DEVELOPMENT OF A MECHANICAL MANGO FRUIT PICKER

Roger C. Montepio, Asso. Prof 5- AE Faculty, Department of Agrl Engg- USeP;

Joie D. Cataytay. Asst. Prof. 4- AE faculty, Department of Agrl Engg- USeP
Julius A. Aromin, and Ruel F. Tuyogon, Research Associates-USeP

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H E A S T E R N P H I L I P P I NE S T A G U M M A B I N I C A M P U S

ABSTRACT
Harvesting is one of the most important activities in the post-harvest life of fruits.
Pickers are examples of harvesting tools used to increase harvesting capacity and reduce
damage brought about by fruit fall and latex stains. Common problems encountered using
the conventional picker to the mango fruit were latex stain and fruit fall. This research aimed
to reduce the harvesting losses of exportable mangoes due to latex stains, latex burn and
fruit fallen. The existing picker (Sigpao) was modified by fabricating additional blades as
cutting mechanism during pulling and triggering. There were two types of mango picker
designed, the pull type and trigger type. Trigger type was made up of a cutting device
controlled by a trigger and the pull type picker was made of a double blade. Based on the
results compared with the conventional mango picker having an average capacity of 22
pieces/min, the trigger and pull type registered a capacity of 12 pieces/min and 21
pieces/min respectively. Latex stain reduced by 91.77 % for the trigger type picker and
86.88 % for the pull type picker with insignificant number of fallen and mechanically
damaged fruit. When the prototype was subjected to economic cost analysis, results
revealed that the marginal benefit cost ratio (MBCR) for pull-type was 4.21 % and 4.12% for
trigger type and the marginal return on investment (MROI) were 321% and 312%,
respectively. These indicated that the prototype were economically feasible.
Keywords:
Latex

Picker

Pull-type

Trigger-type

INTRODUCTION
Harvesting is an important step of the postharvest handling chain. Utmost care is
very important to maintain product quality before reaching the consumers. Existing
harvesting method is manual picking with the use of picker, locally known as sigpao. It is
made of a two-meter long bamboo handle with a ring frame of 20-cm diameter and 20- cm
depth net which catches the fruit. Growers hire people to harvest fruits using either sigpao
or by climbing on the branches of tall mango trees. Based on preliminary conducted
interviews, with the conventional harvesting practice, around 5% of fruits are usually
dropped resulting to rejection. Further, bruising is also encountered due to impact caused
by the ring of the catching net during pulling. This mechanical damage can also cause
rejection of fruits. Bruising also exposes fruits to microbial infection and will deteriorate
rapidly.

PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE, AQUATIC AND NATURAL

RESOURCES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (PCAARRD)
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (DOST)

2
Medlicott (2000) and Iqbal (2003) mentioned that optimum harvesting involves
cutting device that severs the peduncles two to three cm away from the fruits (this technique
reduces latex exudation and staining and reduces possibility of entrance of pathogenic
fungi). With the use of sigpao, fruit harvesting is done through pulling which detaches the
peduncles causing latex to flow on the fruit resulting in latex stain or if severe, latex burns.
Latex stain is one of the problems in mango harvesting because it would affect the quality of
the fruit. Another practice of preventing excessive flow of latex is by scheduling harvest at
9:00 oclock in the morning of a fair day. However, mangoes harvested beyond the said
time are exposed to higher temperature. This would speed up respiration and transpiration
resulting in considerable weight loss. Using improved fruit picker, it will result to high volume
of marketable fruits with low percentage of rejects. With this device, harvesting can now be
done earlier than 9:00 AM since latex flow is very low. With the development of mechanical
fruit picker, significant reduction in harvesting time can be realized.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This activity aimed to reduce fruit damage
compressed/bumped, and latex-burned, during harvesting;

such

as

fruit

bruising,

This activity was purposely carried out to achieve the following specific objectives:
a) Design and fabricate the component parts of the fruit picker such as: (1) fruit cutter
and holder, (2) fruit catcher, and (3) expandable handle;
b) Test the performance of the fruit picker in terms of picking capacity, minimal number
of uncaught fruit and bruises/mechanical damage and;
c) Undertake in measuring the acceptability and economic implications.
METHODOLOGY
Development of a Mechanical Mango Fruit Picker
This
included
the
development
of
design
consideration and concept based
from the evaluation of the existing
picker sigpao, (Figure 1) and
other fruit pickers as stated in the
review of literature.
The
modification of the conventional
picker was made due to large
percentage of latex stain to the
fruits during harvest. Figure 2
shows the procedural framework
of the research study. It started

Figure 1. Existing (Sigpao) mango picker

3
with the assessment of existing mango pickers and interviewed of selected mango growers
and performance evaluation of the final prototype.

Figure 2. Procedural Framework of the Activity

Assessment of existing sigpao

Table 1 shows the mean assessment
results of existing sigpao. It was observed
that high percentage of latex stain and fruit
fallen occurred. High latex stain was due to
rough handling and method of harvesting
which was shearing.

Number of fruits harvested per tree

64.5 pcs

Time per harvest

2 minutes and 25 sec

Weight of harvested fruits

21.065 kg

Number of fruits with latex

20 pcs (31%)

Weight of fruits with latex

7.6677 kg (36.4 %)

Number of fruits w/ mechanical damage

None

Weight of fruits w/ mechanical damage

None

Number of fallen fruits

5 (7.71%)

Design Concept
The proposed design was a modification of the existing mango picker. Harvesting will
be done by cutting instead of shearing. The target harvesting capacity was 6 to 9 pcs per
min. Modification of the frame, cutter and handle/pole was done to improve its efficiency.
Design Criteria/Considerations
a. Portable picker;
b. Operators safety consideration;
c. Light weight, locally available and substitute material;

4
d. Expandable handle (picker);
e. Minimum maintenance;
f. Harvesting time of one worker should be less than the time of manual harvesting and
using conventional sigpao;
g. High harvesting capacity; and
h. Adaptability/adoptability
Prototype Picker Design
Finalization of design, materials and fabrication of prototype was done in USeP and
in partnership with the AMMDA-members in Region XI.

Testing and Evaluation Stage

The study was conducted in
Pagsabangan, Davao del Norte and
Samal Island Garden City. There
RD
3 (lastly the upper portion of the tree)
were three types of pickers that were
tested in the field to harvest
ND
mangoes. The modified pickers were
2 (next is middle portion of the tree)
the trigger type picker and the pull
type (double blade) picker, while the
ST
1 (start at lower portion of the tree)
conventional picker was sigpao.
Three different picker harvesters
were also selected. This was
assessed the efficiency of the
existing picker specifically its frame,
cutter and pole using the verifiable
Indicators of picker efficiency:
a. picker capacity/rate ( pcs/min) number of fruits harvested per unit time;
b. percent (weight) of fruit fallen/dropped - number of fruits wasted / total fruits
harvested;
c. percent (weight) with latex stain - number of fruits with latex stain / total number
of fruits harvested; and
Laboratory Experiment
This included testing the functionality of components, determination of picker
specifications, and laboratory performance. The experiment was carried out using CRD with
three replications. A mango tree was marked into three levels of fruit height from the ground.
Two test samples were collected per treatment combination.

5
Field testing and experimental design

Performance evaluation for picker was based on harvest capacity, percentage of

bruises and fruit fallen. The improved fruit picker and the sigpao were tested for two
mango trees with visually the same number of fruits.
To determine the harvesting capacity, percentage of latex stain and fruit fallen, two
factors were considered: (1) type of picker, and (2) position of harvesting in the tree
canopy. Three types of picker were evaluated in the test, (1) pull type, (2) trigger type and
(3) conventional picker (Figure 3). In terms of position in harvesting, these were (1) the
upper portion, (2) middle, (3) lower portion of the tree, and (4) climbing on the branches.
Field testing was carried out using CRD with three replications.
To test and analyze the factors, Complete Randomized Design (CRD) of Analysis of Variance was u
GREEN MANGOES

TRIGGER TYPE

PULL TYPE
WITH
CUTTER

CONVENTIONAL
TIONAL TYPE (SIGPAO)

PIECES OF MANGOES per tree

1. time per pcs harvested

2. number of latex stains
3. number of mechanical damage
4. number of fallen fruits
Figure 3. Data gathering procedure for the mango pickers

Economic Analysis
Table 2 presents the assumptions as basis of computation for marginal benefit cost
ratio and return on investment. Assumptions were based on current prices and custom rates
during the conduct of the study.
TABLE 2. ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
Conventional

Pull Type Picker

Trigger Type Picker

1. Assumed Area

Area:10 ha

Area: 10 ha

Area: 10 ha

2. Total Weight harvested/ha

100 tons =
100,000kg
(4pcs/kg)

100 tons =
100,000kg
(4pcs/kg)

100 tons =
100,000kg
(4pcs/kg)

6
3. Number of pieces of Export Quality
Mangoes
40 % per harvest

160,000- (27.4
%latex)

160,000(8.5%latex)

160,000(7.34%latex)

4. Number of Export Quality Mangoes

116,160 pcs

146,400 pcs

148,256 pcs

5. Weight of Export Mangoes

29,040 kg

36,600 kg

37,064 kg

6. Pricing of Export Mango

Farm Price
Retail Price

Php 45.00
Php 80.00

Php 45.00
Php 80.00

Php 45.00
Php 80.00

7. Labor cost of 15 pickerman/10 ha

Php 9,000.00

Php 15,000.00

Php 18,000.00

8. Total Income
Farm (Php)
Retail (Php)

1,306,800
2,323,200

1,647,000
2,928,000

1,667,880
2,965,120

9. Gross Income
Farm (Php)
Retail (Php)

1, 297,800
2,314,200

1,632,000
2,913,000

1,649,880
2,947,120

598,800

632,920

10. Additional Income of USEP picker (Php)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Development of a Mechanical Mango Fruit Picker
Figure 4 shows the prototype of mango pickers. Two modified prototypes were
fabricated based on the needs and requirements of clientele. Three type of pickers were
tested in the field used for harvesting mangoes. The modified pickers were the trigger type
picker and the pull type (double blade) picker, while the conventional picker was sigpao
(Figure 4).

a. Sigpao

b. Pull-type Picker

c. Trigger-type Picker

Figure 4. Different types of picker

Picking Capacity
The three pickers were evaluated in terms of picking capacity. Results revealed that
the conventional sigpao had the highest picking capacity among the three picker types. Data
shows that 24.5 pcs per minute was obtained using sigpao at the middle harvesting position,
16.353 pcs per minute using pull type at the lower harvesting position and 18.285 pcs per

HARVESTING
POSITIONS

minute using trigger type in the same harvesting position. These lower picking capacities of
the USeP modified pickers were greatly affected by the ability and experience of the picker
man. Since they were used to harvest using sigpao for many years, their training in using
the USeP modified pickers was not enough to master the techniques and shift their
connoisseurship
from using sigpao Table 3. Capacity of the three pickers
to using modified
TYPES OF PICKER
pickers.
TRIGGER
PULL TYPE
SIGPAO
B
B
Furthermore, their
Lower
18.285
16.353
22A
confidence
is
Middle
16.211B
11.774C
24.5A
lesser in using
new tools than
upper
10.355C
11.365C
18B
using the common
Climbed
7.9512C
14.81B
22A
tools
for
Note: the same superscripts means not significant
harvesting.

Latex Stain

HARVESTING
POSITIONS

Table 4 shows that the highest latex stain was obtained using sigpao. Sigpao
basically works through the pulling action (shearing) done by the picker man. Pull type
picker also works by pulling, only that, pulling action was lessened through incorporating two
sharp blades. And trigger type picker, on the other hand, works through the cutting
mechanism of triggered scissors. According to Yahia, latex was caused by pulling the
mango fruit and pulling the fruit, in addition to dropping it, results in leaving it without a stem,
and that increases problems of latex flow, water loss, and decay (Yahia, E.M, 1998). The
results also revealed that in every harvesting position, the use of sigpao causes the most
latex stain among the three types of picker.
Data when subjected to T-test, the capacity of the trigger type and the conventional
had a significant difference in terms of its capacity. The trigger type picker harvested fewer
mangoes because it consumed time in inserting the mango in the frame ring and controlling
the triggering device. Thus, the latex stain made by the sigpao or conventional method was
20.68% to 21.84 % greater than the two modified pickers.
Table 4. Latex Stained of the Mango fruit (%)
It was observed that
TYPES OF PICKER
these latex stains were
not caused by the trigger
TRIGGER PULL TYPE
SIGPAO
A
B
of the picker but it was
Lower
30
10
40.78A
due to the picker mans
harsh way of putting the
Middle
15B
14.09B
24.33A
mangoes to the crates
that resulted the cutting
upper
0B
28.335A
28.88A
of
the
peduncle.
However,
if
the
Climbed
0B
14.09B
9.105B
mangoes
were
Note: the same superscripts means not significant

8
connected with 3 or more peduncle in one panicle the pull type picker was difficult to
position the mangoes with a two or single blade that causes the mango to cut by pull action
and would result to latex stain. Pulling out of stems from fruit when harvesting has to be
avoided at all costs because broken skin at the point of attachment of the stem is particularly
susceptible to a decay condition known as stem end rot (De la Cruz, J., 2002).
Fruit Drop/Fallen

HARVESTING
POSITIONS

It is evident in Table 5 that the use of sigpao had far more number of fruit drop
compared to USeP modified pickers. Using sigpao, fruit drop was more observable at the
lower and climbed harvesting positions than that at the middle and upper harvesting
positions with the most number of fruit drop observed at the climbed position. However,
using the USeP modified pickers; there was no significant difference of fruit drop in all
Table 5. Fruit drop during harvest (%)
harvesting
TYPES OF PICKER
positions. Hence,
TRIGGER PULL TYPE
SIGPAO
based on the
C
C
Lower
0
0
18.5405A
obtained
data,
USeP
modified
Middle
5C
0C
12.035A
pickers
significantly
upper
0C
8.335B
18.215A
lessened
fruit
Climbed
0C
5C
22.56A
drop uniformly in
Note: the same superscripts means not significant
all
harvesting
positions.

COST ANALYSIS

The cost and return analysis was based on obtain average capacity, percentage loss
due to latex stain, mechanical damage and fallen fruits were counted and considered on the
performance of each fruit pickers
Conventional
Pull Type Picker
Trigger Type Picker
(Table 6).
Results based on the partial
Average
22 pcs/min
21 pcs/min
12 pcs/min
budget analysis, the benefit of using Capacity
the USeP modified pickers either (pcs/min)
8.5%
7.34%
with the use of Pull Type picker or Percent fruits 27.4%
With Latex
Trigger type picker, is through the
Php 180.00
Php 221.00
Php 348.50
additional income of P259, 483.20 Cost per
picker
and
P273,384.28,
respectively *Average
2.32 hrs/ha/15
3.36 hrs/ha/15
4.24 hrs/ha/15
(Table 7). Thus, it would be an time:
pickerman-day
pickerman-day
Pickerman-day
(average time harvest at the (average time harvest at (average time harvest at the
advantage if farmers will use either assumption
of
10,000kg/ha top, middle, bottom and climbed the top, middle, bottom and top, middle, bottom and
40,000 of the tree)
climbed of the tree)
climbed of the tree)
of the two modified pickers of USeP. (4pcs/kg)=
pcs
500 PCS/TREE

Table 7.

Partial Budget Analysis of USING USEP MODIFIED PICKERS INSTEAD OF

CONVENTIONAL SIGPAO OF FARMERS (1 ha)
Pull Type
Trigger Type
Php 340, 000.00
Php 361,080.00
A. Added Revenue
0.00
0.00
B. Reduced Costs
TOTAL A&B
340, 000.00
361,080.00
0.00
0.00
C. Reduced Revenues
D. Added Costs
3,315.00
5,227.50
1. USeP Modified Picker
1,575.00
1,987.50
2. Labor Costs
75,826.80
80,480.72
3. Marketing Costs
TOTAL C&D
Change in Net Income
Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio
Marginal Return on Investment

80,716.80
Php 259,483.20
4.21%

87,695.72
Php 273,384.28
4.12%

321%

312%

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

There were three types of pickers that were tested. The trigger type picker, the pull
type double blade and single blade pull type picker. These pickers were compared in terms
of capacity, latex stain and fruit fallen to the existing picker (sigpao).
From the data gathered, there was highly significant difference between the
conventional method (sigpao) and the modified mechanical pickers (Pull type and Trigger
type). The conventional method registered an average of 22 pcs/min harvesting capacity.
Twenty three and 40/100 percent (23.40%) of these were generally stained with latex. It also
registered five (5) fallen fruit out of 64 fruits. The trigger type picker has an average capacity
of about 12 pc/min with 0 to 1.25% fruit fallen. Having an average latex stain of 7.34 %
relatively lower than using sigpao. While the pull type picker has an average capacity at
nearly 21 pcs/min with 3.32 % fallen fruit. However, it registered higher percentage of
latexed fruits (about 8.53%) than using trigger type picker but lower when compared with
conventional method. The pull type registered relatively higher capacity than the trigger type
and almost the same capacity with the sigpao.
Fruits were found to have latex stain but they were fewer when compared with that of
sigpao.
From the data gathered, Trigger type fruit picker and the conventional picker had a
significant difference in terms of its capacity. The trigger type picker harvested fewer
mangos because it consumed time in inserting the mango in the frame ring and controlling
the triggering device.

10
RECOMMENDATION
As per results of the study and based on the conclusions drawn, the researchers
stated specific and general recommendations:
1. Use of pull type and trigger type picker for export quality market and requirements.
2. The other side of the cutter blade should have a grove to prevent the panicle from
sliding or slipping when picking the mango fruit.
3. The triggering device should be adjustable and accessible to the picker person.

REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1990. Report on epidemiological health survey on pesticide sprayers. Industrial
Toxicology Research Centre, Lucknow, India
Yuknavage, K. L., Fenske, R. A., Kalman, D. A., Keifer, M., & Furlong, C.E. 1997.Simulated dermal
contamination with capillary samples and field cholinesterase biomonitoring. J Toxicol
Environ Health 51:35-55.
Mehler, L., OMalley, M. A., & Krieger, R. I. 1992. Acute pesticide morbidity and mortality. California
Rev Environ ContamToxicol 129:51-66.
Rosenstock, L., Keifer, M., Daniell, W. E., McConnell, R., &Claypoole, K. 1991. Chronic central
nervous system effects of acute organophosphate pesticide intoxication. Lancet 338: 223227.
London, L., Nell, V., Thompson, M., &Myers, J. E. 1998.Effects of long-term organophosphate
exposures on neurological symptoms, vibration senseand tremor among South African
farmworkers.Scand J Work Environ Health 24: 18-29.
Jackie Boardman (December 2001), Improvement of Post-harvest Handling of fruits and vegetables,
J. De La Cruz Medina, H.S. Garca (June 5, 2002), MANGO: Post-harvest Operations
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/inpho/docs/Post_Harvest_Compendium_-_Mango.pdf
P Kumah (2011)Effect of Hot Water Treatment on Quality and Shelf-Life of mangoes
scihub.org/ABJNA/PDF/2011/5/ABJNA-2-5-806-817.
http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/orchards/mango/post.harvest.handling.of.mangoes.shtml
http://www.agrobalestrini.net/admin/archivos/WATER%20SENSITIVE%20PAPER%20Final.pdf
https://transact.nt.gov.au/ebiz/dbird/TechPublications.nsf/02BC83218B1CBA4A69256EFE004F5BEB/
$file/756.pdf?OpenElement
Acknowledgement:
We take this opportunity to express our grateful acknowledgements to the following: Dr. Rodolfo Ilao,
Engr. Romy Santiago, Dr. Arsenio N. Resurreccion, Dr. Kevin Yaptengco and Dr. Aurelio Delos
Reyes, Dr. Leon Namuco And Dr. Opina - UPLB, all were PCAARRD consultants;
We would like also to acknowledge the PCAARRD-DOST for funding the Project; the USEP
Administration for the support; and especially to the everlasting cooperation of Samal Island Mango
Cooperator, Banay-Banay Mango Contractor, Badas, Mati Mango Contractor, Bansalan, Digos
Mango Cooperator, Tagum City Mango Contractors, New Corrella Mango Growers for helping the
Project throughout its success.