Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T13:19:22.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECT OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF TEA IN TANZANIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2018

S. RUTATINA  and
R. H. V. CORLEY
S. RUTATINA
Affiliation:
Unilever Tea Tanzania, Mufindi, Tanzania
R. H. V. CORLEY*
Affiliation:
Highlands, New Road, Great Barford, Bedford MK44 3LQ, UK
*
§Corresponding author. Email: Herewardc@aol.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Hand plucking of tea is labour intensive, and with rising labour costs mechanical harvesting (MH) is of increasing interest. However, effects of MH on yield and quality of tea remain unclear. We harvested two tea clones for eight years with a small, wheeled machine, to investigate effects of different cutting heights on yield and quality. The harvest interval for machine plots was 40% longer than for hand plucking in the first three years and 100% longer thereafter. The yield response, relative to hand plucking, depended on cutting height. Provided that increase in bush height (table rise) was 6 cm per year or less, yields were 15–21% higher than with hand plucking and increased yield was still being maintained after eight years. The increase in yield appeared to be mainly attributable to the longer harvest interval for machine plots, so that larger shoots were harvested. There was no increase in the number of shoots harvested per year, despite more intensive plucking with the machine. In less intensively harvested plots, where table rise was 11–14 cm per year, yield was reduced compared to hand plucking, and shoot number was nearly 30% lower. Dry matter production was greatest under the least intensive harvesting, but greater intensity gave higher harvest index and yield. In plots with no table rise, but not in other plots, a large amount of die-back of plucked points was observed. This may indicate source limitation of shoot numbers. We conclude that, with an extended harvest interval and careful management of cutting height, the yield of tea can be maintained under MH. There was a reduction in green leaf quality, with coarser shoots and increased mature leaf, but a limited number of taster evaluations of quality of the black tea showed significant differences for only one clone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 560 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Present address: Novel Developments Tanzania Ltd., PO Box 6099, Morogoro, Tanzania.

References

REFERENCES

Barbora, A. C., Sarma, J., Barua, D. C. and Barbora, B. C. (1993). Effect of thermal time regulated mechanised harvesting on yield, plucking efficiency and quality of tea harvest (Camellia sinensis L.). Paper presented at Teatech, 11–14 January, 1993, Calcutta.Google Scholar
Bore, J. K. and Ngetich, W. K. (2000). Mechanical harvesting of tea: 1. Yield and leaf standards. Tea 21:19–23.Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J. and Carr, M. K. V. (1998). The use of leaf appearance rates estimated from measurements of air temperature to determine harvest interval for tea. Experimental Agriculture 34:207–218.Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J., Carr, M. K. V., Mizambwa, F. C. S., Nixon, D. J., Lugusi, J. and Kimambo, E. I. (2006). Evaluation of simple hand-held mechanical systems for harvesting tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 42:165–187.Google Scholar
Chandra Mouli, , , M. R., Onsando, J. M. and Corley, R. H. V. (2007). Intensity of harvesting in tea. Experimental Agriculture 43:41–50.Google Scholar
Corley, R. H. V. and Chomboi, K. C. (2005). Tea tasting – a statistical evaluation of tasters' skills. Tea 26:10–18.Google Scholar
Kamunya, S. M., Jibwa Kale, S., Wanyoko, J. K., Wachira, F. N. and Bore, J. K. (2010). Clonal yield and black tea quality performance under hand and machine plucking. Tea 31:3–12.Google Scholar
Madamombe, G., Tesfamariam, E. and Taylor, N. (2015). Yield decline in mechanically harvested clonal tea (Camellia sinensis (L) O. Kuntze) as influenced by changes in source/sink and radiation interception dynamics in the canopy. Scientia Horticulturae 194:286–294.Google Scholar
Magambo, M. J. S. and Cannell, M. G. R. (1981). Dry matter production and partition in relation to yield of tea. Experimental Agriculture 17:33–38.Google Scholar
Mwakha, E. (1986). Clonal tea response to frequency and height of mechanical harvesting. Tea 7:48–57.Google Scholar
Mwakha, E. (1990). Response of seedling tea to height and frequency of mechanical harvesting in Kenya highlands. Tea 11:8–12.Google Scholar
Obanda, M. and Owuor, P. O., 1995. Clonal variations in the response of black tea quality due to plucking standards. Food Chemistry 53:381–384.Google Scholar
Owuor, P. O., Othieno, C. O., Robinson, J. M. and Baker, D. M. (1991). Changes in the quality parameters of seedling tea due to height and frequency of mechanical harvesting. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 55:241–249.Google Scholar
Stephens, W. and Carr, M. K. V. (1994). Responses of tea (Camellia sinensis) to irrigation and fertilizer. IV. Shoot population density, size and mass. Experimental Agriculture 30:189–205.Google Scholar
Tanton, T. W. (1979). Some factors limiting yields of tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 15:187–191.Google Scholar
Visser, T. (1960). Plucking practices in relation to maintenance foliage. Tea Quarterly 31:38–35.Google Scholar