.or
taller. In the early 17th century, an inventor introduced a simple gadget g/Roman_Empire/).
consisting of a bamboo tube attached to the plough. This tube allowed During the Roman epoch, from 200 BCE to 600 CE, agricultural tools
the seed to be lowered into the furrow as the plough worked, ensuring in the West underwent notable improvements. Hand instruments used
efficient and organized planting [23]. during this time closely resembled their modern counterparts in form.
Overall, the agricultural practises during the Mughal century in India The wood plough (cutter) was enhanced with the addition of an iron
remained relatively traditional, relying heavily on the use of oxen- share and a coulter, which helped create a more efficient rut in the
drawn ploughs and various hand tools. While trade and economic ex­ absence of a moldboard to stir the soil. While it couldn’t fully turn a
changes were evolving with the arrival of Western powers, there were furrow, holding it sideways allowed for some soil inversion. Farmers
limited technological advancements in farming equipment during this often used a mattock to clean rows of clods, ensuring a suitable envi­
period. ronment for seed placement. Land intended for cereals underwent
ploughing two or three times a year, with the second ploughing being
3.4. The 21st century the most effective for distributing manure at the right depth [30].
Harvesting practises during the Roman era involved the use of
In the 21st century, agricultural practises such as reaping, threshing, curved sickles, which have seen minimal changes since then. Grain was
and winnowing have continued to be carried out much in line with the reaped using these sickles and then cut into smaller pieces, either taken
methods described in the Vedic writings [29]. The process of gathering to the threshing floor in wicker baskets or separated from the straw
grain involves using a sickle to cut the crops, which are then tied in before threshing. Different tools were employed, including a quick-
bundles. Threshing is done either by using bullocks to trample over the handed sickle with the blade held at a right angle to the handle, grip­
grain or by hand pounding to separate the edible part from the husk. To ped in the correct hand, and a quick-handled hook-like implement held
further refine the harvested grain, farmers use sieves made from grass or in the left hand to gather enough grain to be cut in one motion [31].
bamboo stalks to separate the grain from the chaff. Alternately, you can In Gaul, a reaper was introduced, which was a waggon with an open
manually winnow by pouring the grain from a supah (winnowing scoop) rear and an animal reversing inside the shafts. A comb-like object was
at a height and letting the wind blow away the lighter chaff while the attached to the rear edge, enabling the ears to be ripped off as the
heavier grain falls back down. Finally, the grain is weighed and pro­ waggon moved through the crop [32]. Threshing was done using
cessed further as needed. Despite modern advancements in agriculture, traditional methods, with animals trampling the grain on solid ground or
traditional methods, rooted in ancient practises, continue to find rele­ employing a device called a tribulum. The tribulum was a wooden
vance and application in the 21st century. framework with flint or steel shards fastened to the underside, pulled
In addition to the traditional methods mentioned earlier, the 21st over the grain by an animal to separate it from the straw. Overall, the
century has seen the integration of modern technology into agricultural Roman epoch saw significant advancements in agricultural tools, which
practises, including reaping, threshing, and winnowing. While some improved efficiency and productivity in farming practises. These de­
regions and small-scale farmers may continue to adhere to the age-old velopments laid the foundation for further innovations in agricultural
techniques described in the Vedic writings, larger commercial farms technology in the West [33].
have embraced mechanization and automation. Mechanical reapers and
combine harvesters have become common sights in modern agriculture. 3.5.2. The medieval period: 600 to 1600 CE
These machines streamline the reaping process, cutting and gathering Minor yet impactful modifications have been integrated into manual
crops more efficiently than manual sickle use. Combines, in particular, tools. The introduction of a more potent axe has expedited and
not only reap but also thresh and winnow the grain in a single pass, streamlined the process of clearing wooded regions. Furthermore, the
saving time and labour for farmers [29]. Additionally, advancements in conventional singular stick has been substituted with a conjoined flail
post-harvest technology have improved grain storage and processing. for more efficient usage [22]. The scythe was used more frequently for
Modern silos and drying facilities help preserve the quality of harvested tasks like reaping barley, cutting grass, and other tasks that appeared
grains, reducing spoilage and waste. Moreover, modern milling and similar. Through the use of the early windmills, wind strength was used
processing techniques ensure that the grain is cleaned, sorted, and to grind grain. These kinds of modifications and alterations expanded
packaged efficiently, meeting the demands of global food markets. In the area that was cultivated and helped supply food for the expanding

5
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 1
Comparative summary between different harvesting system.
Parameters Manual Harvesting Machine Harvesting with Machine Threshing Combine Harvesting

Operating Time The time required for completing the operation of Mohammad et al. [119] reported time Combine harvesting is the most time-efficient
harvesting and threshing with traditional practice requirement to harvest 1 ha was 111.10 h ha− 1 for method as it integrates both harvesting and
(manual harvesting + threshing with mechanical manual harvesting but it was 3.64 h ha− 1 for threshing into a single operation. It allows for
thresher by manual labour) was about 20 h. mechanised treatments, which was 96.70% less. continuous harvesting without the need to stop
Whereas with combiner + straw reaper was 3.5 h and switch between tasks, resulting in significant
[39]. time savings.
–
Labour Manual harvesting relies heavily on human labour, This method reduces the need for manual labour, Combine harvesters eliminate the need for manual
Requirements which can lead to higher labour costs and potential leading to cost savings and increased efficiency. labour in both the harvesting and threshing
labour shortages during peak harvesting seasons. Fewer labourers are required for harvesting and processes. They can be operated by a single
It may require a large workforce to harvest crops threshing tasks, making it a preferred option for individual, further reducing labour requirements
efficiently [39]. mechanised agriculture [39]. and associated costs [39].
Relative cost of While manual harvesting might not require a The initial investment in harvesting machinery The high upfront cost of a combine harvester can
harvesting significant upfront investment in machinery, it can can be substantial. However, it can lead to long- be a significant investment. However, it offers
system lead to higher labour costs and increased expenses term cost savings due to reduced labour substantial cost advantages over time as it reduces
for hiring and managing labourers [39]. requirements and improved efficiency. labour and operating costs.
– Wingate-Hill et al. [120] found that mechanical –
harvesting was not always cheaper than hand
harvesting. This is because hand-harvesting costs
are near the lower end of the range of costs for
mechanical harvesting, using the air shaker and
trunk shaker systems. The cost of mechanical
harvesting per tonne of fruit harvested varies
according to yield, machinery utilisation and
chemical cost levels, the major cost items being
the abscission chemicals, fruit loss and the
mechanical harvesting process.
Crop Suitability Manual harvesting might be suitable for small- This method is versatile and can be applied to a Combine harvesters are typically used for large-
scale operations or crops that require delicate wide range of crops, making it suitable for various scale grain harvesting, making them well-suited
handling, such as certain fruits or flowers. agricultural contexts. for cereal crops like wheat, corn, and rice.
– Stieller et al. [121] They reported that among –
Kabuli and desi Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) lines
obtained from ICRISAT podded well and a
number of Kabuli genotypes have a tall growth
habit, with 29–67 cm height compared to desi
type with 20–59 cm which should make the plants
suitable for mechanical harvesting.
– Mamta et al. [122] Results indicated that most of –
the genotypes were suitable for mechanical
harvesting as they possess tall plant height, erect
growth habit, acceptable branch angle (70-80◦ )
and first pod height at more than 30 cm height.
– Hugo et al. [123] revealed that the cowpea –
genotypes ‘BRS Carijó’ and ‘BR14 Mulato’
cultivars with combined set of traits were more
suitable for mechanical harvesting.
– Munirathnam et al. [124] carried out field –
experiment, at Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh, during
rabi seasons of 2012–2014 and reported that
chickpea cultivar ‘NBeG47’ suitable for
mechanical harvesting due to its higher plant
height (53.6 cm).
– Dongkwan et al. [125] observed that out of –
Keuseong and Owool, which were popularized
cultivars of mungbean in Korea, Owool was found
to be most appropriate for mechanical harvesting.
Bora and Hansen [126] examined field Chandrakanthappa and Batagurki [127] Harvest loss of a rice combiner harvester was
performance of a portable reaper for rice compared four methods of threshing viz., manual 1.68% for a local variety in Malaysia compared to
harvesting and compared it with manual beating with a stick, passing a bullock drawn conventional method was 0.98% [128].
harvesting. Their results showed harvest duration stone roller, passing a tractor drawn stone roller
of manual was 7.8 times more as compared to and using a rasp bar type mechanical thresher for
machine harvesting. They reported that grain loss two ragi varieties. Output, threshing efficiency,
was 2.3% for manual harvesting. mechanical damage and cost of operations for
different threshing methods were evaluated and
compared. It was found that the rasp bar type
mechanical thresher was the best among the four
methods. It had an output of 138.46 kg per hour,
threshing efficiency of 79.61%, mechanical
damage of 2.95% and low operation cost of 18.43
per quintal.
Losses in Yield Loveimi et al. [129] reported manual harvesting Bora and Hansen [126] examined field Abdul et al. [130] tested combiner harvester for
cause 3.25 crop loss. performance of a portable reaper for rice wheat at Faisalabad and revealed that, the crop
harvesting and compared it with manual with less moisture content (7.5%) had greater
harvesting. Their results showed that field threshing loss (about 6%) as compared to crop
(continued on next page)

6
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 1 (continued )
Parameters Manual Harvesting Machine Harvesting with Machine Threshing Combine Harvesting

capacity and fuel consumption of that reaper were with higher moisture content (9.5%). The crop
0.15 ha/h and 0.25 L h− 1, respectively. Harvest with low moisture content had more broken grains
duration of that device was 7.8 times less as (5.7%) than crop with high moisture content
compared to manual harvesting. They reported which had about 1.5% of broken grains.
that grain loss was 2.3% and 1% for reaper and
manual harvesting, respectively.
– Ponican et al. [131] investigated on different Pawar et al. [132] conducted experiment on
aspects of threshing machine used for maize crop. combine harvester at MPKS Rahuri in wheat crop.
They concluded that peripheral speed and They observed that total field loss of combiner
clearance between cylinder and concaves were harvester (4.20%) was less than the combination
the most important factors affecting the crop of reaper with thresher (10.57%).
quality. Their experiment results with the
tangential threshing mechanism showed that with
increasing the cylinder peripheral speed from 9.4
to 21.4 m/s, the grain damage increased from 3.8
to 6.01%
– A field experiment conducted in Iran by Salari Loveimi et al. [129] investigated average crop loss
et al. [133], revealed that the effect of cylinder was 1.73 and 3.68% for spike-tooth and rasp-bar
speed was the most significant factor, followed by combiner, respectively.
the moisture content for the grain damage. With
increasing cylinder speed in the range of 9–15
m/s, the grain damage increased from 4.98 to
47.97%, Optimized point was determined which
was observed at the cylinder speed of 10.63 m/s,
concave clearance of 13.74 mm, feed rate of 240
kg/h, and moisture content of 12% (wet basis).
– – The combiner harvester not only minimizes the
post-harvest losses but also helps in shortening the
harvesting period [134].
Efficiency and While manual harvesting may have its place in This approach strikes a balance between Combine harvesters offer the highest levels of
Productivity specific scenarios, it is generally less efficient and efficiency, productivity, and cost-effectiveness, efficiency and productivity, making them the
productive compared to mechanised methods. making it a popular choice for many farmers. preferred choice for large-scale grain harvesting
operations.
Anwar [135] reported the total grain losses for Anwar [135] reported field performance of Kalsirislip and Singh [136] reported that for a
bullock treading methods ranged from 10 to 12% thresher intake capacity was 1000–1500 kg per combinerr equipped with a 3 m working width
in chickpea threshing. hour with a cleaning efficiency of 94%, 2% grain head stripper, field capacity and field efficiency
breakage and 3% grain losses. were 0.66 ha/h and 74% for standing crop and 0.3
ha/h and 72% for lodged crop, respectively.
– Mohammad et al. [119] conducted a study at Roy et al. [128] expressed that field capacity and
Amol, Iran in paddy crop and revealed that the field efficiency of a whole-crop rice combiner
higher and minimum effective field capacity were harvester were 1.05 ha/h and 72%, respectively
0.361 and 0.009 ha/h for combined harvesting for a common rice variety in Malaysia.
and manual harvesting, respectively.
Zhang et al. [137] reported that the working – Padmanathan et al. [138] observed higher
efficiency of manual harvesting in rapeseed 50 harvesting efficiency of 92.30%, threshing
times less than that of mechanical harvesting. efficiency of 82.30%, cleaning efficiency of
72.30% and minimum % of broken pods of 4.43 for
prototype tractor operated groundnut combiner
harvester compared to manual method.
– – Pawar et al. [132] evaluated combiner harvester
(SWARAJ 8100) and combination of self propelled
vertical conveyer reaper with thresher ((SAECO)
for different cylinder speeds at MPKS Rahuri in
wheat crop. Comparative evaluation of both the
machines showed that the total field loss of
combiner harvester (4.20%) was less than
combination of self-propelled vertical conveyer
reaper with thresher (10.57%).
– – Veerangouda et al. [139] reported that field
capacity for a tractor operated combiner harvester
was varied from 2.88 to 3.60 ha/h in chickpea.
Economics Hassena et al. [140] conducted experiments at – Net benefit of combiner harvesting was about 38%
Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) of and 16% higher in Asasa and Etheya, respectively,
Etheya and Asasa and reported that in Asasa and compared to manual harvesting and threshing
Etheya, the cost per quintal of manual harvesting [140].
and threshing was 21% and 25% higher than the
cost of combiner harvesting, respectively.
Adam et al. [141] conducted experiments to – Padmanathan et al. [138] conducted an
compare and contrast between the two harvesting experiment in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
systems at Sudan. They revealed that manual Coimbatore and observed the operation of
harvesting was more expensive (8.98 SDG which groundnut combiner harvester resulted in saving
equivalent to USA $ 4.38.) than mechanical cost and time (39% and 96%, respectively)
harvesting (4.95 SDG = USA $ 2.41.) the wages for compared to conventional method (manual
the cane cutting labour represent 74.14% of the digging and stripping).
total cutting cost, 46% of the total manual
(continued on next page)

7
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 1 (continued )
Parameters Manual Harvesting Machine Harvesting with Machine Threshing Combine Harvesting

harvesting cost, and 18.9% of the total harvesting

cost.
Mohammad et al. [119] conducted a study at Rice Mohammad et al. [119] reported the effective –
Research Institute of Iran. They reported that the field capacity of the reaper was 0.170 ha/h.
effective field capacity of the manual harvesting Labour requirements for reaper harvesting was
was 0.008 ha/h. Labour requirements for manual 5.88. The grain losses for reaper harvesting was
harvesting were 128 man-h ha− 1. The grain losses 6.83%. The cost of harvesting operation was
for manual harvesting were 7.33%. The cost of 15.20$ ha− 1 for reaper harvesting.
harvesting operation was 88.88$ ha− 1 for manual
harvesting.
– Shinde et al. [142] evaluated the economic –
efficiency of mechanization of harvesting in
sugarcane in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra,
Which is highly labour intensive consuming about
850–1000 man hours ha− 1. Huge investment of
113 lakh was made on the sugarcane harvesting
unit. The variable cost of the unit was to the tune
of 20.15 lakh out of which, 60% was on diesel.
The quantity harvested by the harvester was 14,
300 tonnes and income generated by the machine
was 43.15 lakh. The economic efficiency of
marketing of sugarcane was enhanced due to
mechanical harvesting. They also forecasted that
the state can earn 19.67 crores per annum by
bringing only 5% of existing sugarcane area under
mechanical harvesting.
Upasana et al. [143] studied the economics of Upasana et al. [143] studied the economics of Muhammad et al. [144] revealed that cost of
manual harvesting in Vijayapur and Bagalakote mechanical harvesting and threshing in Vijayapur manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher was
districts, Karnataka. Result revealed net additional and Bagalakote districts, Karnataka. Result 18,315 ha− 1 and 17,206 ha− 1 while combiner
benefit of manual harvesting per hectare was less revealed net additional benefit of mechanical harvester cost 11,590 ha− 1 only. A benefit of about
in both the district. harvesting cum threshing over manual harvesting 6725 ha− 1 may be realized by using combiner
and mechanical threshing per hectare was 3041 harvester when compared to manual harvesting of
for Vijayapur district and 2960 for Bagalakote wheat. Further it was concluded that minimum
district. The annual net returns from the benefit of 2867 ha− 1 and 1196 ha− 1 were obtained
combined harvester was 9 lakh. by using combiner harvester over manual plus
thresher and reaper plus thresher, respectively.
Economic profit analysis demonstrated that
mechanical sowing/combiner harvesting (MS/CH)
showed an input/output ratio of 1:1.6, and it was
1:1.2 in mechanical sowing manual harvesting
(MS/MH). Labour-cost accounted for more than
70% of the total cost in MS/MH, which led to low
profitability to a great extent [137].
Effect on yield The yield from manual harvesting plots (17.2 q Adam et al. [141] they revealed that the The yield from combine harvesting plots in Etheya
ha− 1) [140]. mechanical harvest representing the highest was 19.3 q ha− 1 [140]..
contribution per cent in total crushing of cane per
day (71%).
Praweenwongwuthi et al. [145] revealed the – Praweenwongwuthi et al. [145] revealed higher
average yield for manual harvesting was 0.32 ton rice yield in farmers field by using combiner
rai-1 (rai = <4 t ha-1). harvesters compared to manual harvesting (0.35
ton rai− 1).
Zhang et al. [137] reported that the yield in – Zhang et al. [137] reported that the yield in
manual harvesting was 2641.5 kg ha− 1. combiner harvester was 2751.5 kg ha− 1. Further,
harvesting loss in combiner harvester was 50%
higher than that of manual harvesting.
Adam et al. [141] revealed that the manual harvest Average weights per trailer for mechanical –
representing the contribution per cent in total harvesting (9.54 ton/trailer) [142].
crushing of cane per day (29%).
Average weights per trailer for manual (6.88
ton/trailer), and mechanical harvesting (9.54
ton/trailer). The weight (ton/trailer) of the
manual harvesting represents only 69% of the
mechanically harvested cane.

population [34]. may still be traced.

Apart from the unique relationship of the ploughland, there had been
several adjustments, some of them crucial. There is much controversy 3.5.3. Scientific agriculture: the 20th century
concerning Pliny the Elder’s assertion that a wheeled plough was used in The birthplace of the combine harvester lies in Scotland, with its
Cisalpine Gaul about the time of Christ [22]. By the late eleventh cen­ origins rooted in the ingenious mind of the Reverend Patrick Bell. In
tury, certain areas of western Europe were using a wheeled asymmet­ 1826, Bell conceived a reaper contraption that utilised scissor-like
rical plough. A wheeled plough with a crude mouldboard and a coulter is blades, a remarkable innovation of its time. This formidable apparatus
seen in illuminated manuscripts and much later calendars [34]. This was harnessed by horses to swiftly cut through crops. However, Bell,
plough may flip the dirt over and make a genuine furrow, raising the regrettably, did not pursue a patent for his groundbreaking creation.
seedbed. Its use left behind high ridges at the land, some of whose lines Across the Atlantic, in the United States, the trajectory of mechanised

8
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Fig. 4. Relation between mechanization and labor.

harvesting was further shaped. Hiram Moore, in 1834, engineered and 4.1. Manual harvesting methods
patented the inaugural integrated harvester, marking a significant leap
forward. Coincidentally, within the same year, another visionary Fruit is often harvested by hand, which is a time-taking practise (on
American, Cyrus McCormick, secured a patent for his mechanical average 7.50 ha/h) that is still commonly practised today. Hand har­
reaper, commonly referred to as the sickle bar mower. These inventive vesting is particularly common for fruits that have a long maturity time
milestones stand as testaments to the 20th century’s transformative or fruits that are offered for direct consumption, for example apple, pear
impact on agricultural science, paving the way for modernization and and apricot [37]. Despite the fact that it requires a lot of effort, hand
efficiency in crop harvesting methods [35]. harvesting is popular. According to Benkeblia et al. [38], manually
Moore’s device acquired the ability to winnow and crush grains harvesting has historically been considered the superior way for
while being hauled by mules or horses. A harvester hauled by 20 horses ensuring high-quality control while also minimizing tree harm. In
in 1839 completed more than 20 ha of work in a single day. On many US addition, hand harvesting is occasionally done as a clean-up operation
farms in 1860, harvesters with cutter bars several metres broad had been after mechanical harvesting or at the conclusion of the harvesting season
in use [35]. Due to technology and a lack of labour, integrated har­ to pick up the fruits that have been left behind [37].
vesting became more convenient and manageable during the 20th cen­ Hand harvesting time frames vary widely by crop and region. Wheat
tury. A role was also played by economies of scale brought about by the is typically hand-harvested from June to August. Rice harvesting occurs
lengthening of farms, as well as by the fantastic value increase of ma­ mainly from September to November. Corn may undergo hand har­
chine harvesting over hand-harvesting. Records from 1968 to 1981 vesting in late summer or early autumn. Grapes for wine are hand-
show that the amount of grain harvested mechanically increased from harvested in late summer or early autumn [23,38–41]. Apples and cit­
roughly 30% of the yield to over 95% [36]. rus are harvested in the fall, while berries have diverse timing. Tomatoes
are hand-harvested in summer, and pepper harvesting varies. Cotton
4. Different harvesting systems picking takes place from late summer to early autumn. Mechanization
and labour availability impact these practises [23,37–41].
Four harvesting systems are used by farmers all over the world Using this procedure, those responsible for picking or harvesting the
(Table 1): crop may identify the level of maturity of the crop as exactly as feasible.
This is of utmost significance for crops that have a lengthy maturity
• Manual harvesting methods: includes the use of traditional tools (hand period and are required to be picked on many occasions during the
cutting, hand threshing, and animals for trampling). course of the harvest season [38]. Produce that has been gathered suffers
• Manual harvesting with machine threshing: possible use of manual the least amount of harm possible from this procedure. When collecting
power with machine produce by hand, you’ll need a variety of implements, including seca­
• Machine harvesting with machine threshing: the combination of ma­ teurs, knives, clippers, and in certain instances digging tools for tuberous
chine power vegetables [23]. For instance, the harvesting of citrus fruit incurs a
• Combine harvesting: There is no need for manual power because the substantial cost, accounting for 35–45% of the total production ex­
combine handles all harvesting tasks. Although it is the most effec­ penses. As a result, any enhancement in the efficiency of this operation
tive instrument and produces the fewest losses, it is costly and ne­ can have a significant impact on the viability and profitability of the
cessitates a sizable field. enterprise. The conventional manual harvesting method is highly
labor-intensive, making it an expensive process [37].

4.1.1. Advantages & disadvantages of manual harvesting

Manual harvesting of horticultural crops provides several

9
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

advantages, making it a preferred method for many farmers. The se­ 4.2.1. Fruit pick-up machines
lective harvesting approach ensures that only ripe and mature produce is Sumner and Hedden [46] developed a tractor-drawn rake designed
collected, preserving the crop’s quality and market value [39]. Gentle to gather fruit and create windrows either at the tree dripline or at the
handling during manual harvesting minimizes damage to delicate fruits centre of the row for easy pick-up. With an average fruit load of 22 kg/m
and vegetables, extending their shelf life. Additionally, this method is of windrow and raking speeds ranging from 0.8 to 1.6 km/h, this rake,
adaptable to different crop varieties and farming practises, making it towing a 37.3 kW tractor, displayed an impressive average fruit recovery
suitable for diverse horticultural operations [40,41]. With reduced rate of 99%.
equipment costs and minimal reliance on machinery, manual harvesting In another study by Hedden et al. [47], an economic evaluation was
proves cost-effective for small-scale farmers. Moreover, it creates conducted on the collection of fruit in an orchard that had been har­
employment opportunities, contributes to the livelihoods of agricultural vested using an air shaker harvester, which caused the fruit to fall to the
labourers, and supports the local economy. The skilled labour required ground. The study focused on the various operations involved in fruit
for manual harvesting improves farmworker expertise and efficiency pick-up: raking the harvested fruit into windrows using the
[42]. Additionally, it aligns with sustainable agriculture practises, tractor-drawn rake, using a pick-up machine to collect the fruit from the
reducing environmental impact by avoiding soil compaction and windrows, transporting the fruit out of the orchard in a high-lift truck,
disturbance to surrounding vegetation. While manual harvesting may and placing the fruit in a roadside trailer. The cost analysis revealed that
not be suitable for large-scale operations, its niche market appeal, raking the fruit into windrows using the tractor-drawn rake incurred a
authenticity, and quality can attract discerning consumers. Overall, cost of US $3.37 per tonne, while picking up the windrowed fruit and
manual harvesting stands as a sustainable, cost-effective, and versatile placing them into a roadside trailer incurred an additional cost of US
method, playing a vital role in the success of horticultural farming [37]. $6.30 per tonne. Although the system showed potential, opportunities
Harvesting presents various challenges for producers, with labour for efficiency improvement were identified to reduce these costs. These
costs (on an average INR 250/day/man) being a significant and opportunities included frequent mowing prior to harvesting, which
expensive concern. The labour-intensive nature of harvesting makes it a could enhance the efficiency of fruit collection and reduce operational
time-consuming and arduous process [43]. Moreover, the reliance on expenses.
manual labour exposes producers to the risk of potential worker strikes Lowenberg et al. [48] creatively developed a device to protect the
during critical harvest periods, further exacerbating the challenges. To quality of harvested fruits. This device incorporates a fixed blade and a
compound matters, hiring new workers to meet the demands of harvest spring-driven movable blade, specifically designed for harvesting
season may require extensive training, adding to the costs and com­ mango fruits. Additionally, a net basket is integrated into the device,
plexities faced by producers. Finding effective solutions to these serving as a collecting receptacle for the picked mango fruits. The
labour-related issues becomes crucial for ensuring efficient and suc­ combination of the fixed and movable blades allows for precise and
cessful harvesting operations in the agricultural sector [39]. gentle cutting of the fruits from the tree, minimizing damage and
The mechanization of agriculture is shaped by a multitude of inter­ ensuring the fruits’ integrity during the harvesting process. By utilizing
connected factors, including the seasonal and unpredictable nature of this advanced harvesting device, farmers and harvesters can maintain
farm work that can result in irregular income; the physically demanding the high quality of mango fruits while enhancing overall efficiency and
aspects of tasks like heavy lifting and exposure to varying weather productivity in the field. With an extended handle for easier fruit
conditions; the issue of low wages in some regions, making agricultural retrieval from the ground, the tool’s total length measures approxi­
employment less financially attractive; the lack of benefits such as mately 3000 mm, and the cutting head weighs 1.3 kg, made from carbon
health insurance and retirement plans, which discourages individuals steel. Besides mangoes, the instrument can also harvest sapota, apples,
seeking stable, long-term employment; the unique challenges faced by and oranges. This hand-harvesting tool requires holding each fruit piece
migrant laborers, including mobility restrictions, language barriers, and between two jaws and twisting to shear off the stock. The jaws are
uncertain legal statuses; the ongoing shift toward mechanization and constructed from 14-gauge mild steel sheet and held together by a
automation in agriculture, reducing the demand for manual labor; in­ tension spring on a pivot mounted on a 10 mm mild steel rod. A rubber
dividuals seeking career opportunities in sectors requiring specific skills sheet cushion of about 3 mm is installed within the fruit’s mouth to
or education; concerns related to health and safety, including pesticide prevent any skin damage [35]. The tool can be equipped with a handle,
exposure and machinery accidents; the isolation and rural lifestyle and one of the jaws features a rope and lever bracket system for opening
associated with many agricultural jobs, which may not appeal to those and closing it. Once the fruit is detached, it is released by pulling the
accustomed to urban amenities; generational shifts with younger pop­ cord into a ring. A fabric conveyor or net below the jaws allows for
ulations favoring urban lifestyles and alternative career paths; and damage-free collection of the gathered fruits [48]. This gadget is suit­
growing environmental awareness, which can deter individuals due to able for harvesting oranges, peaches, and pears, with a capacity to
concerns about the environmental impact of certain farming practices harvest 250–300 fruits per man in its field. For mango fruit with pani­
(Fig. 4). These factors underscore the complexity of labor dynamics in cles, a specially designed gadget is available for manual harvesting. This
agriculture and the need for holistic approaches to address challenges tool, made from rings with an oval shape, has a nylon net fastened to the
and sustain the agricultural sector [37–40]. bottom ring [35]. The top of the ring incorporates a cutting mechanism
with a toothed wheel and a double-bladed triangular plate. As the wheel
4.2. Manual harvesting with machine freely revolves around its centre rivet, it serves as a conveyor for the
mango stock. A bamboo handle of specified length is inserted opposite
The implementation of mechanical harvesters has significantly the cutting mechanism to direct the fruit stalk to the left or right side of
reduced labor requirements (on an average INR 250–300/day) and the cutting blade, facilitated by a plastic divider rod that cuts through
substantially increased the picking rate beyond what manual pickers can the cutting mechanism [48]. To harvest mangos, the harvester is raised
achieve [44]. However, some mechanical harvesters tend to drop a and dragged through the ring of fruit, and the fruit pedicels are removed
portion or all of the fruit on the ground during harvesting. As a result, by inserting them between the toothed wheel and blade [49]. The
research has been focused on developing optimal designs for mechanical pedicle is directed over the blade’s cutting edge and sheared due to the
fruit pick-up machines to address this issue [45]. In the following sec­ spinning of the toothed wheel. The device has a field capacity of 140
tion, a concise summary of the performance of various manual machines fruits/h [35].
for harvesting of crops are discussed. The current harvesting devices, though effective for specific crops
like mangoes, sapota, apples, and oranges, have some drawbacks that
need to be addressed for future advancements. The tools can be labour-

10
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 2
Various Harvestor for horticulral crops [146].
Harvestor Features Image Major Findings

Self-Propelled Walking This walk-behind harvester is engine- Efficient for cereals and
Type Vertical operated, ideal for harvesting cereals and oilseeds, reducing labor by
Conveyor Reaper oilseed crops. It includes an engine, cutter bar, 90–95%, and operational
conveyor belts, and crop dividers. The ma­ costs by 63%.
chine’s field capacity is 0.15–0.17 ha/h,
saving 90–95% in labor and time and
reducing operation costs by 63% compared to
traditional methods. Costing around Rs.
80,000, it offers efficient and cost-effective
crop harvesting.

Self-propelled Fodder The self-propelled and tractor-operated riding Ideal for fodder crops with
Harvester (Cutter bar type CBT forage harvesters are widely used for a 0.4 ha/h field capacity.
Type) fodder crops like berseem and Lucerne. They
have a 7.6 kW air-cooled engine, a 1.2 m
cutting width, and a field capacity of 0.4 ha/h
at 4.00 km/h forward speed.

Self-propelled Platform A self-propelled hydraulic multi-purpose sys­ icks 700–1100 mangoes per
Type Fruits tem was developed at CIAE, Bhopal, to hour, low maintenance,
Harvesting System enhance orchard management efficiency for and works on varied
medium-height fruit trees like mango, citrus, terrain.
and sapota. The machine has a 6 m vertical
reach, a 200 kg load capacity, and operates at
a maximum ground speed of 3 km/h. Its di­
mensions are 2.20 × 6.32 × 1.89 m, providing
a platform for easy fruit picking. Powered by
an 8.7 kW petrol engine, it enables smooth
lifting, lowering, forward and backward
movement, and steering from the platform.
This user-friendly machine requires low
maintenance and can be safely operated on
flat and hilly terrain with up to a 5◦ slope. The
operator can pick 700–1100 mangoes per
hour, depending on fruit density. The ma­
chine costs approximately Rs. 7.50 lakh, with
a fuel consumption of 2 l/h during mango
harvesting.
Bottom of Form

Tractor Front Mounted This machine is designed for harvesting cereal Offers efficient cereal
Vertical Conveyor crops like wheat and paddy. It features a 76- harvesting with reduced
Reaper mm-pitch reciprocating cutter bar assembly, operational costs.
seven crop row dividers, two vertical
conveyor belts with lugs, pressure springs,
pulleys, and a gearbox for power
transmission.
Mounted in front of a tractor and powered by
the tractor’s PTO, the machine’s height above
the ground is controlled using the tractor’s
hydraulic system and steel ropes. After cutting
the crop, it is delivered to one side of the
machine in a vertical position, forming a
windrow perpendicular to the machine’s
direction of movement.
(continued on next page)

11
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 2 (continued )
Harvestor Features Image Major Findings

With a field capacity of 0.4 ha/h at a forward

speed of 2.5–3.5 km/h, this machine offers
efficient and cost-effective harvesting. The
cost of operation is approximately Rs. 1600/-,
compared to the traditional method’s cost of
Rs. 3200/ha.
Tractor Mounted A tractor-operated flail-type harvester-cum- Versatile and cost-effective,
Fodder Harvester chopper-cum-loader was designed for har­ handling various crops.
vesting, chopping, and loading crops simul­
taneously. It can successfully harvest crops
like bajra, sorghum, maize, barseem, and oats
with heights ranging from 1.00 to 2.50 m and
a stalk density of 20–80 plants/m2. The ma­
chine has a rotary shaft with staggered blades
(flails) for crop harvesting, an auger for
conveying the cut crop, and a chopper unit
with 4 blades for chopping and loading the
fodder into a trailer.
The machine’s capacity is 0.20 ha/h at a
forward speed of 2.5–4.0 km/h. Operating
costs are reduced to Rs. 1500/ha compared to
Rs. 3200/ha using conventional methods.
Additionally, it can handle lodged and
overmatured crops without difficulty.
Aerial Access Hoist for TNAU, Coimbatore, and M/s Vanjax, Chennai, Facilitates orchard
Management of collaborated to design a tractor-mounted management with a 15-m
Coconut and Tall aerial access hoist. It can reach up to 15 m in reach.
Trees height and access four coconut trees from one
position. The hoist’s chassis and stabilizers
ensure the tractor chassis remains unaffected.
Relocating and stabilizing the unit takes just 1
min, and positioning against a 10-m tree is
achieved in 2 min using electro-hydraulic
controls.

Tractor Mounted Root A root crop harvester-cum-elevator was Efficiently digs various root
Crop Harvester cum developed by PAU, Ludhiana for digging crops with cost savings.
Elevator onion and other root crops. The field capacity
of the machine is 0.28, 0.24, 0.21 and 0.21
ha/h for digging of carrot, potato, garlic and
onion crops, respectively at a forward speed of
2.78, 2.41, 2.10 and 2.10 km/h. The damage
to tubers is 1.98, 1.92 1.22 and less than 1.0%
for digging of carrot, potato, garlic and onion
crops, respectively. The approximate cost of
the machine is Rs. 60,000/-. The saving in cost
of operation and labour for harvesting onion,
carrot and garlic is 52.28, 46.71, 52.28%, and
69.05, 59.29 and 69.05%, respectively as
compared to manual harvesting.

(continued on next page)

12
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 2 (continued )
Harvestor Features Image Major Findings

Tractor Operated PAU, Ludhiana, developed a tractor-operated Lifts vines, separates soil,
Groundnut Digger groundnut digger cum elevator. Suitable for and reduces labor and
Elevator tractors above 26 kW, it features a 1200 mm operational costs.
digging blade, elevator-cum-pick up reel,
fenders, gauge wheel, coulters, and power
transmission system. The adjustable pick-up
cum elevator reel gently lifts vines by comb­
ing the top 30 mm of the soil. The machine
digs groundnut vines below the pod zone and
elevates them using the conveyor reel,
shaking off soil and forming a windrow with
deflector rods. This exposes the pods to the
sun for quick drying. The machine can uproot
and invert 0.16–0.21 ha/h. Priced at Rs.
50,000, its cost of operation is Rs. 3200/ha,
saving 65% in labor and 32% in operational
costs.
Tractor Operated Garlic MPUAT, Udaipur, developed a tractor- Reduces labor and time,
Harvester operated garlic harvester cum windrower to minimizes soil clods for
ease the time-consuming and labor-intensive efficiency.
garlic harvesting process. The machine fea­
tures a blade with triangular point knives for
heavy soil, reducing soil clods and draft re­
quirements. It includes a chain-type sepa­
rating mechanism with vibrating forks for
efficient soil separation.
The windrower unit ensures well-separated
garlic bulbs and is powered by the tractor’s
PTO through a gearbox with a 1:1 ratio. The
machine’s effective field capacity is 0.26 ha/
h, with digging losses ranging from 2 to 3
bulbs/sq.m.
Priced at Rs. 35,000, the cost of operation for
this machine is Rs. 3885/ha. By using this
harvester, farmers can significantly reduce
labor and time involved in garlic harvesting.
Tractor Operated TNAU, Coimbatore, developed a tractor- Replaces labor-intensive
Cassava Harvester operated cassava harvester to replace the cassava harvesting, with
laborious manual harvesting process in India. significant cost savings.
The harvester includes a main frame, shanks,
digging blade, hitching frame, and depth
adjustment wheels, suitable for both single
and two-row operations. The shank’s design
accommodates cassava tubers, while the
blade’s angle allows easy soil penetration.
Row spacing can be adjusted, and depth
wheels ensure precise operation.
Tested with M/s SPAC Tapioca Products
Limited, Anthiyur, the harvester works well in
sandy soils with two rows and in heavy soils
with a single row at optimal moisture content.
It achieves a field capacity of 0.08 ha/h for a
single row and 0.17 ha/h for two rows. Undug
tubers are only 2.5%, with less than 1%
damage to tubers.
The machine is priced at Rs. 30,000, and its
cost of operation is Rs. 2380/ha, resulting in a
40% cost savings compared to manual
harvesting.
(continued on next page)

13
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 2 (continued )
Harvestor Features Image Major Findings

Bottom of Form
Tractor Drawn ANGRAU, Hyderabad, developed a 33.6 kW Efficient for turmeric, with
Turmeric Digger tractor-drawn turmeric digger of 1.45 m deeper digging capability.
width. With a blade rake angle of 55o, easy
soil penetration is ensured, and additional
150 kg dead weight allows for deeper digging.
The implement can dig four rows at 300–350
mm depth in a single pass at 2.5 km/h tractor
speed, achieving a field capacity of 0.36 ha/h.
Wheel slip is observed to be 12.5–15.0%.
The turmeric digger efficiently works, digging
the rhizomes lying 200–250 mm deep into the
soil with minimal damage. Priced at Rs.
22,000–25,000/-, the cost of digging turmeric
with this implement is Rs. 4830/ha.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form

Tractor Operated The potato digger consists of a frame, 550 mm Separates soil and potatoes,
Potato Digger wide shovel-type digging blade, endless rod improving harvesting
Elevator chain conveyor, gearbox, two gauge wheels, speed.
idlers, and driving sprockets. The conveyor is
made of 12 mm diameter mild steel rods riv­
eted/bolted to two endless flat belts with a
pitch of 25 mm. The conveyor is 1500 mm
long and inclined at 20◦ .
Operated by a 26 kW tractor, power is
transmitted to the gearbox via a telescoping
shaft from the tractor PTO. The machine picks
up the soil-potato mass and lifts it with the
chain conveyor. The agitator sprockets oscil­
late the conveyor chain rod, effectively sepa­
rating the soil. Clean potato tubers are
dropped on the ground for speedy manual
picking.
The unit price of the digger is Rs. 40,000, and
its cost of operation is Rs. 3080/ha. This
efficient design enables easier and faster
potato harvesting.
Power Operated Axial The thresher operates on the axial flow Offers higher output,
Flow Sunflower principle and includes a feed hopper, bar-type efficiency, and cost savings.
Thresher cylinder, thrower, two sieves, a concave, and
a blower. The cylinder is 1500 mm long with a
1300 mm section for threshing and a 200 mm
section for straw throwing. The cylinder has
raised spikes and is hexagonal in shape, with
seven louvres spaced at 180 mm.
The cleaning system consists of a centrifugal
blower and three sieves inclined at 7–15◦ .
Operating with a 5.6 kW motor/tractor, the
thresher has an 8.0 q/h clean grain capacity. It
offers 3–4 times more output than
conventional threshers, with a threshing
efficiency of over 99%.
Priced at Rs. 80,000, the cost of operation for
this machine is Rs. 450/t, compared to Rs.
1000/t with conventional methods. Using this
thresher saves 85% in labour, 75% in time,
and 30% in operational costs. The thresher
significantly reduces human drudgery and
ensures high-quality produce.
(continued on next page)

14
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 2 (continued )
Harvestor Features Image Major Findings

Whole Crop Maize The whole crop maize thresher is designed for Efficient grain separation,
Thresher 5.5 kW power and features a spike tooth reducing labor and waste.
cylinder with 6–7 bolts per row on the
periphery. The concave is made of 8 mm
square bars spaced at 18 mm. Operating at
620 rpm threshing speed, the thresher has an
output capacity of 210 kg/h.
The thresher yields 640 kg/h of grain with
chaff sized from 18 to 52 mm. Approximately
85% of this chaff is consumed by animals,
reducing material waste compared to using
the whole stalk. Priced at Rs. 70,000, the
machine offers significant labor savings of Rs.
2000–2100/ha for detaching cobs and
transporting crops from the field to home.

Tractor or Electric MPUAT, Udaipur, collaborated with M/s Clean threshing of seed
Motor Operated Makewell Industries to develop a tractor/ spices, replacing manual
Multi-crop Thresher electric motor operated thresher for seed methods.
for Seed Spices spices like cumin and coriander. It replaces
labor-intensive traditional methods and pro­
vides efficient, clean threshing. The thresher’s
output capacity is 240–260 kg/h, and it costs
Rs. 70,000.

High Capacity Multi- The thresher is versatile, suitable for various Versatile and cost-effective
crop Thresher crops like wheat, maize, rice, and more. It has for various crops.
adjustable features for different crops, such as
cylinder speed and sieve settings. The thresher
achieves high threshing efficiency (98–99%)
and minimal damage (1.0%). Grain output
capacity ranges from 4.0 q/h to 20 q/h. The
machine costs Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/,
with an operating cost of Rs. 250–300/h.

CIAE Multi-crop It is suitable for threshing wheat, maize, Suitable for multiple crops
Thresher sorghum, rice, gram, pigeon pea, soybean, with variable settings and
mustard, sunflower, safflower and linseed affordability.
crops. It consists of spike tooth cylinder,
aspirator type blower and sieve shaker. Two
top covers, three concaves, three sieves and
variable cylinder speeds (7–21 m/s) are
provided for threshing different crops. The
diameter and length of threshing drum are
500 and 600 mm, respectively. Total 92 spikes
were fitted in 8 rows. The concave clearance
ranges 10–25 mm. It costs Rs 50,000/- and
cost of operation is Rs 30–35/q.

intensive and limited in their suitability for a broader range of crops, harvesting operations, contributing to increased agricultural produc­
posing challenges for small-scale farmers due to the initial investment tivity and meeting the demands of a growing global population
required. To improve the efficiency and accessibility of harvesting sustainably.
techniques, future aspects should focus on technological advancements,
such as automation and robotics, to reduce manual labour and enhance 4.2.2. Sapota harvester
precision. The harvesting gadget consists of a cylindrical-shaped PVC main
Cost-effectiveness and scalability are also crucial factors to consider, body with a closed top end and an open bottom end, to which a nylon net
ensuring that these advanced tools become more widely available to is attached for fruit collection. A gate on the body allows harvestable
farmers of all scales. Additionally, incorporating eco-friendly materials fruits to enter, and a metal holder is fastened to the lower surface to hold
and sustainable practises will be essential to promoting environmentally bamboo of the required length. Two V-shaped fingers with sharp blades
responsible harvesting. Embracing remote sensing technologies and at the closed end of the body are used to pick and hold fruits from the
data analytics will enable data-driven decision-making for optimized bunch. By tugging the harvester, the fruits are separated from the bunch

15
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

and fall into the body, rolling into the net, which can be emptied using a reaper and the tractor front mounted vertical conveyor reaper, which
stretched thread [50,51]. The Plucker, designed with ergonomics in have demonstrated substantial increases in efficiency and cost savings
mind, comprises two hinged arms with rings and cutting blades at the compared to traditional harvesting methods. These machines offer
open ends. The blades are made from hardened and tempered low-alloy higher field capacity and substantial labor and operational cost re­
or medium-carbon steel. Using this device, panicles are chopped one by ductions, making them attractive options for farmers.
one, relieving the operator from the tediousness and discomfort of
manual plucking. Bands over the thumb and index finger ensure a 4.3.2. Specialized harvesting equipment
comfortable fit, and pressing these fingers together exerts force to sever Specialized harvesters have been designed for specific crops, such as
the pedicle. Straight blades, one with a notch for improved grip, effi­ the self-propelled fodder harvester and the tractor mounted fodder
ciently cut the pedicle [51,52]. harvester, which cater to the needs of fodder crops. These machines not
only enhance efficiency but also reduce the labor associated with har­
4.2.3. Leafy vegetable harvester vesting and processing these crops.
The harvester is a modified hedge shear with an additional gathering
mechanism, utilizing mild steel for the mesh and high carbon steel, alloy 4.3.3. Orchard management solutions
steel, or tool steel for the blades [13]. The blades are properly hardened The development of the self-propelled platform type fruits harvesting
and tempered and connected to a wooden handle through a tang for easy system has addressed the challenges of harvesting fruits from medium-
operation [53]. Using both hands, the operator can close and open the height trees. This system not only increases efficiency but also offers a
blades to shear vegetable stems when in the open position and slice the user-friendly approach for fruit picking, which can significantly reduce
vegetable when closed. The harvested crop is collected in the mesh labor and operational costs for orchard management.
soldered to the blades, and a thread is used to tie the gathered vegetables
together. One person can efficiently operate this harvester [13]. Addi­ 4.3.4. Diverse crop harvesting
tionally, the tool features a built-in Thumb Knife, designed with an arc Innovative equipment, like the tractor operated groundnut digger
blade from imported grade A stainless steel for quick cutting, plucking, elevator and the tractor operated cassava harvester, have been created
and trimming of various items like fruits, veggies, twigs, and plant to cater to a variety of crops, including groundnuts and cassava. These
branches [53]. machines are designed to handle different crop types and conditions,
thereby increasing versatility and efficiency in agriculture.
4.2.4. Advantages, limitations and future scope
The tractor-drawn rake demonstrated an impressive fruit recovery 4.3.5. Enhanced crop quality
rate of 99%, making it a highly efficient method for gathering fruits into The development of the tractor operated garlic harvester with soil
windrows. It helps streamline the harvesting process, making fruit pick- separation mechanisms and the tractor operated potato digger elevator
up easier and more organized, thereby reducing post-harvest losses. The has improved the quality of harvested produce by reducing soil
innovative device with fixed and movable blades, along with a net contamination. These machines contribute to better crop quality, which
basket, ensures gentle cutting of mango fruits, preserving their quality can lead to increased market value for farmers.
and integrity during harvesting [51,52]. This tool offers a practical and
efficient solution for the manual harvesting of mangoes and other fruits. 4.3.6. Innovations for root crop harvesting
The sapota and leafy vegetable harvesters offer convenient and efficient The tractor drawn turmeric digger and the tractor operated root crop
means to harvest specific crops. They are easy to operate and can harvester cum elevator cater to the specific needs of root crop harvest­
enhance the productivity of farmers and harvesters, particularly for ing, ensuring efficient and damage-free retrieval of crops like turmeric,
crops that require careful handling during harvesting [53]. potatoes, and onions.
Some of the harvesting gadgets are tailored to specific crops, which
could limit their usability for a broader range of fruits and vegetables. 4.3.7. Technological advancements
Expanding the adaptability of these gadgets to accommodate different The power operated axial flow sunflower thresher and the whole
crop types would increase their versatility and practicality. The shearing crop maize thresher showcase advancements in threshing technology.
action of certain harvesting tools may not be gentle enough for delicate These machines offer significantly higher output capacity, reduced labor
or soft fruits, leading to potential fruit bruising or damage during har­ requirements, and lower operational costs compared to conventional
vesting. Improving the harvesting techniques to minimise such damages threshers.
is necessary [51,52].
Incorporating automation and robotics into harvesting devices can 4.3.8. Multi-crop threshers
reduce manual labor and enhance precision. Developing smart har­ The tractor or electric motor operated multi-crop thresher for seed
vesting tools with computer vision and machine learning capabilities spices and the high capacity multi-crop thresher demonstrate the
can optimize harvesting efficiency and reduce labor requirements. development of versatile equipment capable of handling multiple crop
Future advancements should focus on designing more adaptable and types. These machines offer flexibility and efficiency, reducing the need
adjustable harvesting gadgets that can efficiently cater to a wide range for specialized threshers for different crops.
of crops, providing farmers with flexible and cost-effective solutions.
Embracing eco-friendly materials and sustainable harvesting practices 4.3.9. Affordability and cost efficiency
will contribute to environmentally responsible agriculture and minimise Many of the developed agricultural machines are cost-effective,
the impact on natural resources [53]. catering to the needs of small and medium-sized farmers. These in­
novations aim to reduce the financial burden on farmers and improve
4.3. Machine harvesting their overall productivity.
The future of agricultural machinery development lies in further
Table 2 highlights significant findings in the field of agricultural enhancing efficiency, reducing environmental impact, and increasing
machinery. adaptability to changing agricultural practices. Advancements in auto­
mation, precision agriculture, and integration of data analytics and AI
4.3.1. Efficiency and cost savings could further revolutionise the sector. Additionally, focusing on sus­
Various self-propelled and tractor-mounted harvesters have been tainability, energy efficiency, and reducing the carbon footprint of
developed, such as the self-propelled walking type vertical conveyor agricultural machinery will be vital to meet the evolving needs of the

16
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 3
Comparison between Manual and Advanced methods of harvesting.
Parameters Manual methods Advanced methods

Labour Manual harvesting entails picking, cutting, or collecting crops by hand. It is a According to Ali et al. [148], using a mini-combine harvester and reaper
intensive- traditional method that has been used for centuries and is still used in many instead of a manual harvesting system can save 65% and 52% of labour,
parts of the world, particularly in small-scale farming [147]. respectively.
Low Manual harvesting tools and equipment are basic and simple, such as hand- Reaper with power thresher, combine harvester (mini, medium and large size)
Mechanization held sickles, knives, or shears. There is very little use of machinery for Small- and incorporation of PA technologies including Global Navigation Satellite
Scale Farming [42]. System (GNSS) and GIS to evaluate machine performances precisely [42].
Selective Manual harvesting enables more selective picking, which is advantageous The mechanical harvesting system cannot maintain the quality and size
harvesting when specific crops need to be handled carefully or when particular ripeness selection that the human vision can [149].
stages need to be targeted. [149.
Time Manual harvesting typically takes longer time (on an average 7.5 ha/h) than According to Tiwari et al. [150], using efficient machines reduced operation
more sophisticated techniques because it depends on the productivity and time by 20–30%.
speed of human labour. During the busiest harvesting times, a sizable
workforce (20 labours/ha) might also be necessary.
The time required for completing the operation of harvesting and threshing
with traditional practice was about 20 h [39].
Pattern of Since manual farming is labor-intensive, there may be variations in how crops Advanced harvesting methods provide a more uniform and standardized harvest, as
harvesting are harvested due to variations in the knowledge, methods, and preferences of machines are designed to collect crops at a consistent level of ripeness and quality.
individual labourers.
Rate of Loss According to Hasan et al. [43], 6.36% of harvests were lost manually. Veerangouda et al. [139] demonstrated grain losses when using a
tractor-mounted combine harvester; got reduced to 2.88–3.60%.
Human drudgery Compared to more sophisticated or automated farming techniques, manual World Bank [153], Kienzle et al. [151], and Mahmud et al. [152]
farming frequently entails more human drudgery. Human drudgery is the demonstrated that agricultural machinery may be of great interest to
term used to describe the tedious physical labour, monotonous tasks, and smallholder farmers due to the possibility of production cost savings with a
difficult working conditions that manual labourers in the agricultural industry reduction in drudgery by substituting manual labour and conventional tools
endure [151–153]. with efficient machineries.

farming industry. Collaboration between research institutions, agricul­ versatile, and equipped with features that cater to the diverse re­
tural machinery manufacturers, and farmers will play a crucial role in quirements of horticultural farming [57–60]. The detailed discussion is
shaping the future of agricultural technology. in later sections.

5. Need of advanced methods

4.4. Combine harvestor
Regarding the projected increase in the global population, the
A combine harvester for horticultural crops, often referred to as a
automation of the harvesting process becomes crucial for several reasons
“horticultural combine”, is a specialized agricultural machine designed
(Table 3). Firstly, as the population grows, the demand for food will also
to efficiently harvest a variety of horticultural or specialty crops. Unlike
increase significantly. Automation can help meet this rising demand by
traditional combine harvesters used for large-scale grain crops like
enhancing productivity and efficiency in agricultural practises, allowing
wheat and corn, horticultural combines are tailored to the unique needs
farmers to produce larger quantities of high-quality crops. While auto­
of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. These combines incor­
mation can be implemented in various crops, its feasibility may vary
porate specific features and adaptations to handle the delicate nature of
depending on factors such as crop type, farming practises, and available
horticultural produce while maximising efficiency. In summary, a
technology. Certain crops may be more amenable to automation due to
combine harvester for horticultural crops is a specialized piece of
their characteristics and uniform growth patterns, while others may
equipment tailored to the unique needs of fruit and vegetable growers. It
pose challenges in terms of precision and selective harvesting.
combines efficient harvesting with gentle handling to preserve the
The increase in the global population is what is driving the need for
quality of the harvested produce. These machines are adaptable,

Fig. 5. Need of advancement.

17
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

better harvesting tools. For farmers, manually selecting and harvesting mass-removal machines, the fruit either drops onto padded catch frames
crops is quite challenging since it takes a long time and is very labour- or falls on ploughed ground. The harvested fruit is then collected in
intensive. More than ever, farm clients are seeking ways to boost pro­ pallet bins or open trucks and transported. Generally, mass-removal
ductivity per person and the number of acres they cover per day due to mechanical harvesting is more suitable for fruit that will be used for
the recent increase in crop input costs and difficulties in finding and processing [59]. In contrast, contact machines are specifically designed
maintaining excellent farm personnel. However, no single activity offers for harvesting fruit intended for fresh consumption. These machines are
the whole solution for achieving optimum profitability [54]. To effec­ based on the principle of selective picking and may utilize mechanical
tively manage risk, the correct balance of effective crop management, fingers that are flexible and mimic human fingers [60].
crop marketing, and wise equipment selections must be made. In terms Peterson [40] introduced an experimental, direct-drive, double-­
of equipment, farmers want assistance from their dealers to make the spiked-drum canopy shaker designed specifically for harvesting oranges
best selections for their businesses [35]. from high-density groves. The shaker’s drums are equipped with hori­
zontal whorls on a vertical shaft, and each whorl features nylon rods that
5.1. Advantages of advanced harvesting methods penetrate the canopy to a depth of up to 1 m. The shaking frequency of
the device is set at 4–5 Hz, resulting in a maximum horizontal
Advanced harvesting methods offer numerous advantages compared displacement of the rod tip of 250 mm. With travel speeds ranging from
to traditional manual harvesting, particularly in terms of operational 1.4 to 3.2 km/h, a tractor can tow the shaker along a row of trees to
time, human labour, input costs, and their impact on local social and facilitate movement. The shaker demonstrated a mature fruit removal
cultural life (Fig. 5). rate ranging from 71% to 91% within the canopy space that the shaking
In summary, advanced harvesting methods present numerous ad­ rods penetrated. The dimensions of the shaker drums are 3.66 m in
vantages, including time and labour savings, improved product quality, diameter, allowing them to effectively harvest trees up to 4 m in height.
reduced input costs, and positive impacts on local social and cultural To efficiently collect and transport the detached oranges, fruit-catching
life. By embracing technological advancements, farmers can enhance and conveying components were integrated beneath the shaker mech­
productivity, competitiveness, and sustainability in the agricultural anism. These components transfer the harvested oranges to the rear
sector, ensuring a prosperous and thriving future for farming commu­ centre of the shaker unit. Subsequently, a self-propelled bulk transport
nities and the global food supply [35,54]. unit follows the harvest unit at a synchronised speed. The bulk transport
unit is equipped with a conveying system that receives the harvested
5.2. Advancement in harvesting tools of crops oranges and transfers them to its rear hopper, which has a capacity of 6
tonnes. Additionally, the system includes trash-removal devices to
The automation of agriculture is a significant technological ensure a clean harvest. One notable achievement of this harvesting
advancement that addresses the growing demand for increased pro­ system is that the quality of the fruit received at the processing plant has
ductivity and higher-quality food production while optimising resource been reported to be as good as hand-harvested fruit. This indicates that
usage [3]. To tackle the challenges of labour-intensive and the innovative shaker technology is capable of effectively and gently
time-consuming manual harvesting of fresh crops when they reach harvesting oranges, preserving the overall grade and quality of the fruit
maturity, mechanised crop management and harvest have been long for further processing.
sought after. One of the solutions to these challenges is the creation and In general, mechanical harvesting is currently used for freshly
application of mechanical systems, such as mechanised fruit harvesters, consumed fruits and vegetables and is done for some root, tuber, or
which use electro-hydraulic controls to shake nut and fruit trees, rhizome and shell crops, including nuts. Tuberous and root vegetables
encouraging the mature produce to fall off [52]. These harvesters such as radishes, potatoes, garlic, and carrots are commonly harvested
feature a shaker head with adjustable jaws and clamping pads that only once. Fruits and vegetables grown for processing (e.g., tomatoes,
securely hold the tree in place, while a motor drives the shaking action. wine grapes, beans, peas, sour cherries, apricots, prunes, peaches, and
Integrating artificial intelligence with advanced automated mechani­ some leafy vegetables) are sometimes harvested by mechanical har­
zation is the next step in enhancing the efficiency, accuracy, and resil­ vesters. As harvest damage does not significantly affect the quality of
ience of farming practises, particularly for high-value crops like these products compared to those consumed fresh, these species should
capsicum, which require multiple harvest operations throughout the be bred accordingly or produced with a proper technique to obtain more
growing season [55]. Autonomous robotic harvesting is another efficient harvester use. The main advantage of mechanical harvesting is
intriguing technology for modern agriculture, requiring the integration that these machines can harvest fruit and vegetables in short periods of
of various subsystems, such as motion planning, crop sensing, and time. For example, nut harvesters can remove most of the nuts from the
dexterous manipulation, with the end effector playing a critical role in tree within a few minutes. Mechanical harvesting also reduces man­
the safe handling and detachment of the crops [56]. This study examines agement problems associated with workers by reducing problems
the latest developments in intelligent autonomous harvesting robots, associated with hiring and managing workers. For example, under US
focusing on automated fruit harvesting systems for sweet pepper, to­ conditions, at 1 ha of sweet cherries, the mechanical harvest cost
mato, apple, and kiwifruit [54]. With these advancements in harvesting equaled $0.72 per box, whereas the hand-harvest cost equaled $1.79 per
tools for fresh crops, the agricultural sector is poised to achieve higher box [61].
efficiency, reduce labour costs, and ensure the careful handling of pro­ Since the early 1960s, researchers have been actively studying and
duce. The following section illustrates some examples of harvesting tool implementing mechanical harvesting techniques [35]. One significant
advancements. breakthrough came when it was demonstrated that a tree could be safely
shaken to detach the fruit from its branches without causing harm to the
5.3. Mechanical harvesting methods entire tree, leading to the possibility of mechanically collecting citrus
fruit. Additionally, a pre-harvest abscission spray was proposed as a
Mechanical harvesting machines can be categorised into two main method to loosen the fruits on the tree, thereby reducing physical
types: contact machines and mass-removal machines [57,58]. Contact damage to the tree during harvesting [2]. This section provides a concise
machines consist of two primary components: the positioning mecha­ overview of these pioneering mechanical harvesting techniques, along
nism and the picking hand or arm. These machines can be considered a with other innovative approaches that have been explored.
subset of robots. On the other hand, mass-removal machines operate by
applying external force to shake the limb or tree trunk mechanically,
using water jets or air to vibrate limbs, foliage, and twigs. In the case of

18
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Fig. 6. (a) Limb Shaker [156] (b) Canopy Shakers (Control system and main sensors set in the ShaMolive harvester: joystick (A), display (B), programmable logic
controller (C), proportional valve group (D), LED scanner sensor (E), angular sensor (F), pressure sensor (G) [ [157] with permission] (c) Trunk Shakers [158] (d) Air
shaking (e) Combine Auto-Steer [159].

5.4. Automatic harvesting methods time of 0.56 min per tree, equivalent to a harvest rate of 6 trees per hour.
In studies with ‘Valencia’ oranges sprayed with an abscission chemical,
Automatic harvesting methods refer to the use of advanced tech­ Coppock et al. [57] and Sumner et al. [64] reported yield reductions for
nologies and robotics to automate the process of harvesting crops and all four removal methods, with higher reductions for tests conducted
fruits. Due to the need to address labour shortages, improve efficiency, later in the season. The use of an abscission chemical was found to
and lower production costs in the agricultural sector, these techniques mitigate the reduction in subsequent yield to some extent, but its per­
have received significant attention and development in recent years. formance was unreliable due to factors like rain and tree response
One of the prominent automatic harvesting methods is the use of robotic variability. Sumner et al. [64] compared subsequent fruit yields from
harvesting systems equipped with computer vision and artificial intel­ machine harvesting and hand picking. Machine-harvested trees had a
ligence. These robots are designed to identify and pick ripe fruits with 20% greater subsequent yield than hand-picked trees when the fruit was
precision, ensuring minimal damage to both the fruit and the plant. The harvested during the natural young fruitlet drop period. However, if
integration of AI and computer vision allows the robots to recognise and harvested after this period, machine-harvested trees had up to 30% less
differentiate between ripe and unripe fruits, ensuring only the mature subsequent yield than hand-picked trees. The harvest date had a greater
ones are harvested, leading to higher-quality produce. influence on subsequent yield than the fruit removal method. The limb
shaker harvesters took 3.5–6 min to harvest a tree when removing at
5.4.1. Electromechanical shakers least 90% of the mature fruit. Coppock et al. [65] harvested ‘Valencia’
Electromechanical shakers use electrical energy to generate me­ oranges late in the season, when selectivity was challenging. With an
chanical vibrations, facilitating fruit or nut detachment from trees. average mature fruit removal of 96%, the average subsequent yield loss
These shakers offer a balance between traditional mechanical shaking was 15%. The use of an abscission chemical reduced the shake time to
and fully autonomous robotic harvesting [62]. Discussion on various 0.73 min per tree, compared to 1.8 min without the chemical. However,
shakers are presented below. the chemical did not significantly improve selectivity when using the
largest, most aggressive shaker stroke of 254 mm. The primary benefit of
5.4.1.1. Limb shakers. Limb shakers are used for processing fruits such the chemical was to increase the fruit removal rate and efficiency.
as citrus fruits, apricots, prunes, peaches, and sour cherries. They are Despite certain advantages, this method may cause bark and limb
remotely controlled from the operator’s handle on the shaker, imparting damage to the tree and might also remove immature fruits. The effi­
long strokes at a low frequency to remove a high percentage of fruit ciency of limb shakers depends on the cultivars and operating conditions
(Fig. 6a). in the orchard, and the use of abscission chemicals has been explored to
Coppock [63] used a self-propelled limb shaker to harvest ‘Valencia’ increase harvest efficiency.
oranges without using an abscission chemical. The shaker was operated
to minimise the removal of young fruit. Trees harvested before the main 5.4.1.2. Canopy shakers. Fruits are harvested using a vibrating mecha­
young fruitlet drop period showed a subsequent yield reduction of only nism that impacts the fruit directly or the fruit-bearing branches.
5%, while those harvested after this time had a reduction of 32%. This Continuous canopy shakers are used for citrus fruits, with two main
shaker mode achieved a mature fruit removal of about 76% with a shake types: self-propelled units and tractor-drawn units. Shaking frequency

19
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

and stroke play crucial roles in the performance of these harvesters Whitney [72] conducted experiments on ‘Valencia’ orange crops
(Fig. 6b). In an effort to achieve selective harvesting of ‘Valencia’ or­ using air shaker harvesters. These machines were designed to shake the
anges, Sumner [66] developed a canopy shaker test unit that clamped trees and remove the ripe fruits. The effectiveness of the harvesters
secondary limbs and shook them vertically. Different shaker strokes and depended on the strength of the bond between the fruit and the tree.
frequencies were tested, with the 150 mm stroke providing the highest When the bond was weak enough (around 22.4 N), the harvester could
selectivity ratio and the 300 mm stroke the lowest. However, the remove 90–95% of the fruit at a rate of 20 tonnes per hour. Subsequent
selectivity ratio alone does not indicate subsequent yield reduction, and studies by Whitney [73] showed that the success of the air shaker har­
mature fruit removals ranged from 60% to 100%. Whitney et al. [67] vesters was closely tied to the use of an abscission chemical. This
conducted vertical foliage shaker tests on ‘Valencia’ oranges at different chemical helped loosen the fruit from the tree, making it easier for the
harvest dates. They achieved fruit removal percentages ranging from harvester to pick them. With the right amount of fruit loosening, the
77% to 83.9% and yield reduction percentages ranging from 11% to harvesters achieved an average fruit removal rate of 92%, meaning they
27%, depending on the harvest date. The shaker tests conducted in 1972 successfully harvested most of the ripe fruits. However, there were some
resulted in a reduction in the number of mature fruit per tree in 1973, drawbacks to using air shaker harvesters. They caused a yield loss of
suggesting that some young fruitlets might have been damaged and about 16% compared to hand-picked trees [68]. This means that some
dropped off before the subsequent harvest. Peterson [40] reported that fruits were lost during the harvesting process, leading to a slightly lower
the ‘USDA Canopy Shaker’ horizontal shaker harvester could harvest overall yield. Also, if the fruit was harvested too early during the young
7–9 trees per minute, achieving 80–90% ‘Valencia’ fruit removal fruitlet drop period, there was a subsequent yield loss of 20% [64].
without the need for abscission chemicals. The harvester operated at a Overall, the research on air shaker harvesters demonstrated that they
shaking frequency of 5 Hz with a fruit detachment force of 103–138 N, could be highly effective in removing ripe fruits from the trees. The use
delivering fruit quality comparable to hand-harvested fruit. The USDA of abscission chemicals played a critical role in achieving high fruit
Canopy Shaker was also found to achieve a mature fruit removal rate of removal rates. However, some challenges, like yield loss and the timing
25 t/h on higher yielding ‘Valencia’ trees, with mature fruit removal of the harvest, needed to be addressed for optimal results [37,44,74].
percentages ranging from 80% to 83% and a fruit detachment force of In general, while mechanical harvesting systems offer advantages in
102 N. Split fruit averaged 3%, and hedgerow canopies were identified terms of efficiency and reduced labour costs, certain fruits, particularly
as the best growing system for this shaker concept. citrus fruits, pose challenges due to their strong attachment to the tree
However, challenges remain in achieving optimal fruit removal rates when mature, leading to potential limb and tree damage during me­
while minimizing yield losses. The selection of the right harvesting chanical harvesting. Therefore, careful consideration of the appropriate
method and timing are crucial factors that can significantly impact mechanical harvester and operating conditions is necessary to minimise
subsequent yields. The variability in fruit bonding forces and fruit negative impacts and ensure effective fruit removal.
maturity further adds complexity to the harvesting process. To ensure
the quality and marketability of harvested fruits, it is essential to 5.4.2. Combine auto-steer
continually refine and improve harvesting technologies. Combine auto-steer is one of the revolutionary precision agriculture
technologies that has rapidly gained popularity over the last 15 years
5.4.1.3. Trunk shakers. Trunk shakers are utilised to remove fruit from [33]. While initially implemented on tractors and sprayers, this
deciduous fruits, olives, nuts, and citrus fruits. Whitney and Wheaton advanced GPS auto-steering system is now being integrated into an
[68] conducted experiments using the FMC Model 4000 trunk shaker to increasing number of combine harvesters, either as a standard feature or
harvest oranges. The trunk shaker reduced the fruit yield by 10% as an aftermarket upgrade [75]. The primary benefit of combine
compared to hand-picked trees. However, it achieved an average fruit auto-steer lies in its ability to enable any operator to efficiently harvest a
removal rate of 90%, thanks to the use of abscission chemicals (Fig. 6c). complete swath from one end of the field to the other, without the need
The shaking time per tree varied from 3 to 7 s, depending on how well for constant manual guidance (Fig. 6e). This technology offers quanti­
the fruit loosened and the operator’s judgement. Hedden et al. [69] fiable performance advantages by ensuring that the entire cutting width
tested four different trunk-shaking patterns to harvest ‘Hamlin’ and is maintained consistently throughout the harvesting process [76]. This
‘Valencia’ oranges. The most vigorous linear shaking pattern showed aspect is vital to maximising harvested acres per day, thereby increasing
superior efficiency. Using abscission chemicals increased the fruit overall productivity. With auto-steer, combine operators can focus on
removal percentage from 64% to 90% in ‘Hamlin’ and from 74% to 91% other critical aspects of the harvesting operation, confident that the
in ‘Valencia’. The shakers did not significantly reduce yields, except in machine will autonomously follow the pre-determined path and main­
one pattern for ‘Valencia’. The shaking time per tree was 7 s, but for tain optimal harvesting efficiency, even if the operator’s attention is
‘Valencia’ oranges with abscission chemicals, most of the ripe fruit fell in momentarily diverted [77,78].
the first few seconds of shaking. According to Peterson [40], conven­ Despite its numerous advantages, combined auto-steer also comes
tional trunk shake-catch harvesters can harvest 2–3 trees per minute. with certain limitations. One of the key limitations is the initial high cost
Whitney [70] tested the Compton Shake-Catch Harvester on various of implementing this technology. The initial investment required for the
orange varieties, including Parson Brown, Hamlin, Pineapple, and installation and integration of auto-steer systems on combine harvesters
Valencia. can be substantial, which may deter some farmers, especially those with
Recently, tractor-mounted trunk shakers are more effective than smaller operations, from adopting this technology [77,78]. Additionally,
hand-held shakers, achieving approximately 72% detachment compared the reliance on GPS signals for accurate navigation means that auto-steer
to 57% with hand-held shakers. However, there is a risk of defoliation at may face challenges in areas with poor signal reception or in fields with
high shaking frequencies, and trunk shakers can cause tree damage, uneven terrain and obstacles, potentially leading to inaccuracies in path
making trees more susceptible to fungal attacks. The removal rate of following.
trunk shakers varies depending on tree size, ranging from 67% on large Looking ahead, there are several exciting future aspects for com­
trees to 98% on small trees. For mandarins and oranges, for instance, bined auto-steer technology. Researchers have explored various tech­
trunk shakers in Spain can detach 70%–85% of the fruit [71]. nologies for supporting agricultural machines as they navigate through
fields. Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and light detection and
5.4.1.4. Air shaking. Controlled bursts of air are directed at the fruit, ranging (LiDAR) technology have been applied to enable autonomous
causing it to fall into collection bins without any direct physical contact operation for multiple crops [77,78]. However, GNSS can be expensive
(Fig. 6d). and challenging to adjust for local environmental changes, limiting
real-time crop edge detection. LiDAR offers high measurement accuracy,

20
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

but handling large amounts of point cloud data and sensitivity to field wheat harvested is highly dependent on the CH driving speed during
dust are drawbacks [79]. Considering the advantages of low cost, sta­ harvesting. The study determined that the optimum speed for harvesting
bility, and real-time local environmental information acquisition, ma­ is 4 km/h, with a wheat grain and straw feed rate of 24 kg s− 1.
chine vision emerges as a more suitable method for real-time detection Overall, the findings highlighted the importance of utilizing tele­
of field crop edges [76]. Researchers have shown increasing interest in matics technology in agriculture to monitor and optimize machinery
developing vision technology for crop harvesting edge detection, and performance for reduced environmental impact. By leveraging tele­
various methods have been explored. Crop edge detection methods can matics data, farmers and agricultural managers can make informed
be categorised into three types: colour-based, texture-based, and decisions that enhance both productivity and environmental
three-dimensional (3D) information-based methods. Colour-based stewardship.
methods involve analysing grey value distributions and applying
colour transformations and edge detection techniques [77–85]. 5.5. Machine vision system in automatic harvesting
Texture-based methods use Haralick texture features and Hough trans­
form optimisation [86,87]. The third type, based on 3D information, Machine vision in harvesting has come a long way since its early
utilises height differences between crops and the ground [88–90]. While applications in the 1970s and 1980s. Initially focused on simple tasks
each method has its advantages and limitations, machine vision holds like colour and size-based fruit sorting, it rapidly advanced with the
promise for real-time detection of field crop edges, offering potential emergence of more sophisticated image processing techniques in the
solutions for improving harvesting efficiency and accuracy. Addition­ 1990s. The integration of machine vision with robotics in the 2000s
ally, improved connectivity and data exchange between farm machinery brought about selective harvesting capabilities, where machines could
and central systems could enable fleet management and optimisation, detect and harvest ripe crops while leaving unripe ones on the plant.
enhancing overall operational efficiency and decision-making. Recent developments in machine learning and artificial intelligence
have further revolutionized the field, enabling machine vision systems
5.4.3. Telematics to learn from data and make real-time decisions. Today, multi-spectral
Telematics refers to the integration of telecommunications and imaging and smart agriculture initiatives have expanded the scope of
informatics technologies to transmit data and information over long machine vision, offering more comprehensive monitoring and man­
distances. In the context of agriculture and farming, telematics plays a agement of agricultural operations. As technology continues to evolve,
crucial role in enhancing the efficiency, productivity, and sustainability the future of machine vision in harvesting holds the promise of even
of agricultural operations. Telematics systems in agriculture typically greater efficiency, precision, and sustainability in agriculture.
involve the use of sensors, GPS technology, communication networks, Pereira et al. [92] conducted a state-of-the-art review of computer
and data processing platforms to gather and analyse information from vision for the automatic detection and classification of fruits in the last
various agricultural assets and equipment. These assets can include decade. Kamilaris and Prenafeta-Boldu [2] implemented a review
tractors, combines, harvesters, irrigation systems, and other machinery encompassing 40 research efforts that employed deep learning tech­
used in the field [91]. niques for agricultural tasks. Iqbal et al. [93] presented a survey focusing
To assist clients, and increase their field productivity even further, on disease detection in citrus plant leaves and their classification, while
certain combine manufacturers in Europe are now providing them with Patrcio and Rieder [94] conducted a review on the application of
the next step beyond yield mapping and auto-steer. The latest innova­ computer vision in grain production. Pajares et al. [95] provided a
tion is telematics [35]. It’s a cutting-edge solution that enables the comprehensive overview with technical support on spectral bands, im­
farmer or farm manager to assess the comparative effectiveness of single aging sensors, optical systems, and geometric visual system arrangement
or several combined operators. It’s a relatively straightforward system for specific agricultural applications. Reid et al. [96] conducted a review
that uses tables and maps, much like a yield map, to record the locations mapping the research progress in vehicle automation in North America
of each combined pass in the field. The telematic maps show the loca­ over the past 15 years, covering navigation sensors, planners, motion
tions of the combines’ unloading stops and their unloading locations models, and steering controllers. Bechar et al. [97] investigated research
while they were moving [2]. It costs a lot to stop the combine, especially efforts, developments, and innovations in agricultural robots for field
while unloading. So, it’s a terrific opportunity for combine and grain operations, exploring associated concepts, limitations, and gaps. Shalal
cart operators to learn how to increase field productivity. When using et al. [98] focused on recent innovations in autonomous navigation
several combines in the same field, many combine operators discharge systems in agricultural environments. Yaghoubi et al. [99] provided a
their combine grain bin when it is full rather than working in a sequence concise overview of the worldwide development and current status of
to unload when it will be easiest for the grain cart operator [56]. precision agriculture technologies in recent years. Torii [100] presented
Recently, Atinkut et al. [91] examines telematics data from combine relevant research on autonomous agricultural vehicles in Japan, while Ji
harvesters (CHs) equipped with axial threshing apparatus, which are et al. [101] conducted a review of machine vision techniques applied to
essential and powerful machines in agriculture. These CHs consume agriculture. The above-mentioned studies and reviews highlight the
substantial amounts of diesel fuel, leading to emissions that negatively significant progress made in the field of machine vision for agricultural
impact the ambient air. The research was conducted between 2017 and applications, particularly in the automatic detection and classification of
2020, and it calculates the time spent in different CH operating modes, fruits, disease detection in plants, and the use of computer vision in grain
fuel consumption, and the associated negative impact on the ambient air production. The integration of deep learning techniques has played a
measured as global warming potential (GWP). Field tests were also crucial role in advancing the capabilities of machine vision systems for
conducted on the same CH model to validate the collected telematics agricultural tasks. Additionally, the exploration of spectral bands, im­
data. The aim was to assess possibilities for minimizing fuel consump­ aging sensors, and optical systems has contributed to the development of
tion and air pollution by optimising the use of technological operations. more sophisticated and precise vision-based agricultural applications.
The telematics data analysis revealed that the CH spends approximately The future of machine vision in agriculture looks promising, with several
18% of its time in idle mode and about 13% in transport mode. Sur­ avenues for further research and development. In conclusion, machine
prisingly, approximately 12% of diesel fuel was consumed outside the vision holds great potential to revolutionise agriculture by improving
direct harvesting mode, resulting in 4.7 t year− 1 of GWP per machine. efficiency, sustainability, and productivity. Continued research and
Based on the dual telematics/field studies, it was established that the development in this field will undoubtedly lead to innovative solutions
proper use of the CH in idle and transport modes could reduce envi­ that address various agricultural challenges and pave the way for a more
ronmental pollutants in terms of GWP by 1.3 tonne year− 1 for a single technologically advanced and sustainable farming future.
machine. The field tests also demonstrated that the GWP per tonne of A survey on diseases detection in citrus plant leaves and their

21
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Fig. 7. Main research processes of fruit detection and recognition methods based on DL [102].

classification is presented in Iqbal et al. [93] while a review on the conditions. Advanced agricultural applications show immense promise
application of computer vision in the production of grains is conducted for machine vision and associated developing technology. However, the
in Patrício and Rieder [94]. In Pajares et al. [95] a general overview with majority of harvesting robots still face severe technological obstacles
a detailed description and technical support is provided regarding related to machine vision and accurate positioning, making it chal­
spectral bands, imaging sensors, optical systems, and geometric visual lenging for them to find real commercial applications [2]. The autono­
system arrangement with respect to specific applications in agriculture. mous harvester’s machine vision system works to identify the fruits and
A review is conducted in Reid et al. [96] to map the research progress in gives the robotic controller data on their position and proximity. Vision
vehicle automation in North America over the last 15 years. The key cameras are primarily the answer for communicating with the sur­
elements of the latter review include navigation sensors, navigation roundings in vision recognition systems. The following strategies will be
planners, vehicle motion models, and steering controllers. The review covered in this section.
presented in Bechar et al. [97] investigates the research effort, de­
velopments, and innovation in agricultural robots for field operations, 5.5.1. Image processing
and the associated concepts, limitations, and gaps. The review con­ The application of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and robotic
ducted by Shalal et al. [98] focus on recent innovations in autonomous systems in agriculture, particularly for fruit vision detection and auto­
navigation systems in agricultural environments. The research in matic harvesting, has gained significant attention [102]. Fruit vision
Yaghoubi et al. [99] provides a short overview of the worldwide detection systems play a crucial role in intelligent agriculture by
development and current status of precision agriculture technologies of acquiring visual information about fruits through various imaging sen­
the past few years. Relevant research on autonomous agricultural ve­ sors, such as black and white cameras, RGB cameras, spectral cameras,
hicles in Japan is also presented in Torii [100]. In Ji et al. [101], ma­ thermal cameras, and RGB-depth map cameras [89,103–107]. These
chine vision techniques applied to agriculture are reviewed. Machine systems operate through five stages: fruit image acquisition, pre­
vision and the related algorithms enhance the performance, intelligence, processing, feature extraction, segmentation, and recognition. Fig. 7
and remote interaction of harvesting robots in challenging agricultural depicts the research progress in processes of fruit detection and

Fig. 8. Basic architecture of DL-based ANN for fruit detection and recognition [102].

22
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Fig. 9. Robotic Harvesting tool for Sweet Pepper [155].

recognition methods. Due to strong capability to extract an integrated 3 kWh lead-acid battery, boasts impressive endurance,
high-dimensional features from fruit images, deep learning (DL) has capable of running between crop rows for up to 8 h. The robot’s struc­
garnered significant interest among researchers for fruit detection and ture includes a Prism lift joint and a 6-DOF revolute arm (Universal
recognition in the context of automatic harvesting. The fundamental Robotics UR5) on the platform, along with Thomson LM80 components.
architecture of DL-based ANNs for fruit detection and recognition is the The differential drive mobile base houses batteries, drive motors, gear­
focus of extensive and in-depth research efforts (Fig. 8). boxes, computer hardware, a robot controller, and a forward-facing
Researchers have explored different methods, including DL-based laser scanner for obstacle detection and navigation. The harvesting
approaches like YOLO, SSD, AlexNet, VGGNet, ResNet, Faster R–CNN, mechanism, depicted in Fig. 9, utilises a suction cup and an oscillating
FCN, SegNet, and Mask R–CNN, for automatic harvesting [108–113]. cutting blade to efficiently remove sweet peppers from the plant.
While progress has been made, there are still challenges to overcome in Given the diverse sizes, shapes, and orientations of the crops,
building effective fruit vision detection and harvesting systems [114, grasping and cutting each sweet pepper using a single end-effector posed
115]. The future scope of this field is promising, with continuous an unexpected challenge [56]. To overcome this obstacle, the harvesting
improvement and research based on Faster R–CNN as a current hotspot tool employs a passive decoupling mechanism, allowing the grabbing
due to its high recognition accuracy. Efforts to enhance recognition and cutting movements to occur sequentially at independently selected
speed and adapt fruit detection methods for different cultivars are areas places. The flexible strip of the suction cup attaches to the end effector’s
of ongoing research. The popularity of apples, tomatoes, and citrus fruits body to enable decoupling. The robot arm can manipulate the suction
as subjects of study is due to their global demand, distinctive features, cup during attachment due to its magnetic connection with the cutting
and relatively uniform size and weight. However, variations in fruit blade’s bottom. After attachment, the cutting blade raises to remove the
dimensions and peduncle length among different cultivars pose chal­ suction cup, and since the suction cup is only linked to the end effector
lenges for adapting detection and recognition methods. Future research through a flexible tether, the cutting blade can move freely during
should focus on developing robust and adaptable fruit vision systems cutting. As a result, the harvested sweet pepper falls off and hangs on the
that can accommodate the diverse characteristics of various fruit culti­ flexible tether, ready for collection. For the next harvesting cycle, the
vars, enabling efficient and accurate automatic harvesting in a wide suction cup and cutting blade can be magnetically re-coupled by
range of agricultural settings. pointing the harvesting tool downward. The sweet pepper is released
into a collection box through the suction release. This innovative passive
5.5.2. Intelligent automated fruit harvesting robots decoupling method significantly improves harvesting success without
relying on additional actuators.
5.5.2.1. Robotic harvesting of sweet pepper. Recently, a groundbreaking The sophisticated harvesting equipment is equipped with an RGB-D
development in the field of agricultural robotics emerged with the cre­ camera (an Intel RealSense SR300 RGB-D sensor) and a microswitch to
ation of “Harvey,” an automated sweet pepper harvesting robot. The assess the crop and determine if the suction cup adheres to the cutting
innovative robot addresses three crucial challenges in the harvesting blade. An end effector-adapted oscillating multi-tool effectively slices
process: detection, grip choice, and manipulation. The researchers suc­ fruit stems, while a vacuum line pressure sensor ensures successful
cessfully devised a vision-based fruit recognition algorithm, a three- suction cup attachment. Overall, the remarkable advancements made in
dimensional localization and grasp selection approach, and an original “Harvey” and its efficient harvesting capabilities underscore the trans­
end-effector design for fruit picking [12]. Notably, this study focused on formative potential of agricultural robotics and artificial intelligence in
developing a system specifically tailored for selecting sweet peppers in a revolutionising modern farming practises. The successful integration of
protected cropping environment, where plants were grown on planar vision-based algorithms, passive decoupling mechanisms, and state-of-
trellis constructions to simplify motion planning and minimise occlu­ the-art robotic systems paves the way for even greater advancements
sions. The harvesting robot incorporates a 7-degree-of-freedom (DOF) in autonomous harvesting technologies.
manipulator, comprising a 6-DOF articulated arm and a lift joint,
mounted onto a custom-built differential-drive mobile base. 5.5.3. Robotic harvesting of tomato
In rigorous field testing, the sweet pepper harvesting method The tomato robotic harvesting system showcasing the configuration
demonstrated remarkable results, achieving 58% harvesting success, and exterior of the tomato harvesting robot and the 3-dimensional po­
81% successful grabbing, and 90% detachment rates. These high success sition measurement of the tomato fruit. The system is designed to
rates are promising indicators of progress towards creating a commer­ function in a large tomato manufacturing facility, where tomato seed­
cially viable autonomous sweet pepper harvester and mark a significant lings are displayed in bunches on shelves arranged in a straight line.
technological achievement. The differential drive platform, powered by Workers use a moving mechanism along the shelf rails to transport and

23
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Fig. 10. The dual robot coordination for apple harvesting [155].

harvest the tomatoes [115]. The system comprises a USB camera, a harvesting environments.
6-axis serial link manipulator, an end-effector, a computer, and a Kinect
version 2 device. The fruit detection process involves three main steps: 5.5.4. Robotic harvesting of apple
moving the dolly to the front of the harvested bunches for fruit har­ Fig. 10A & B presents a wooden storage box attached to the table
vesting, analyzing the environmental map created from the photograph adjacent to the picking manipulator in the pick-and-place harvesting
at the shelf’s edge, and determining the tomato condition, fruit position, method. However, performance requirements indicate that a better
and harvest timing [115]. location for the storage container is needed to avoid interference with
The fruit’s 3-dimensional position is tracked using a Kinect sensor, the robot’s hardware during selection. The picking manipulator effi­
which records RGB-D and IR images of the tomato at 30 frames per ciently picks and places apples in the container. To maintain consistent
second. The IR image processing allows for fruit colour identification apple displacement and compare cycle times, three-dimensional fruit
and 3-dimensional location measurement based on pixel information coordinates are generated using Matlab’s random number generator for
from the RGB-D image [115]. A fruit identification and discrimination each harvesting cycle [3]. To address the potential Travelling Salesman
method is proposed, utilizing the gradient orientation of the IR picture Problem (TSP) that may arise from sequential fruit harvesting, Matlab’s
to extract and label the area with a high coincidence rate, effectively k-nearest neighbor method is used to prioritize the fruits.
identifying the fruit’s location. A kinematically redundant picking The process begins with the default end-effector coordinates of the
manipulator with 8 degrees of freedom is employed for apple fruit picking manipulator. Prioritising fruits offline before each cycle, the
collection. Two stepper motors power the 6-DOF revolute arm of the programme first chooses the closest fruit for harvesting, then the next
manipulator, which has Dynamixel Pro actuators installed at the joint closest fruit to the previously harvested ones. The maximum velocity of
locations. The manipulator is designed to access every drop point within all revolute joints is set at 60◦ per second, and manipulator motions are
its workspace [116]. planned using trapezoidal velocity profiles in the joint space with an
The use of Dynamixel Pro actuators in the revised catching robot approach distance of 15 cm. An electric utility vehicle equipped with a
improves torque output, speed, and backlash reduction, enhancing the harvesting system for Envy apples in a V-trellis orchard. For optimisa­
system’s end-effector velocity, accuracy, and repeatability. Despite the tion of the collecting system below the catching end-effector, a bin filling
increased system cost, this design change brings about significant im­ mechanism is required. Preliminary testing suggests that the existing
provements. The catching end-effector, made from a plastic funnel with design requires significant adjustments before conducting further
flexible baffles, utilises gravity to funnel the fruit into a storage extensive field research [52].
container through a flexible hose [116]. Overall, the tomato harvesting Expanding the system’s capabilities to handle multiple fruit types,
robot’s advanced configuration and efficient fruit detection and collec­ implementing real-time feedback and monitoring systems, and con­
tion mechanisms represent impressive strides in the realm of robotic ducting extensive field testing and trials in commercial orchards will be
agricultural systems. Reviewers might inquire about the system’s overall crucial steps towards validating the system’s performance and reliability
accuracy, robustness, and scalability, as well as potential future en­ in real-world conditions, paving the way for potential commercial
hancements to make it more adaptable for different crop types and deployment and contributing to sustainable fruit harvesting practices in

Fig. 11. Kiwi harvesting robot [155].

24
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

modern orchards. Customised sensors, like colour sensors for distinguishing open and
semi-open bolls and blooms in cotton harvesting, may be needed. Path
5.5.5. Robotic harvesting of kiwifruit planning algorithms are critical to ensuring that robots can traverse
The kiwifruit harvesting robot demonstrated in Fig. 11 employs an rows without causing damage. Exploring alternate energy sources and
innovative combined grabbing-picking-sliding harvesting method to optimising power needs, footprint, and cost are essential for creating
efficiently separate, non-destructively pick, and discharge scaffolding versatile robots that can perform multiple tasks and work collabora­
cultured kiwifruits. Fig. 11A showcases the well-equipped kiwifruit- tively in swarms.
picking robot, featuring machine vision, an end-effector, a coordinate In conclusion, addressing the challenges of robotic harvesting re­
manipulator, a vehicle system, and a control system. The remarkable quires continuous advancements in technology, innovative solutions for
autonomy of the picking robot allows it to identify and locate kiwifruit efficient fruit recognition and manipulation, and a holistic approach to
picking regions, plan optimal paths, navigate to the target areas, employ optimising various components of autonomous harvesting systems. As
bionic fingers for gentle and non-destructive picking, and unload the progress is made in these areas, the potential for fully automated and
harvested fruits into a basket [53]. efficient fruit-picking robots in agriculture becomes increasingly
To validate the robot’s performance, a simulated kiwifruit picking promising, paving the way for increased productivity and profitability
test was conducted in the agricultural equipment lab at the Northwest for farmers in the future.
Agriculture and Forestry University of China, as depicted in Fig. 11B.
Remarkably, 27 out of the 30-fruit set, organized into 6 sets of 5 fruits, 5.7. Top 5 start-ups bringing automation and advanced harvesting tools
were successfully gathered, with an impressive 90% success rate. The
remaining 10% of the fruit could not be collected due to interference 5.7.1. AvL motion – asparagus harvester
caused by components with IR sensors hindering the end-gripping ef­ There will be a need to develop specialized robots to harvest various
fector’s motion as it manoeuvred around neighboring fruits. The effi­ sorts of crops as robotic technology for farmers grows in size and di­
cient picking time of just 4 s per fruit, comparable to hand picking and versity. Europe and the US both consume a lot of asparagus [117]. When
superior to early end-effectors, showcases the remarkable effectiveness it comes to harvesting, it is one of the most labour-intensive crops. To
of the robot’s picking mechanism. This successful lab simulation dem­ acquire great food, asparagus must be harvested before it blooms,
onstrates the end-effector’s full capability to execute all kiwifruit har­ therefore time is important. AvL Motion, a Dutch firm, creates robots
vesting functions, offering a promising path towards automating and expressly to address the issue of manpower shortages in the picking of
optimising kiwifruit harvesting processes in the future. asparagus. A prototype that finds the asparagus cuts it, and pulls it out of
the ground is being tested there. They intend to start harvesting aspar­
5.6. Challenges and future scope with Robitic harvesting agus in 2020.

The challenges and future scope of robotic harvesting are multifac­ 5.7.2. Tevel Tech – soft fruit harvester
eted and require innovative solutions to make fruit harvesters more Berries, apples, oranges, peaches, pears, and avocados are small, soft-
practical and efficient. Mechanical harvesters have shown promise, skinned fruits. Hand-picking little fruits may take time. The harvesting
particularly for citrus fruits, in replacing human labour efficiently and procedure often uses a lot of resources in these orchards and vineyards.
cost-effectively. However, addressing fruit damage during harvesting Thinning and trimming must follow harvesting to prepare the crop for
remains a significant concern [7]. Premature fruit dropping poses the next phase. Tevel Tech, an Israeli company, creates autonomous
another challenge, as it can negatively impact the following season’s drones for orchard harvest and maintenance utilizing a unique aerial
crop. Grove design and tree positioning need careful consideration to robotics platform and cutting-edge algorithms. They build orchard
accommodate the space requirements of mechanical harvesters. Health drones for picking, thinning, and pruning [117]. Aerial harvesting gives
regulations may limit the use of abscission chemicals, affecting the ef­ farmers a comprehensive solution.
ficiency of mechanical harvesters. Despite advancements in mechanical
shakers and post-selection, limitations in size and quality selection still 5.7.3. Four Growers – tomato harvester
restrict mechanical harvesting. Tomatoes constitute over 15% of global vegetable production,
Automated harvesters offer a potential solution, but implementing making them more fruit than vegetable. Globally eaten. Tomato crop
fully autonomous fruit-picking robots in dynamic natural environments waste digests poorly. Farmers must charge more for picking or let to­
with multiple factors presents difficulties and complexities. Achieving matoes decay due to a workforce shortage [118]. Four Growers makes
full autonomy requires the integration of various components using tomato picking robots. Their robot can pick tomatoes in a greenhouse
agricultural robotics concept [55]. Mobile locomotive systems that can and will soon harvest in open fields. Cucumbers and peppers will also be
plan, map, and navigate in the grove are crucial. The manipulator’s picked [117].
reachability inside the fruit tree canopy is a challenge due to the broad
orientation required for fruits on trees. Designing end-effectors with 5.7.4. Robotic saffron – saffron harvester
replaceable grippers for multi-purpose applications can enhance versa­ It takes a lot of labour to grow saffron. It features three delicate
tility. To be economically viable, fruit recognition and picking speed scarlet stigmas in the centre that must be manually selected, laid out on a
must be comparable to or faster than human labour. plate, and heated to intensify their flavour. Saffron is unique since it has
Fruit recognition remains a significant hurdle for autonomous har­ several advantages in addition to being the costliest spice [118]. To put
vesters, with reported recognition rates ranging from 70% to 90% and it into perspective, saffron costs more per gram than gold does. A startup
variability due to lighting, occlusion, or distance estimation issues. in Italy Robotic Saffron creates robots for autonomous saffron harvesting
Improving the visual system’s efficiency in dynamic situations and while taking into account the challenging stigma separation procedure,
developing effective approaches to retrieve fruit object information high labour expenses, and labour shortages. They want to use robotic
from images are essential for autonomous harvesting robots to be suc­ technology to lower the cost of this valued and practical spice.
cessful. Additionally, assessing unique fruit spectral maturity can aid in
enhancing the vision system and technique development. 5.7.5. GROBOMAC – cotton harvester
Beyond fruit harvesting, robots have the potential to revolutionise One person may typically pick 20 cotton plants each day if they put
other agricultural tasks, such as weeding and scouting in various crops, in 8–10 h of labour. Hand-harvesting cotton can also result in allergies or
bringing profitability to farmers. However, challenges remain in devel­ even long-lasting hand injuries. Due to these realities, cotton growers
oping algorithms that seamlessly interpret visual sensing data. are now compelled to use machinery, which lowers the quality of the

25
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

Table 4 harvesting approaches and leveraging advanced technologies can opti­

Comparison between Manual and Mechanical methods of harvesting [155]. mize agricultural practises and contribute to a more resilient and effi­
Parameters Harvesting Method cient agricultural sector.
Mechanical Manual
7. Conclusion
Methods used Mechanical Traditional
Power Source Tractor Man power
Labour charge (Rs./day/man) 250–300 250 In conclusion, this review underscores the critical importance of
Total number of labours required per 2 (1 operator & 1 20 labours/ addressing agricultural harvesting challenges in the face of a rapidly
hectare labour) ha growing global population and increased food demand. With projections
Actual time required (ha/h) 3.40 7.5
indicating that the global population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and
Actual field capacity (ha/h) 0.299 0.133
Total man hours requirement (man-hrs/ 6.8 150 10.4 billion by 2100, the agricultural sector is under immense pressure
ha) to meet these demands. The focus of this review has been on the
Total cost of labour required (Rs/ha) 550 5000 development of harvesting systems that aim to replicate human abilities,
Total cost of operation hectare (Rs/ha) 3318.12 5000 specifically categorised into parallel and multi-fingered grippers.
Notably, the involvement of the horticultural industry in funding these
cotton fibre. Robotic cotton harvesters are now possible thanks to advancements underscores the significant role played by the private
technological advancement and research [118]. Green Robot Machin­ sector in driving agricultural innovation. Economic factors, including
ery, an Indian business, creates intelligent machines to automate some cost reduction and enhancing consumer value, are key drivers shaping
of the jobs now carried out by people during cotton harvesting. Their research efforts in this field, with machine harvesting methods emerging
equipment can be modified to perform additional labour-intensive op­ as a promising solution, leading to substantial reductions in harvesting
erations including spraying, trimming, and weeding [117]. For the costs as highlighted in Table 4.
construction of their devices, they combine vision technology, artificial Furthermore, the review recognizes the pivotal role of mechaniza­
intelligence, control, automation, mobility, and diagnostics. tion and automation in modern agriculture. While robots exhibit
adaptability and speed, addressing their cost and reliability remains a
6. Future work in harvesting tools and Equipment’s fundamental challenge for their widespread adoption. Interdisciplinary
collaboration, involving fields such as biology, control engineering, ro­
The rapid increase in the global human population, expected to reach botics, and AI, is the driving force behind the automation of labor-
10 billion by 2050, necessitates the intensification of agricultural intensive tasks, including selective harvesting. The review also un­
practises to meet growing food demands. While traditional manual derscores the significance of grain harvesting in the context of separa­
harvesting practises have been the norm, they result in significant losses tion, processing, and storage.
in productivity and economy within the agriculture sector. India alone It is important to note that different countries face diverse agricul­
suffers losses of about 20–30% of fruits and vegetables valued at INR 230 tural challenges and requirements. The design and effectiveness of
billion due to inadequate harvesting and post-harvesting facilities. grippers on robotic manipulators are critical factors, and novel ad­
However, manual harvesting continues to hold promising future po­ vancements in this area offer increased versatility and cost-effectiveness.
tential in several areas. Skilled labour remains vital for manual har­ In summary, this review provides valuable insights into the challenges
vesting, and empowering workers with modern agricultural practises and opportunities of modern agricultural harvesting. It underscores the
can enhance their efficiency. Certain specialized crops, delicate fruits, urgent need to address food demand through innovative technologies
and high-value produce may still be better suited for manual harvesting and interdisciplinary collaboration. Embracing these advancements has
due to their specific requirements. Manual harvesting also aligns well the potential to significantly enhance efficiency, reduce labor intensity,
with organic and sustainable farming practices, where careful handling and make substantial contributions to the task of feeding a growing
and selective picking are essential. As the demand for organic produce global population. However, it is important to acknowledge that the
increases, manual harvesting can continue to play a crucial role in availability of comprehensive literature on some of these advancements,
meeting these requirements. Additionally, manual harvesting allows especially in the context of agricultural robotics and gripper technology,
farmers to cater to niche markets that prioritize hand-picked, high- may be limited, highlighting the need for continued research and
quality produce, fulfilling the growing consumer preferences for pre­ documentation in this vital field.
mium and artisanal products. Furthermore, in regions with seasonal
agricultural labor, manual harvesting provides a flexible and cost- Declaration of competing interest
effective solution. The incorporation of advanced technologies like AI
algorithms, machine vision, and robotics is crucial to enhancing har­ The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
vesting machines’ adaptability and effectiveness. Additionally, adjust­
ments in orchard characteristics, such as tree spacing and size, may be Data availability
necessary for successful machine installation. To develop efficient har­
vesting tools, careful consideration of tree characteristics, fruit proper­ No data was used for the research described in the article.
ties, and vibration technologies is essential to minimise drawbacks like
tree injury and fruit damage. The utilisation of computational models in
References
the design process can aid in understanding the dynamic behaviour of
harvesting machines and facilitate their development [154]. [1] Amalendu Chakraverty, Arun S. Mujumdar, Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy, Handbook
The future scope lies in the continuous development and refinement of Postharvest Technology: Cereals, Fruits, Vegetables, Tea, and Spices, CRC
of machine-based harvesting technologies to achieve desired agricul­ Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2003.
[2] Kamilaris, A.; Prenafeta-Boldú, F. Deep learning in agriculture: a survey. Comput.
tural production, quality, and self-sufficiency in meeting global food Electron. Agric...
demands sustainably. Although challenges are present, innovative [3] J.H. Friedman, J.L. Bentley, R.A. Finkel, An algorithm for finding best matches in
technological solutions offer promising opportunities for the sustainable logarithmic expected time, ACM Trans. Math Software 3 (3) (2019) 209–226.
[4] L. Afsah-Hejri, T. Homayouni, A. Toudeshki, R. Ehsani, L. Ferguson, S. Castro-
development of agriculture. Furthermore, manual harvesting continues García, Mechanical harvesting of selected temperate and tropical fruit and nut
to play a significant role, particularly in specialized crops, organic trees, Hortic. Rev. 49 (2022) 171–242.
farming, and niche markets. Integrating manual and mechanised [5] Amalendu Chakraverty, R. Paul Singh, Postharvest Technology and Food Process
Engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2014.

26
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

[6] Y. Pu, S. Wang, F. Yang, R. Ehsani, L. Zhao, C. Li, M. Yang, Recent progress and [41] S. Majumder, B.K. Bala, F.M. Arshad, M.A. Haque, M.A. Hossain, Food security
future prospects for mechanized harvesting of fruit crops with shaking systems, through increasing technical efficiency and reducing postharvest losses of rice
Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 16 (1) (2023) 1–13. production systems in Bangladesh, Food Secur. 8 (2016) 361–374.
[7] P. Visconti, R. de Fazio, R. Velázquez, C. Del-Valle-Soto, N.I. Giannoccaro, [42] M.V. Manjunatha, B.M. Reddy, S.D. Shashidhar, V.R. Joshi, Field performance
Development of sensors-based agri-food traceability system remotely managed by evaluation of vertical conveyor paddy reaper, Karnat. J. Agric. Sci. 22 (1) (2009)
a software platform for optimized farm management, Sensors 20 (13) (2020) 140–142.
3632. [43] M.K. Hasan, M.R. Ali, C.K. Saha, M.M. Alam, M.E. Haque, Combine harvester:
[8] J. Brown, S. Sukkarieh, Design and evaluation of a modular robotic plum impact on paddy production in Bangladesh, J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 17 (4)
harvesting system utilizing soft components, J. Field Robot. 38 (2) (2021) (2019) 583–591.
289–306. [44] R.J. Hutton, W.J. Lill, Development of a mechanical harvesting system for citrus
[9] P. Sanchez-Cachinero, R. Luque-Mohedano, R.R. Sola-Guirado, Computational fruit, vol. 1, in: Proc. of the International Society of Citriculture, Nov. 9 12, 1981,
model for the dynamic characterisation of a trunk shaker, Agriculture 12 (12) Tokyo, Japan, 1982, pp. 281–285.
(2022) 2158. [45] G.A. Brown, R.J. Hutton, Machines for harvesting citrus fruit, in: Proceedings...
[10] S.K. Sharma, Postharvest Management and Processing of Fruits and Vegetables, International Society of Citriculture, vol. 4, 1980, pp. 99–102.
New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi, 2010. [46] H.R. Sumner, S.L. Hedden, Development of a Tractor Drawn Rake for Oranges
[11] R. Russel, P.A. Beaver, C. Lehnert, A Robotic Harvester, US20190029178A1, (No. 80-1528), ASAE Paper, 1980.
2019. [47] S.L. Hedden, H.R. Sumner, D.B. Churchill, Collecting and handling mechanically
[12] C. Lehnert, A. English, C. McCool, A.W. Tow, T. Perez, Autonomous sweet pepper harvested oranges in South Florida (LaBelle), Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 92
harvesting for protected cropping systems, IEEE Rob. Autom. Lett. 2 (2) (2017) (1979) 59–61.
1–8. [48] J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, I.Y. Huang, V. Grigoriadis, S. Blackmore, Economics of
[13] R. Barth, J. IJsselmuiden, J. Hemming, E.J. Van Henten, Data synthesis methods robots and automation in field crop production, Precis. Agric. 21 (2020) 278–299.
for semantic segmentation in agriculture: a Capsicum annuum dataset, Comput. [49] D.L. Needham, B.M. Andersen, T.C. Niday, D.P. Mayo, U.S. Patent No.
Electron. Agric. 144 (2018) 284–296. 10,178,830, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, 2019.
[14] S. Yasukawa, B.H. Li, T. Sonoda, K. Ishii, Development of a tomato harvesting [50] J.R. Davidson, C.J. Hohimer, C. Mo, M. Karkee, Dual robot coordination for apple
robot. The 2017 international conference on artificial life and robotics (ICAROB harvesting (p. 1), in: 2017 ASABE Annual International Meeting, American
2017), seagaia convention center, miyazaki, Japan, January 19–22, 2017, Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2017, pp. 1–9.
pp. 408–411. [51] S. Yasukawa, B. Li, T. Sonoda, K. Ishii, Development of a tomato harvesting robot,
[15] J.W. Jones, J.M. Antle, B. Basso, K.J. Boote, R.T. Conant, I. Foster, T.R. Wheeler, in: 2017 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB),
Brief history of agricultural systems modeling, Agric. Syst. 155 (2017) 240–254. Miyazaki, 2017, pp. 408–411.
[16] Burton Stein, A History of India, Blackwell Publishing, 1998. ISBN 0-631-20546- [52] K. Lisa, D.M. Abba, A. Nura, Postharvest loss assessment of maize (Zea mays)
2. along its value chain in Nigeria, J. Stored Prod. Postharvest Res. 10 (1) (2019)
[17] Vishnu-Mittre, Origins and history of agriculture in the Indian sub-continent, 13–19.
J. Hum. Evol. 7 (1978) 31–36. [53] L. Mu, Y. Liu, Y. Cui, H. Liu, L. Chen, L. Fu, Y. Gejima, Design of end-effector for
[18] T.T. Chang, The origin, evolution, cultivation, dissemination, and diversification kiwifruit harvesting robot experiment (p. 1), in: 2017 ASABE Annual
of Asian and African rices, Euphytica 25 (1976) 425–441. International Meeting, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers,
[19] R. Forsyth, The principles and practice of agriculture systematically explained, in: 2017, pp. 1–8.
Being a Treatise Compiled for the Fourth Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, [54] D.A. Wells, Recent Economic Changes: and Their Effect on the Production and
vol. 1, A. Bell, 1804. Distribution of Wealth and the Well-Being of Society, D. Appleton and Co, New
[20] K.L. Mehra, Differentiation of cultivated and wild Eleusine species, Phyton 20 York, 1899. ISBN 0-543-72474-3.
(1963) 189–198. [55] R. Singh, M. Srivastava, A. Shukla, Environmental sustainability of bioethanol
[21] M.D. Kajale, Ancient grains from India, Bull. Deccan Coll. Post-graduate Res. Inst. production from rice straw in India: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54
34 (1/4) (1974) 55–74. (2016) 202–216.
[22] S.K. Sharma, M.C. Nautiyal, Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, New [56] D. Yang, J. Cai, V. Hull, K. Wang, Y.P. Tsang, J. Liu, New road for telecoupling
India Publishing Agency, New Delhi, 2009. global prosperity and ecological sustainability, Ecosys. Health Sustain. 2 (10)
[23] Anil K. Gupta, Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals (2016), e01242.
linked to early Holocene climate amelioration, Curr. Sci. 87 (1) (2004). Indian [57] G.E. Coppock, D.B. Churchill, H.R. Sumner, S.L. Hedden, Shaker removal methods
Academy of Sciences. affect ‘Valencia’ orange yield, Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 90 (1978) 6–8.
[24] D.J. Murphy, People, Plants & Genes: the Story of Crops and Humanity, Oxford [58] J.D. Sachs, G. Schmidt-Traub, M. Mazzucato, D. Messner, N. Nakicenovic,
University Press, USA, 2007. J. Rockström, Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals,
[25] Z. Baber, The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Nat. Sustain. 2 (9) (2019) 805–814.
Rule in India, SUNY Press, 1996. [59] J.D. Whitney, T.A. Wheaton, W.S. Castle, D.P.H. Tucker, Orange grove factors
[26] J. Rafie, R. Kumar, A review on scenario of agriculture in India and Punjab 1900- affect manual harvesting rates, Trans. ASAE 39 (2) (1996) 399–405.
2019, Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 9 (6) (2020) 4149–4170. [60] P. Chen, Selective harvesting of Valencia oranges with a flexible hook device,
[27] K. Jha, A. Doshi, P. Patel, M. Shah, A comprehensive review on automation in Trans. ASAE 16 (4) (1973) 645–647.
agriculture using artificial intelligence, Artif. Intell. Agric. 2 (2019) 1–12. [61] H. Asadi, G. Zamanian, M.R. Mehrvar, Profitability for different crops of cropping
[28] J.H. Friedman, J.L. Bentley, R.A. Finkel, An algorithm for finding best matches in sequences in wheat residue burning condition, Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 4 (8)
logarithmic expected time, ACM Trans. Math Software 3 (3) (1977) 209–226. (2013) 1731–1736.
[29] D. Arya, Plant species used as traditional agricultural implements and tools in [62] M. Erkan, A. Dogan, Harvesting of horticultural commodities, in: Postharvest
Garwhal region of western Himalaya, Ind. J. Sci. Res. Technol. 2 (1) (2014) Technology of Perishable Horticultural Commodities, Woodhead Publishing,
69–72. 2019, pp. 129–159.
[30] W. Durant, Caesar and Christ: the Story of Civilization, vol. III, 1980. [63] G.E. Coppock, A.F. Grows, M.S. More, Harvesting ‘Valencia’oranges with a limb
[31] L. Adkins, R.A. Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, Infobase publishing, shaker, Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 11 (1971) 84–88.
2014. [64] H.R. Sumner, G.E. Coppock, D.B. Churchill, S.L. Hedden, Shaker removal methods
[32] E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Abridged affect ‘Valencia’ orange yield— second year, Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 92
Edition, Penguin, 2000. (1979) 54–56.
[33] J.E. Lewis (Ed.), The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness Ancient Rome: the History of [65] G.E. Coppock, D.B. Churchill, S.L. Hedden, Shaker stroke affects selective removal
the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire in the Words of Those Who Were There, of ‘Valencia’ oranges, Trans. ASAE 28 (4) (1985) 1094–1096.
Running Press, 2003. [66] H.R. Sumner, Selective harvesting of ‘Valencia’ oranges with a vertical canopy
[34] A. Gongal, S. Amatya, M. Karkee, Q. Zhang, K. Lewis, Sensors and systems for shaker, Trans. ASAE 16 (6) (1973) 1024–1026.
fruit detection and localization: a review, Comput. Electron. Agric. 116 (2012) [67] J.D. Whitney, S.L. Hedden, H.R. Sumner, Harvesting ‘Valencia’ oranges with a
8–19. vertical foliage shaker, Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 86 (1974) 41–48.
[35] K.G. Fue, W.M. Porter, E.M. Barnes, G.C. Rains, Visual inverse kinematics for [68] J.D. Whitney, T.A. Wheaton, Shakers affect Florida orange fruit yields and
cotton picking robot, 8–10 January, in: Proceedings of the 2019 Beltwide Cotton harvesting efficiency, Appl. Eng. Agric. 3 (1) (1987) 20–24.
Conferences, NCC, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2019, pp. 730–742. [69] S.L. Hedden, D.B. Churchill, J.D. Whitney, Trunk shakers for citrus harvesting,
[36] E. Navas, R. Fernandez, D. Sepúlveda, M. Armada, P. Gonzalez-de-Santos, part II: tree growth, fruit yield and removal, Appl. Eng. Agric. 4 (2) (1988)
A design criterion based on shear energy consumption for robotic harvesting 102–106. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 86-1069.
tools, Agronomy 10 (5) (2020) 734. [70] J.D. Whitney, Field Test Results with Mechanical Harvesting Equipment in
[37] K.F. Sanders, Orange harvesting systems review, Biosyst. Eng. 90 (2) (2005) Florida Oranges, ASAE Paper No. 98-1092, 1998.
115–125. [71] Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J. Long, R. Girshick, T. Darrell,
[38] N. Benkeblia, D.P.F. Tennant, S.K. Jawandha, P.S. Gill, Preharvest and harvest Caffe: convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding, in: Proceedings of
factors influencing the postharvest quality of tropical and subtropical fruits, in: the 22nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2014, November,
Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits, pp. 675–678.
Woodhead Publishing, 2011, pp. 112–142e. [72] J.D. Whitney, Citrus Harvest results with the air shaker concept pp 250–254, in:
[39] Keerti, Raghuveer, A Review - mechanical harvesting is alternative to manual Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting of the Florida State Horticultural Society,
harvesting, Bull. Environ., Pharmacol. Life Sci. 7 (11) (2018) 181–187. 1973.
[40] D.L. Peterson, Harvester picks ripe citrus faster, Agric. Res. 46 (3) (1998) 8–9.

27
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

[73] J.D. Whitney, Design and performance of an air shaker for citrus fruit removal, estimation, in: Big Data Analytics and Computational Intelligence for
Trans. ASAE 20 (1) (1977) 52–56. Cybersecurity, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 299–323.
[74] G.A. Brown, R.J. Hutton, Machines for harvesting citrus fruit, in: Proceedings... [105] J. Lv, H. Xu, L. Xu, L. Zou, H. Rong, B. Yang, Z. Ma, Recognition of fruits and
International Society of Citriculture, vol. 4, 1980, pp. 99–102. vegetables with similar-color background in natural environment: a survey,
[75] Y. Luo, L. Wei, L. Xu, Q. Zhang, J. Liu, Q. Cai, W. Zhang, Stereo-vision-based J. Field Robot. 39 (6) (2022) 888–904.
multi-crop harvesting edge detection for precise automatic steering of combine [106] B. Darwin, P. Dharmaraj, S. Prince, D.E. Popescu, D.J. Hemanth, Recognition of
harvester, Biosyst. Eng. 215 (2022) 115–128. bloom/yield in crop images using deep learning models for smart agriculture: a
[76] A. English, P. Ross, D. Ball, P. Corke, Vision based guidance for robot navigation review, Agronomy 11 (4) (2021) 646.
in agriculture, in: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and [107] H.A. Williams, M.H. Jones, M. Nejati, M.J. Seabright, J. Bell, N.D. Penhall, B.
Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2014, May, pp. 1693–1698. A. MacDonald, Robotic kiwifruit harvesting using machine vision, convolutional
[77] S. Himesh, E.P. Rao, K.C. Gouda, K.V. Ramesh, V. Rakesh, G.N. Mohapatra, neural networks, and robotic arms, Biosyst. Eng. 181 (2019) 140–156.
P. Ajilesh, Digital Revolution and Big Data: a New Revolution in Agriculture, [108] A. Bhargava, A. Bansal, Fruits and vegetables quality evaluation using computer
CABI Reviews, 2018, pp. 1–7, 2018. vision: a review, J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 33 (3) (2021) 243–257.
[78] Y. Zhang, The role of precision agriculture, Resour. 26 (6) (2019), 9-9. [109] M.H. Saleem, J. Potgieter, K.M. Arif, Automation in agriculture by machine and
[79] A. Bechar, C. Vigneault, Agricultural robots for field operations: concepts and deep learning techniques: a review of recent developments, Precis. Agric. 22
components, Biosyst. Eng. 149 (2016) 94–111. (2021) 2053–2091.
[80] E.R. Benson, J.F. Reid, Q. Zhang, Machine vision-based guidance system for [110] Y. Tang, M. Chen, C. Wang, L. Luo, J. Li, G. Lian, X. Zou, Recognition and
agricultural grain harvesters using cut-edge detection, Biosyst. Eng. 86 (4) (2003) localization methods for vision-based fruit picking robots: a review, Front. Plant
389–398. Sci. 11 (2020) 510.
[81] M. Iida, Y. Ikemura, M. Suguri, R. Masuda, Cut-edge and stubble detection for [111] W. Jia, Y. Zhang, J. Lian, Y. Zheng, D. Zhao, C. Li, Apple harvesting robot under
auto-steering system of combine harvester using machine vision, IFAC Proc. Vol. information technology: a review, Int. J. Adv. Rob. Syst. 17 (3) (2020),
43 (26) (2010) 145–150. 1729881420925310.
[82] W. Cho, H. Kurita, M. Iida, M. Suguri, R. Masuda, Autonomous positioning of the [112] M.K. Tripathi, D.D. Maktedar, A role of computer vision in fruits and vegetables
unloading auger of a combine harvester by a laser sensor and GNSS, Eng. Agric., among various horticulture products of agriculture fields: a survey, Inf. Process.
Environ. Food 8 (3) (2015) 178–186. Agric. 7 (2) (2020) 183–203.
[83] M.Z. Ahmad, A. Akhtar, A.Q. Khan, A.A. Khan, Simplified Vision Based Automatic [113] J. Naranjo-Torres, M. Mora, R. Hernández-García, R.J. Barrientos, C. Fredes,
Navigation for Wheat Harvesting in Low Income Economies, 2015 arXiv preprint A. Valenzuela, A review of convolutional neural network applied to fruit image
arXiv:1501.02376. processing, Appl. Sci. 10 (10) (2020) 3443.
[84] Z. Zhang, E. Kayacan, B. Thompson, G. Chowdhary, High precision control and [114] A. Koirala, K.B. Walsh, Z. Wang, C. McCarthy, Deep learning–Method overview
deep learning-based corn stand counting algorithms for agricultural robot, Aut. and review of use for fruit detection and yield estimation, Comput. Electron.
Robots 44 (2020) 1289–1302. Agric. 162 (2019) 219–234.
[85] S. Pan, H. Guan, Y. Chen, Y. Yu, W. Nunes Gonçalves, J. Marcato Junior, J. Li, [115] R.U. Ayres, L.W. Ayres, B. Warr, Exergy, power and work in the US economy,
Landcover classification of multispectral LiDAR data using CNN with optimized 1900–1998, Energy 28 (3) (2003) 219–273.
hyperparameters, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 166 (2020) 241–254, [116] W.J. White, Economic History of Tractors in the United States, in: EH. Net
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.05.022. Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples, 2001.
[86] C. Debain, T. Chateau, M. Berducat, P. Martinet, P. Bonton, A guidance-assistance [117] G. Constable, B. Somerville (Eds.), A Century of Innovation: Twenty Engineering
system for agricultural vehicles, Comput. Electron. Agric. 25 (1–2) (2000) 29–51. Achievements that Transformed Our Lives, Joseph Henry Press, 2003.
[87] N.V. Reddy, A.V.V.V. Reddy, S. Pranavadithya, J.J. Kumar, A critical review on [118] J.M. Shockley, C.R. Dillon, S.A. Shearer, An economic feasibility assessment of
agricultural robots, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 7 (4) (2016) 183–188. autonomous field machinery in grain crop production, Precis. Agric. 20 (2019)
[88] J. Kneip, P. Fleischmann, K. Berns, Crop edge detection based on stereo vision, 1068–1085.
Robot. Autonom. Syst. 123 (2020), 103323. [119] M.R. Alizadeh, I. Bagheri, M.H. Payman, Evaluation of a rice reaper used for
[89] B. Li, Y. Yang, C. Qin, X. Bai, L. Wang, Improved random sampling consensus rapeseed harvesting, Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2 (4) (2007) 388–397.
algorithm for vision navigation of intelligent harvester robot, Ind. Robot: Int. J. [120] R. Wingate-Hill, T.K. Le, G.A. Brown, Economic evaluation of two mechanized
Robot. Res. Appl. 47 (6) (2020) 881–887. systems for harvesting Valencia oranges, J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 47 (1) (1981)
[90] L. Wang, M. Liu, Path tracking control for autonomous harvesting robots based on 3–10.
improved double arc path planning algorithm, J. Intell. Rob. Syst. 100 (2020) [121] R.M. Stieller, G.D. Hill, B.A. McKenzie, Evaluating new chickpea (Cicer arietinum
899–909. L.) genotypes in Canterbury, 24, in: Proceedings Agronomy Society of NZ, 1994,
[91] H.B. Atinkut, T. Yan, F. Zhang, S. Qin, H. Gai, Q. Liu, Cognition of agriculture pp. 24–29.
waste and payments for a circular agriculture model in Central China, Sci. Rep. 10 [122] G. Mamta, K. Manpreet, S. Inderjit, S. Sarvjeet, P.M. Gaur, Developing chickpea
(1) (2020), 10826. cultivars suitable for mechanical harvesting, 24–23, in: Proceeding of
[92] C.S. Pereira, R. Morais, M.J. Reis, Recent advances in image processing International Conference on Food and Agricultural Engineering, 2015.
techniques for automated harvesting purposes: a review, in: 2017 Intelligent [123] H.L.C. Ribeiro, L.S. Boiteux, C.A.F. Santos, Genetic parameters of earliness and
Systems Conference (IntelliSys), IEEE, 2017, September, pp. 566–575. plant architecture traits suitable for mechanical harvesting of cowpea (Vigna
[93] Z. Iqbal, M.A. Khan, M. Sharif, J.H. Shah, M.H. ur Rehman, K. Javed, An unguiculata), Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 8 (8) (2014) 1232–1238.
automated detection and classification of citrus plant diseases using image [124] P. Munirathnam, V. Jayalakshmi, K.A. Kumar, Y. Padmalatha, Suitability of
processing techniques: a review, Comput. Electron. Agric. 153 (2018) 12–32. chickpea ‘NBeG47’for mechanical harvesting under rainfed condition, J. Food
[94] D.I. Patrício, R. Rieder, Computer vision and artificial intelligence in precision Legumes 28 (2) (2015) 64–66.
agriculture for grain crops: a systematic review, Comput. Electron. Agric. 153 [125] D. Kim, J. Choi, B. Jung, D. Son, U. Sang, K. Kim, Proper seeding time for
(2018) 69–81. mechanical harvesting in mungbean, Korean J. Crop Sci./Hanguk Jakmul Hakhoe
[95] G. Pajares, I. García-Santillán, Y. Campos, M. Montalvo, J.M. Guerrero, L. Emmi, Chi 54 (1) (2009) 7–12.
P. Gonzalez-de-Santos, Machine-vision systems selection for agricultural vehicles: [126] G.C. Bora, G.K. Hansen, Low cost mechanical aid for rice harvesting, J. Appl. Sci.
a guide, J. Imag. 2 (4) (2016) 34. 7 (23) (2007) 3815–3818.
[96] J.F. Reid, Q. Zhang, N. Noguchi, M. Dickson, Agricultural automatic guidance [127] K. Chandrakanthappa, S.B. Batagurki, C. Kammar, Evaluation of different
research in North America, Comput. Electron. Agric. 25 (1–2) (2000) 155–167. threshing methods for primary processing of finger millet, Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 35
[97] A. Bechar, C. Vigneault, Agricultural robots for field operations: concepts and (2) (2001) 128–132.
components, Biosyst. Eng. 149 (2016) 94–111. [128] S.K. Roy, K. Jusoff, W. Ismail, D. Ahmed, Performance Evaluation of a Combiner
[98] N. Shalal, T. Low, C. McCarthy, N. Hancock, A review of autonomous navigation Harvester in Malaysian Paddy Field, in: Paper presented at 19th Asia-Pasific
systems in agricultural environments, SEAg 2013: Innovative Agricultural Advanced Network (APAN), University Science Malaysia (USM), Penang,
Technologies for a Sustainable, Future (2013) 1–16. Malaysia, 2001. August 2022.
[99] S. Yaghoubi, N.A. Akbarzadeh, S.S. Bazargani, S.S. Bazargani, M. Bamizan, M. [129] R. Lovemi, M. Ahmed, M.H. Mian, Effect of harvesting time on the milling and
I. Asl, Autonomous robots for agricultural tasks and farm assignment and future physiochemical properties of rice, J. Agric. Sci. 42 (2) (2009) 91–96.
trends in agro robots, Int. J. Mech. Mechatron. Eng. 13 (3) (2013) 1–6. [130] R. Abdul, Tahir, H.K. Faizan, E. Khurram, Techno-economic feasibility of
[100] T. Torii, Research in autonomous agriculture vehicles in Japan, Comput. Electron. combiner harvester, Int. J. Agric. Biol. 5 (1) (2003) 1560–8530.
Agric. 25 (1–2) (2000) 133–153. [131] J. Ponican, M. Angelovic, J. Jech, M. Zitnac, J. Galambosova, P. Findura, The
[101] B. Ji, W. Zhu, B. Liu, C. Ma, X. Li, Review of recent machine-vision technologies in effect of the design concept of combiner harvester threshing mechanism on the
agriculture, in: 2009 Second International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition maize crop threshing quality, Savremena Poljoprivredna Tehnika 35 (4) (2009)
and Modeling vol. 3, IEEE, 2009, November, pp. 330–334. 268–274.
[102] F. Xiao, H. Wang, Y. Xu, R. Zhang, Fruit detection and recognition based on deep [132] C.S. Pawar, N.A. Shirsat, S.V. Pathak, Performance evaluation of combine
learning for automatic harvesting: an overview and review, Agronomy 13 (6) harvester and combination of self propelled vertical conveyor reaper with
(2023) 1625. thresher for wheat harvesting, Agric. Update 3 (1/2) (2008) 123–126.
[103] J. Lv, H. Xu, L. Xu, L. Zou, H. Rong, B. Yang, Z. Ma, Recognition of fruits and [133] K. Salari, C.R. Amiri, J. Khazaei, P.J. Amiri, Optimization of independent
vegetables with similar-color background in natural environment: a survey, parameters for chickpea threshing using response surface method (RSM), J. Agric.
J. Field Robot. 39 (6) (2022) 888–904. Sci. 15 (9) (2013) 467–477.
[104] F. Aslam, Z. Khan, A. Tahir, K. Parveen, F.O. Albasheer, S. Ul Abrar, D.M. Khan, [134] Z. Shamabadi, Measurement the wheat losses in harvesting stage, Intl. J. Agric.
A survey of deep learning methods for fruit and vegetable detection and yield Crop Sci. 4 (23) (2012) 1797–1802.

28
B. Kaur et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (2023) 100814

[135] R. Kalsirisilp, Performance evaluation of a Thai-made rice combine harvester, Bangladesh, in: 2018 ASABE Annual International Meeting, American Society of
Agric. Mech. Asia, Afr. Latin Am. 30 (4) (1999) 63–69. Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2018, p. 1.
[136] M.T. Anwar, N. Amjad, A.W. Zafar, Development and field performance of [149] P. Li, S. Lee, H.-Y. Hsu, Review on fruit harvesting method for potential use of
chickpea thresher, AMA 22 (3) (1991) 73–78. automatic fruit harvesting systems, Procedia Eng. 23 (2011) 351–366, https://
[137] M.C. Zhang, M.L. Zhang, Y. Cheng, L. Guang, S. Zhang, Mechanical harvesting doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2514.
effects on seed yield loss, quality traits and profitability of winter oilseed rape [150] P.S. Tiwari, T.R. Gurung, R.K. Sahni, V. Kumar, in: T.R. Gurung, W. Kabir, S.
(Brassica napus l.), J. Integr. Agric. 11 (8) (2012) 1297–1304. M. Bokhtiar (Eds.), Agricultural Mechanization Trends in SAARC Region, 2017.
[138] P.K. Padmanathan, K. Kathirvel, R. Manian, V.M. Duraisamy, Design, [151] J. Kienzle, J.E. Ashburner, B.G. Sims, Plant Production and Protection Division,
development and evaluation of tractor operated groundnut combine harvester, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Rome.
J. Appl. Sci. Res. 12 (2) (2006) 1338–1341. Mechanization for Rural Development: A Review of Patterns and Progress from
[139] M. Veerangouda, S. Sushilendra, K.V. Prakash, M. Anantachar, Performance Around the World, 2013.
evaluation of tractor operated combine harvester, Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 23 (2) [152] M.S. Mahmud, M.Q. Neesa, M.M. Hossain, M.M.A. Hossain, Impact Evaluation of
(2010) 282–285. Agricultural Production and Rural Employment through Extension of Agricultural
[140] M. Hassena, R. Ensermu, W.M. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, A Comparative Assessment Engineering Technologies (2nd Revised). Implementation Monitoring and
of Combine Harvesting Vis-A-Vis Conventional Harvesting and Threshing in Arsi Evaluation Division (IMED), Evaluation Sector, Available from: URL:, Ministry of
Region, Ethiopia, CIMMYT, Institutional Multimedia Publications Repository, Planning, Dhaka, 2014 http://imed.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/imed.
2000, pp. 111–123. portal.gov.bd/page/e773d5bf_182e_4fc5_a856_dfd3c8d05ced/enhancement_agri.
[141] A.E. Ahmed, A.O. Alam-Eldin, An assessment of mechanical vs manual harvesting pdf (accessed May 16 2 2015).
of the sugarcane in Sudan–The case of Sennar Sugar Factory, J. Saudi Soc. Agric. [153] World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The
Sci. 14 (2) (2015) 160–166. World Bank, Agriculture for Development, World Development Report,
[142] H.R. Shinde, R.R. Suryawanshi, B.B. Gawade, A.N. Ratnaparkhe, M.S. Jadhav, U. Washington DC, 2007.
S. Bonder, Mechanization of harvesting: away to increase economic efficiency in [154] M.D. Nikam, S.H. Thakare, V.P. Khambalkar, S.S. Karhale, Study of economics of
sugarcane marketing, Ind. J. Agric. Market. 27 (3) (2013) 182–185. manual and mechanical harvesting method of sorghum crop, Int. J. Curr.
[143] Upasana, An Economic Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting of Tur in North Microbiol. Appl. Sci 6 (6) (2017) 1211–1217.
karnataka. M. Sc(Agri), Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, [155] Y. Hua, N. Zhang, X. Yuan, L. Quan, J. Yang, K. Nagasaka, X.G. Zhou, Recent
Karnataka (India), 2016. advances in intelligent automated fruit harvesting robots, Open Agric. J. 13 (1)
[144] M.R. Alizadeh, I. Bagheri, M.H. Payman, Evaluation of a rice reaper used for (2019).
rapeseed harvesting, Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2 (4) (2007) 388–397. [156] J. Zhou, L. He, Q. Zhang, M. Karkee, Effect of excitation position of a handheld
[145] S. Praweenwongwuthi, S. Laohasiriwong, A.T. Rambo, Impacts of rice combine shaker on fruit removal efficiency and damage in mechanical harvesting of sweet
harvesters on economic and social of farmers in a village of the Tung Kula cherry, Biosyst. Eng. 125 (2014) 36–44.
Ronghai Region, Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 6 (6) (2010) 778–784. [157] R.R. Sola-Guirado, D. Ceular-Ortiz, J.A. Gil-Ribes, Automated system for real time
[146] https://icar.org.in/content/harvesting-and-threshing-equipment-aicrp-farm-im tree canopy contact with canopy shakers, Comput. Electron. Agric. 143 (2017)
plements-and-machinery, Accessed on August 1, 2023. 139–148.
[147] K.S. Devi, T. Ponnarasi, An economic analysis of modern rice production [158] https://jagoda.com.pl/fruit-shakers/fruit-shaker-pestka/, accessed on 7 October
technology and its adoption behaviour in Tamil Nadu (347-2016-16872), Agric. 2023.
Econ. Res. Rev. 22 (2009) 341–348. [159] https://www.agriculture-xprt.com/products/balkar-model-654-field-star-co
[148] M.R. Ali, M.K. Hasan, C.K. Saha, M.M. Alam, M.M. Hossain, P.K. Kalita, A. mbine-harvesters-833141, accessed on 7 October 2023.
C. Hansen, Role of mechanical rice harvesting in socio-economic development of

29

View publication stats