# Mechanized Grape Harvest Efficiency
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Harvest Losses
In a given year, the results indicated statistically significant results (\(p\) = 0.0027; \(p\) < 0.05; \(Fcrit\) = 4.07; \(F\) > \(Fcrit\)). In terms of statistical evaluation, we decided to subject the results obtained to the impact of the year of collection on the total losses incurred. From the results, it can be said that statistically significant differences were achieved for one variety (Tramin Red) (\(p\) = 0.0025; \(Fcrit\) = 4.07; \(F\) > \(Fcrit\)) significant differences (\(p\) > 0.05). According to the results of authors [12; 14; 33] it can be stated that acceptable values have been achieved by standard and practice. According to older sources, i.e., [34], a loss rate of 3.0-12.0% is permissible. When the grapes are harvested, losses occur which ultimately affect the overall harvest. In the case of mechanized harvesting, these are losses by falling to the ground and losses by non-harvesting. Scientific studies dealing with the issue point to results with values oscillating around 3% as appropriate. The number of losses depends on the input parameters of a technical or technological nature (travel speed during harvest, frequency and amplitude of oscillations, fan speed, and throughput gap), on the characteristics of the stand (stand density, ripeness, variety) and on weather and soil conditions. From a technological point of view, the ripeness of the grapes influences the setting of the frequency of the vibrations of the shaking device. In the case of mechanized harvesting of grapes, the operating parameters are set every year due to the change in the state of ripeness and variety during the first 20-30 m [12; 30; 31; 32; 33]. No losses were considered in the manual collection when evaluating the results. By increasing the area, in such a state, the costs of losing the grapes due to non-harvesting or falling are not created. Subsequent comparison thus puts mechanized collection at a disadvantage. However, we know from our own experience that with manual collection, especially in terms of time and physical demands of work, there are both losses by dropping and losses by abandonment. However, the research activity is more complicated because it depends on the selected specific line and thus on the collector that worked on the given line. Unfortunately, we do not have the results of manual collection and their losses available, and therefore we cannot quantify the findings, substantiate them with the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variety** & **Undetached Grape** & **Grapes on the Ground** & **Total** \\ \hline Ruland Grey & 0.56 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 1.82 \(\pm\) 0.14 \\ \hline Ruland White & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.82 \\ \hline Tramin Red & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 1.47 \(\pm\) 0.13 \\ \hline Average losses & 1.10 & 1.07 & 2.17 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Harvest losses, % of production, cv. Ruland Grey, Ruland White, and Tramin Red (2018). resulting numbers, and thus directly compare the losses incurred during mechanized and manual collection. Demonstrable and monitored losses by research are confirmed by the results [35], where they achieved losses by falling berries on the ground during manual harvesting up to 338 kg\(\cdot\)ha\({}^{-1}\) (with a grape harvest of 12.8 t\(\cdot\)ha\({}^{-1}\)-2.64%).