Published August 10, 2018
Agronomy, Soils, and Environmental Quality
Effect of Soil Management Practices on the
Sweeping Operation during Coffee Harvest
Tiago de Oliveira Tavares, Matheus Anaan de Paula Borba, Bruno Rocca de Oliveira,
Rouverson Pereira da Silva,* Murilo Aparecido Voltarelli, and Antônio Tassio Santana Ormond
Abstract
The mechanical sweeping and picking of coffee berries are nec-
essary to recover berries that naturally fall on the soil during
the mechanical harvesting process. The soil characteristics and
the materials that are collected affect these two operations; in
addition, there are reports that suggest that mechanical sweep-
ing and picking are hampered by subsoiling. In this regard, the
current study evaluated losses during the mechanical sweeping
and picking of coffee cultivated under four soil management
treatments in Presidente Olegário, MG, Brazil. The four treat-
ments consisted of the following soil management practices:
subsoiling and crushing; subsoiling and harrowing; subsoil-
ing followed by harrowing and crushing; and the control, with
no soil management. The soil was prepared in 2014, while the
coffee sweeping and picking occurred in 2015 and 2016. The
experimental design followed the assumptions of statistical pro-
cess control, and fifteen points were evaluated per treatment in
accordance with the statistical process control guidelines. The
lowest loss rates were obtained for the subsoiling and crushing
soil management treatment, whereas harrowing after subsoiling
led to the highest losses and the lowest process quality.
Core Ideas
• The harvest performance can be affected by plant phenological be-
havior, non-uniform fruit ripening, late harvest, pests and diseases,
rods vibration intensity, displacement velocity and, finally, slope.
After harvesting, the approximately 10–20% of coffee cherries that
fall on the ground are known as the sweeping coffee and require a
gathering operation.
• The mechanical sweeping and gathering allow higher operational
capacity (working greater areas in shorter times), thus increasing
profitability and reducing operational costs, however, these machines
are sensitive to oscillation and/or soil topography. In addition to this
limiting factor, one of the main obstacles to mechanical picking of
sweeping coffee is the subsoiling operation that consists of unpacking
the soil by moving the soil surface of the coffee interlines, where the
coffee berries are to be harvested later . In this context, assuming that
the subsoiling operation could affect the losses during the mechanical
picking of sweeping coffee, this study aimed at using the SPC tools to
monitor the ability of management processes to reduce losses in the
sweeping and mechanical picking of fallen coffee for four soil manage-
ments.
Published in Agron. J. 110:1689–1696 (2018)
doi:10.2134/agronj2017.10.0598
Available freely online through the author-supported open access option
Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Agronomy
5585 Guilford Road, Madison, WI 53711 USA
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
A g ro n o my J o u r n a l   •  Vo l u m e 110 , I s s u e 5   •  2 018 1689
P
icker performances can be affected by plant phe-
nological behavior, non-uniform fruit ripening, late
harvests (Silva et al., 2015a), pests, diseases, stem vibra-
tion intensity, displacement velocity, and slope (Santinato et al.,
2016). After harvesting, the approximately 10–20% of coffee
cherries that fall on the ground are known as “sweeping coffee”
and require a gathering operation before they can be collected
(Santinato et al., 2014).
Mechanical windrowing and gathering operations allow a
higher level of operational capacity (working greater areas in
shorter periods) than manual windrowing and gathering, thus
increasing profitability and reducing operational costs; however,
these machines are sensitive to oscillation and/or soil topography
(Tavares et al., 2015). In addition to this limiting factor, one of
the main obstacles to the mechanical picking of sweeping coffee
is the subsoiling operation that consists of unpacking the soil by
moving the soil surface of the coffee plantation areas where cof-
fee berries are going to be harvested later (Fernandes et al., 2012).
Commonly practiced in coffee cultivation, subsoiling con-
sists of breaking the compacted soil layer to improve the plant
water and nutrient uptake rates; it also increases the uneven-
ness of the soil surface (Fernandes et al., 2012). Soil topography
plays a big role in mechanical harvesting, since uneven soil
surfaces promote fruit losses and reduce the cleaning efficiency
of mechanical pickers, resulting in an increased soil volume
transported with the coffee berries (Tavares, 2016).
To ensure that the best quality of cleaning is promoted by cof-
fee berry pickers, the statistical process control (SPC) method is
a fundamental tool for quality control during the stages of this
agricultural process. The SPC graphically expresses results in a
sequential manner, allowing average behavior, stability and vari-
ability levels to be verified throughout the operation (Silva et al.,
2008). An important complementary tool of SPC is capacity
analysis; this tool uses statistical means to calculate how much
a given process can stay within the quality levels determined by
the manager (Montgomery and Runger, 2003).
T.O. Tavares, M.A.P. Borba, B.R. Oliveira, R.P. Silva, A.T.S. Ormond,
São Paulo State University, Rural Engineering, Paulo Donato
Castellane S/N, Jaboticabal, SP. 14884-900, Brazil; M.A. Voltarelli,
Federal University of São Carlos, Rural Engineering, Highway Lauri
Simões de Barres, km 12– SP-189 –Aracaçú neighborhood, Buri – SP,
18290-000, Brazil. Received 26 Oct. 2017. Accepted 14 Feb. 2018.
*Corresponding author (rouverson@gmail.com).
Abbreviations: HC, harvesting losses; IAC, Instituto Agronômico
de Campinas; I-MR, individual charts-moving range; LCL, lower
control limits; LSL, lower specific limit; Pp, general capacity; PTO,
power take-off; SC, subsoiler and crusher; SH, subsoiler and harrow;
SHC, subsoiler, harrow, and crusher; SPC, statistical process control;
UCL, upper control limits.
 In this context and with the assumption that soil manage-
ment can affect the losses during and economic viability of the
mechanical picking of sweeping coffee, this study used SPC
tools to investigate whether four different soil management
treatments could reduce losses and costs during the sweeping
and mechanical picking of fallen coffee.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted in an agricultural area of
Presidente Olegário, Minas Gerais, Brazil, located at 18°02ʹ04˝
S and 47°27ʹ38˝ W, with an average elevation of 917 m and a
3% slope. The soil was classified as medium texture, and the
climate was classified as an Aw type according to Köppen (Peel
et al., 2007). The area had a 1400 mm average annual precipita-
tion value.
The cultivar Catuaí Red IAC 144 coffee was transplanted in
December 2005, with 4.0 m spacing between rows and 0.5 m
between plants. The experiment lasted from September 2014 to
August 2016. The soil management operations were conducted
in 2014, while the windrowing, sweeping, and harvesting–pick-
ing were conducted during the subsequent 2 yr (2015 and 2016).
The four treatments consisted of the following soil manage-
ment practices: (i) subsoiler and crusher (SC); (ii) subsoiler and
harrow (SH); (iii) subsoiler, harrow and crusher (SHC); and
(iv) control, with no soil management. The soil was prepared
using a Ykeda subsoiler equipped with a two-rod semi-winged
tip, with 2-m spacing between rods and a 0.60 m wide half-
wing tip at approximately 0.40 m deep (Ikeda, Marília, Brazil);
a Herder crusher, model FLV175 (Herder Implementos e
Máquinas Agrícolas LTDA, Matão, Brazil); and a Shengda tan-
dem harrow, model 1BJX-1.7, with a 16” disc at approximately
0.05 m deep (MFRural, Marília, Brazil).
Eleven months after the soil management practices were
applied and before the sweeping and picking operations, a
30-m2 area was chosen randomly, and one sample was collected
per row for all four soil management treatments to determine
the amount of coffee cherries on the ground. In the 2015 and
2016 harvests, the areas had the equivalent of 10 and 15 bags of
coffee beans per ha–1 on the ground, respectively. Subsequently,
mechanical sweeping was performed by a Mogiana windrower
and blower, Varre Tudo model (Bertanha, Riachuelo, Batatais,
Brazil) operated by a 4 × 2 auxiliary front wheel drive John
Deere 5425N tractor (John Deere, Montenegro, Brazil) with
55.2 kW (75 hp) power. The tractor worked in first “A” gear at
2400 rpm and at 540 rpm for the PTO (power take-off). The
machine had two sweeping discs (windrowers) and two air-
directing tubes (blowers). The windrows had vegetal (leaf dust,
leaves, and branch fragments) and mineral (soil, rocks, and
pebbles) impurities and coffee berries.
The harvest was performed using the Master coffee II picker
(John Deere) pulled by the same tractor used in the sweeping,
working in first gear at 1700 rpm (540 rpm in the PTO) and a
1.28 km h–1 average operating speed. The picker consists of a pick-
up conveyor, drum tracker, set of sieves, turbine and bulk hopper.
After the sweeping and picking, the losses of the two opera-
tions were evaluated. To this end, a metal frame with three
divisions, a 1.6-m wide central division, which was equivalent
to the width of the picker platform, and two 1.05-m lateral
bands, one on each side, was used. The frame was placed
1690 Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018
transverse to the coffee rows. The material in the center of the
frame was defined as the harvesting losses, while the material
in the lateral bands was characterized as the sweeping losses.
The coffee cherries collected at each sampling point were
transformed into kg of coffee beans ha–1 using the values deter-
mined from the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 coffee crops. The
sweeping and picking losses were calculated by Eqs. [1] and [2]:
SL =
( CRS ×2500 ) [1]
2344
HL =
( CRP ×2500 ) [2]
2344
where SL is the sweeping losses (kg coffee beans ha–1); HL is
the harvesting losses (kg coffee beans ha–1); CRS is the coffee
berries remaining after sweeping (kg m–1); CRP is the coffee
berries remaining after picking (kg m–1); 2500 was the distance
traveled by the mechanical set ha–1; and 2344 is the conversion
factor from coffee berry to coffee beans.
The experimental design followed the assumptions of SPC
(Silva et al., 2015b) with samples collected from the rows at
10-min intervals. For each treatment, 15 samples were collected
from the planting row every 15 m, totaling 60 sampling points.
The results were analyzed by descriptive statistics using the
arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of varia-
tion. Data normality was checked by the Anderson-Darling
test, as recommended by Acock (2008). The coefficient of varia-
tion was classified as low (0–10%), medium (11–20%), high
(21–30%), and very high (>30%) according to the methodology
of Pimentel-Gomes and Garcia (2002).
Next, the sweeping and picking losses and the total loss
(sum of the sweeping and picking losses) of the 2014–2015 and
2015–2016 harvests were analyzed using statistical process con-
trol (SPC) by building run charts to detect non-random pat-
terns. These non-random patterns allowed the monitoring of the
process by the identification and classification of data variations
over time. The classification grouped data into four types. For
the first type, the mixture pattern had no points near the cen-
terline (mean); successive mixtures of this type indicate that the
data associated with the two processes were employed at different
levels. For the second type, the grouping pattern was defined
by groups of points in an area of ​​the graph indicating variations
related to special causes, such as measurement problems. For the
third type, the data oscillated between the top and bottom of the
chart, and this oscillation pattern indicated that the process was
not uniform. For the fourth type, the tendency pattern showed
a sustained disinformation in the data, above or below the cen-
terline, indicating that points out of the control range should
appear in the near future (Voltarelli et al., 2015). Dataset values
with p < 0.05 indicate significant, non-random patterns; on the
other hand, values with p > 0.05 are not significant and indicate
random behavior of the data, a normal process variation.
The results were also analyzed using individual-moving range
charts (I-MR). The upper chart represented the individual values,
sampled at each point, while the lower chart was obtained by cal-
culating the amplitude as the difference between two consecutive
points. These charts have three lines; the centerline represents
the overall mean, while the other two lines are the upper and
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the sweeping, harvesting and Table 2. Standard probability values of the sequential graphs for
total losses due to the soil management practices at a coffee farm the mechanical sweeping and harvesting losses of the coffee of
in Presidente Olegário, Brazil, 2015 and 2016. four soil management treatments.
QI† SMP Mean σ CV AD§ QI† SMP Cls Mix Trends Osc
Sweeping Cont‡ 67,20 32,63 48,56 1021N Sweeping Cont‡ 0500 ns§ 0500 ns 0248 ns 0752 ns
losses SC 116,2 56,8 48,86 0510N losses SC 0455 ns 0545 ns 0586 ns 0414 ns
2015 SH 344,1 155,2 45,11 0489N 2015 SH 0795 ns 0205 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
SHC 130,1 62,5 48,11 0515N SHC 0251 ns 0749 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
Harvesting Cont 59,79 19,07 31,90 1135 A Harvesting Cont 0831 ns 0169 ns 0500 ns 0500 ns
losses SC 228,9 136,6 59,67 0919 N losses SC 0613 ns 0387 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
2015 SH 211,1 117,1 55,46 0431 N 2015 SH 0215 ns 0785 ns 0586 ns 0414 ns
SHC 237,8 106,3 44,69 0538 N SHC 0401 ns 0599 ns 0936 ns 0064 ns
Total losses Cont 127,0 44,6 35,14 1109 A Total losses Cont 0500 ns 0500 ns 0087* 0913 ns
2015 SC 345,1 146,5 42,46 0593 N 2015 SC 0795 ns 0205 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
SH 555,2 196,1 35,31 0347 N SH 0613 ns 0387 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
SHC 367,9 130,0 35,33 0302 N SHC 0031 ns 0969 ns 0138 ns 0862 ns
Sweeping Cont 129,5 39,1 30,23 0400 N Sweeping losses Cont 0867 ns 0133 ns 0913 ns 0087 ns
losses SC 90,33 34,76 38,47 0495 N 2016 SC 0613 ns 0387 ns 0138 ns 0862 ns
2016 SH 109,2 47,5 43,52 0457 N SH 0215 ns 0785 ns 0138 ns 0862 ns
SHC 90,53 31,75 35,07 0966 N SHC 0401 ns 0599 ns 0138 ns 0862 ns
Harvesting Cont 126,3 68,7 54,43 0713 N Harvesting Cont 0003* 0997 ns 0248 ns 0752 ns
losses SC 307,5 181,0 58,86 0295 N losses SC 0795 ns 0205 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
2016 SH 353,8 238,7 67,46 0604 N 2016 SH 0795 ns 0205 ns 0808 ns 0192 ns
SHC 447,5 193,3 43,20 0173 N SHC 0401 ns 0599 ns 0041* 0959 ns
Total losses Cont 255,7 70,9 27,74 0155 N Total losses Cont 0003* 0997 ns 0752 ns 0248 ns
2016 SC 397,8 197,3 49,56 0357 N 2016 SC 0795 ns 0205 ns 0332 ns 0668 ns
SH 463,0 262,6 56,71 0451 N SH 0795 ns 0205 ns 0808 ns 0192 ns
SHC 538,0 197,4 36,69 0139N SHC 0401 ns 0599 ns 0041* 0959 ns
† QI, quality indicator; SMP, soil management practices; σ, standard † QI, quality indicator; SMP, soil management practices; Cls, clustering;
deviation; CV, coefficient of variation. Mix, mixture; Osc, oscillation.
‡ Cont, control; SC, subsoiling + crusher; SH, subsoiling + harrowing; ‡ Cont, control; SC, subsoiling + crusher; SH, subsoiling + harrowing;
SHC, subsoiling + harrowing + crusher. SHC, subsoiling + harrowing + crusher.
§ AD, Anderson Darling normality test; N , normal distribution; A , non- § ns, nonsignificant at p > 0.05
normal distribution). * Significant at p < 0.05.

lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively), calculated
based on the standard deviation of the variables. However, in this
study, the value 0 was used as the lower specification limit (LSL)
(Montgomery, 2009) because there were no negative losses.
Voltarelli et al. (2013) stated that, in general, the purpose
of control charts is to detect possible external variations in a
process, force process management by creating an improvement
plan, and deduce the capacity and limits established for the
process. An unstable or out-of-control process can be analyzed
or improved by using the 6 Factor Assumption Method, where
the six factors are machinery, labor, measurements, methods,
materials, and the environment.
Finally, the process capacity was analyzed for indicators
whose data met the normality and stability requirements. This
analysis was performed using the results (mean and multiples
of the standard deviation) of the management without sub-
soiling (control) as the goal and to define acceptable limits.
The purpose of this comparison was to verify whether the
proposed subsoiling treatments could meet the quality level
of the control treatment. To this end, a general capacity (Pp)
value lower than 1.0 indicated that a process was incapable
of meeting the specifications; a value greater than or equal to
1.33 was considered to be adequate and indicative of a capable
process that was able to meet the specifications, whereas a value
in the 1.0 ≤ p < 1 range was indicative of an acceptable process
(Bonilla, 1994).
Because the formulas for the capacity analysis had denomina-
tors with six multiples of the standard deviation and the losses
presented high variability, the acceptable lower and upper control
limits were calculated as the mean minus 6σ and plus 6σ, respec-
tively. For negative lower limits, a value of zero was adopted.
For the analysis of the economic management of soil, we
used the real costs of operations on the farm in the years 2015
and 2016. To measure the economic returns, we used the coffee
prices in the Septembers of the 2 yr.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The descriptive analysis (Table 1) of the results shows a high
standard deviation and coefficient of variation for the sweep-
ing, picking, and total losses in the 2015 and 2016 harvests,
except for the total losses in the control, which had no subsoil-
ing. In contrast, the standard deviation and coefficient of varia-
tion values were higher in the second year than the first year.
It was also observed that the control data, without subsoiling,
had a non-normal distribution for the picking and harvesting
operations and total losses in 2015, according to the Anderson
Darling test. The other treatments had a normal data distribu-
tion for all the quality indicators.
It is noteworthy that, in general, the losses were higher in
2016 than in 2015, which can be explained by the much greater
load of fallen coffee in 2016 compared to 2015.

Agronomy Journal   •   Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018 1691

Fig. 1. Individual control charts and moving range control charts for the mechanical sweeping losses of the studied soil management
practices (2015 and 2016).
For the control treatment, the total losses (sweeping and
picking) had non-random tendency patterns in 2015, while the
harvesting and total losses demonstrated grouping patterns in
2016. The subsoiling, harrowing, and crusher treatments had
tendency patterns for the harvesting and total losses (Table 2),
which may indicate increased losses during the sweeping
and picking process. The other treatments did not have non-
random patterns, indicating that the observed variations were
completely random and inherent to the processes.
It is important to detect non-random patterns since they
indicate unpredictable behavior and variability of the results
(Minitab, 2007). However, Voltarelli et al. (2013) suggested
that this analysis must be complemented by an individual
control and I-MR to verify whether or not factors extrinsic to
the process were affecting it. Noronha et al. (2011) stated that
process failures may be explained by six factors (machinery,
labor, measurements, method, raw materials, and the environ-
ment), allowing an assertive intervention by the manager.
The control charts show an average loss during the mechanical
sweeping of 67.2 kg ha–1 for the control treatment (no subsoil-
ing) in 2015 (Fig. 1a), which was defined as the target for the
1692 Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018
other studied soil management treatments. The nearest mean loss,
116.2 kg ha–1, was observed for the subsoiling and crushing (SC)
treatment, followed by 130.1 kg ha–1 for the subsoiling, harrow-
ing and crushing (SHC) treatment. The soiling and harrowing
(SH) treatment had a loss of 344.1 kg ha–1, which was not only
the highest value but also five times greater than the value of the
control losses and considered to be a high value for this operation.
The individual control charts for the mechanical sweeping
operation show a loss of 129.5 kg ha–1 in 2016 (Fig. 1b) for the
control treatment, almost double the loss in the previous year.
This result can be explained by the fact that coffee is a biennial
plant, so the equivalent of 600 kg and 900 kg of coffee berries
were the ground for collection in 2015 and 2016, respectively.
In 2016, the lowest loss, approximately 90.3 kg ha–1, was
observed for the SC treatment and was very similar to the
subsoiling, SHC loss of 90.5 kg ha–1. The loss of 109.2 kg ha–1
obtained for the SH treatment was the closest to the control.
All the values were within the control limits, suggesting
that each treatment had a stable process (Fig. 1a and 1b). The
level of process instability varied among the different manage-
ment types. Greater variability was observed for both the SH
Fig. 2. Individual control charts and moving range control charts for the mechanical picking losses of the studied soil management
practices (2015 and 2016).
management and control treatment. Notably, the results were
less variable in 2015 than in 2016, thus indicating that 2015
was characterized by a process of superior quality. In both
years, the quality of the mechanical sweeping improved when
subsoiling was followed by crushing (SC and SHC).
The moving range control charts show less variability in 2015
(Fig. 1a) than 2016 (Fig. 1b). In both years, the highest varia-
tion was observed for the SH treatment since it had the most
points that were distant from the mean, indicating a lower
intrinsic process quality. It is noteworthy that all analyzed
processes were within the UCL and LCL.
Fernandes et al. (2012) highlighted that because subsoiling
increases soil roughness, it also increases mechanical sweeping
losses, which explains why the best results were obtained after
crushing, which more effectively removes the lumps and irregulari-
ties caused by subsoiling. Tavares et al. (2015) reported that it a
high-quality preparation method is necessary for the performance
of pre-harvesting (windrowing) to reduce losses and increase the
efficiency of the machines. In 2015, the average loss in the mechan-
ical harvesting of the coffee was 59.8 kg ha–1 for the control
(non-subsoiling) (Fig. 2a), while average losses of 211.1, 228.9, and
Agronomy Journal   •   Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018 1693
237.8 kg ha–1 were observed for the SH, SC, and SHC treatments,
respectively. In this sense, the losses in the treatments were approx-
imately 3.55 to 4.00 times greater than the loss in the control.
The losses during the mechanical harvesting process increased,
on average, by 134% and 210% for the SC and control treat-
ments, respectively, in 2016 compared to 2015. This result is
attributed to the greater amount of coffee berries that fell and
had to be collected between the coffee tree rows in 2016.
Among the management treatments that included subsoil-
ing, the harrowing (SH) and crushing (SC) after subsoiling
treatments had low variabilities (better quality of the analyzed
process) in 2015 and 2016. On the other hand, the subsoiling,
harrowing, and crushing (SHC) treatment was highly variable in
both years, which indicates a lower quality process than those of
the SH and SC treatments. Moreover, all the management treat-
ments with subsoiling were more variable than the control.
The moving range control charts of Fig. 2b show a greater
range (lower quality) compared to that of Fig. 2a; however, the
values of both figures were within the control limits.
Silva et al. (2014) stated that the quality of the soil preparation
during coffee culturing affects the harvesting process variability,
Fig. 3. Individual control charts and moving range charts for the total losses (sweeping and picking) of the studied soil management
practices (2015 and 2016).
which was observed in this work, given the high variations in
the harvesting losses for all treatments that included subsoiling
compared to the control (without subsoiling). Santinato et al.
(2014) emphasized the importance of using better machines to
increase the efficiency and quality of mechanical coffee harvest-
ing and reduce losses. It is important to understand the value of
mechanical harvesting for the viability of picking the sweeping
coffee to conduct positive interventions and improve the quality
and efficiency of the process (Santinato et al., 2015).
Figure 3 shows mean total losses (sweeping and harvesting)
of 127 kg ha–1 and 256 kg ha–1 in the control (no subsoiling)
for the 2015 and 2016 crops, respectively. Compared to the
control, in the subsoiling treatments, the losses were 271%
higher for the SC treatment in 2015 and up to 437% for the
SH treatment in the same year. However, the losses decreased
by approximately 116% for the SC treatment and 257% for the
SH treatment in 2016. This result can be explained by the more
irregular soil–ground between the rows of coffee trees in 2015,
which affected the machine performances, after which soil
roughness decreased with time, thus increasing the machine
efficiency and reducing the losses in 2016.
1694 Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018
It was also observed that the process was within the control
limits for both charts, except for point 9, which was above the
UCL in the moving range chart for the SHC treatment, indicat-
ing that this process was unstable in 2015 (Fig. 3a). This out-of-
control point probably resulted from a sudden variation in the
losses between points 9 and 10. We suggest that this variation
can be attributed to soil roughness, an environmental factor,
since the machine and evaluation method remained unchanged.
It is known that the capability analysis (Pp) depends on
data normality and stability assumptions. Therefore, it was not
possible to perform the analysis for the picking and total losses
in the control and the total losses in the subsoiling, harrowing
and crushing management (SHC) treatment in 2015.
The objective of this study was to determine which of the
treatments had losses like those of the control treatment (no
subsoiling), which was considered to represent the ideal. Thus,
considering the interval between the mean + 6σ (UCL) and
0 (LCL), it was noted that sweeping losses (Table 3) were
unlikely to exceed the specified lower limit in all treatments.
Nevertheless, 70% of the subsoiling and harrowing manage-
ment (SH) treatment values were ​​above the acceptable limit in
Table 3. Analysis of the process capacity of the mechanical picking losses in sweeping coffee for different soil management practices.
Cont† SC SH SHC
% Below LSL‡ Sweeping losses 2015 1,97 2,03 1,33 1,36
2016 0,05 0,47 1,08 0,22
Harvest losses 2015 – 4,69 3,57 1,26
2016 3,31 4,47 6,91 1,03
Total losses 2015 – 0,93 0,23 –
2016 0,02 2,19 3,89 0,32
% Above USL§ Sweeping losses 2015 0,00 0,50 70,00 1,69
2016 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Harvest losses 2015 – 65,56 62,38 72,52
2016 0,00 10,09 21,96 31,89
Total losses 2015 – 36,79 79,37 –
2016 0,00 7,55 20,31 23,43
% Within the specifications Sweeping losses 2015 98,03 97,47 28,67 96,95
2016 99,95 99,53 98,92 99,78
Harvest losses 2015 – 29,75 34,05 26,22
2016 96,69 85,44 71,13 67,08
Total losses 2015 – 62,28 20,40 –
2016 99,98 90,26 75,80 76,25
Classification (Bonilla, 1994) Sweeping losses 2015 Capable Incapable Incapable Incapable
2016 Capable Capable Acceptable Capable
Harvest losses 2015 – Incapable Incapable Incapable
2016 Acceptable Incapable Incapable Incapable
Total losses 2015 – Incapable Incapable –
2016 Capable Incapable Incapable Incapable
† Cont, control; SC, subsoiling + crusher; SH, subsoiling + harrowing; SHC, subsoiling + harrowing + crusher.
‡ Lower specified limit
§ Upper specified limit.

the first year, while the percentages of the other management
types were close to zero. For the SH management treatment, the
out-of-control points increased as time passed, since 28.67% of
the data were within the acceptable limits in 2015, but this value
increased to 98.92% in 2016, indicating the least optimal man-
agement treatment. The general capacity (Bonilla, 1994) showed
that no subsoiling management treatment reached the stipulated
loss levels of the control in the first year, whereas the crusher (SC)
and harrowing + crusher (SGC) management treatments were
able to meet the required quality standards in 2016.
The picking losses for the treatments with subsoiling did not
reach the limits obtained in the control, which suggests the
picking operation was much more sensitive to the soil char-
acteristics than the sweeping operation. This observation was
reinforced by the percentage of results within the specification
limits, which ranged from 26.22% to 34.05% in 2015. In 2016,
2 yr after the soil preparation treatment, the results within the
limits increased to 67.08% and 85.44%; however, they were still
far from the stipulated ideal level. The SC management treat-
ment yielded the closest results to the specified limits, which
indicates that decreasing the revolving of the soil improves the
soil capacity to recompose and favors the picking operation.
According to Tavares et al. (2015), the picking operation is
highly influenced by the windrow characteristics, especially by
the concentration of mineral impurities and humidity.
The obtained total loss values showed that the operations
were unable to meet the specified limits, a fact explained by
the high picking losses contributing to this indicator. The
quality of the results evolved over time, varying from 20.40%
to 62.28% in the first year and from 75.80% to 90.26% in the
second year. Notably, the SC treatment had results that were
the closest to the control results.
Fernandes et al. (2012) reported that the subsoiling operation
was extremely important for soil maintenance during coffee cul-
tivation since various agricultural operations require machines
to travel between crop rows, causing soil densification and nega-
tive impacts on plant root development. However, the subsoiling
operation caused high losses during the harvesting of the fallen
coffee due to the increased roughness of the soil caused by its man-
agement. Therefore, strategies to improve soil characteristics are
needed to increase the performances of harvesting operations.
A simple economic analysis considering the actual mar-
ket values of the studied crops and their operation costs was
performed. Coffee values (60 kg bags) were negotiated at
US$121.32 and US$154.25 for the 2015 and 2016 harvests,
respectively. At these values, the initial amount of coffee on
the ground was priced at US$1213.20 ha–1 and US$2313.75
ha–1 for 2015 and 2016, respectively, which are considerable
amounts that should not be wasted. In the present study, the
mechanized operations of crushing, harrowing, sweeping and
collecting represented costs of 15.09, 57.44, 29.51, and 58.16
US$ ha–1 yr–1, respectively. These costs were calculated using
farm data and that considered the labor, fuel, and maintenance
of the machines in the 2015 and 2016 agricultural years.
Therefore, the cost analysis showed that a total amount of
coffee worth US$3526.95 could be recovered. The treatment
without subsoiling (the control) had a cost of US$175.34
(sweeping and collecting) and loss of US$914.13 (coffee not
collected by the machines), which thus produced a return of
US$2437.48 (69.11%). For the first subsoiling management

Agronomy Journal   •   Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018 1695

treatment, the operating cost was US$290.22 (crusher) and the
loss was US$1720.51, producing a return of US$1516.22 (48%).
The second management treatment cost US$205.52 (har-
rowing) and had a loss of US$2313.38, generating a return of
US$1008.05 (28.6%). Lastly, the third management treatment
required an investment of US$320.4 (harrower and crusher)
and had a loss of approximately US$2127.56, leaving a return
of US$1078.99 (30.59%).
From an economic point of view, the subsoiling operation
greatly interferes with the viability of harvesting the fallen
coffee on the ground, leading to considerable losses. Among
the management types studied, using only the crusher after
subsoiling resulted in the best economic result. Notably, it is
important to collect as much fallen coffee as possible from
the soil since the coffee beans that remain on the soil become
breeding ground for the coffee borer (Hypothenemus hampei),
which is considered the second most prominent pest of the
crop (Fernandes et al., 2014).
CONCLUSIONS
After 3 yr, among all the treatments, the crusher manage-
ment treatment had the lowest losses and best operational
quality, with a greater capacity to reduce the losses of mechani-
cal coffee harvesting. The harrow management treatment
generated the highest levels of losses and represented an eco-
nomically undesirable management practice. The operational
costs for the handling with crusher management treatment and
its associated losses generated the optimal economic result of
this study. The statistical control of the process helped enable
a better interpretation of the broad results on the operational
efficiencies of the machines in this study.
REFERENCES
Acock, A.C. 2008. A gentle introduction to Stata. Stata Press, College Sta-
tion, TX.
Bonilla, J.A. 1994. Total quality in agriculture: Fundamentals and appli-
cations. Belo Horizonte: Centro de Estudos de Qualidade Total na
Agricultura, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Fernandes, A.L.T., F. Santinato, and R. Santinato. 2012. Use of subsoiling
to reduce soil compaction for coffee production in Cerrado. Enciclo-
pédia Bioesfera, Goiânia 8:1648–1656.
Fernandes, F. L., M.C. Picanço, R.S. da Silva, Í.W. da Silva, M.E. de Sena
Fernandes, and L.H. Ribeiro. 2014. Massive control of coffee-borer
with bottle traps Red pet in coffee. Pesquisa Agropecu. Bras. 49:587–
594. doi:10.1590/S0100-204X2014000800002
Minitab. 2007. Minitab Release 16: Meet Minitab 16. Minitab StatGuide;
Minitab Help. Minitab, State College, PA.
1696 Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 110, Issue 5  •  2018
Montgomery, D.C., and G.C. Runger. 2003. Applied statistics and prob-
ability for engineers, 2nd ed. LTC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Montgomery, D.C. 2009. Statistical quality control, Vol. 7. Wiley, New
York.
Noronha, R.H.F., R.P. Silva, C.A. Chioderoli, E.P. Santos, and M.T. Cas-
sia. 2011. Statistical control applied to the day and night mechanized
harvesting process of sugarcane. Bragantia 70:931–938.
Peel, M.C., B.L. Finlayson, and T.A. Mcmahon. 2007. Updated world
map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and
earth system sciences discussions. European Geosciences Union
4:439–473.
Pimentel-Gomes, F., and C.H. Garcia. 2002. Statistics applied to agro-
nomic and forest experiments: Exposure with examples and guide-
lines for application use. Piracicaba. FEALQ. 309:2002.
Santinato, F., R.A.A. Ruas, R.P. Silva, A. Carvalho Filho, and R. Santin-
ato. 2015. Economic analysis of mechanized harvesting of coffee
using repeated operations of the harvester. Coffee Science, Lavras
10:402–411.
Santinato, F., R.P. Silva, M.T. Cassia, and R. Santinato. 2014. Qualitative
analysis of mechanized harvesting of coffee in two harvests. Coffee
Science, Lavras 9:495–505.
Santinato, F., R.P. Silva, V.A. Silva, C.D. Silva, and T.O. Tavares. 2016.
Mechanical harvesting of coffee in high slop. Revista Caatinga. Mos-
soró 29:685–691.
Silva, F.C., F.M. Silva, M.C. Alves, G.A.S. Ferraz, and R.S. Sales. 2015a.
Efficiency of coffee mechanical and selective harvesting in different
vibration during harvest time. Coffee Science, Lavras 10:56–64.
Silva, R.P., C.F. Corrêa, J.W. Cortez, and C.E.A. Furlani. 2008. Statistical
control applied to the mechanized harvesting process of sugarcane.
Eng. Agric. 28:292–304.
Silva, R.P., M.A. Voltarelli, M.T. Cassia, D.O. Vidal, and F.A. Cavichioli.
2014. Quality of the operations of reduced soil preparation and
mechanized transplanting of coffee plants. Coffee Science, Lavras
9:51–60.
Silva, R.P., M.A. Voltarelli, and M.T. Cassia. 2015b. Quality control in
agricultural operations machines, 1st ed. Jaboticabal: SBEA.
Tavares, T.O. 2016. Mechanized gathering of coffee due to soil manage-
ment and terrain slope. Dissertação apresentada à Faculdade de
Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias– Unesp. Ph.D. diss., São Paulo State
University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tavares, T.O., F. Santinato, R.P. Silva, M.A. Voltarelli, C.S.S. Paixão, and
R. Santinato. 2015. Quality of mechanized coffee gathering. Coffee
Science, Lavras 10:455–463.
Voltarelli, M.A., R.P. Silva, D.L. Rosalen, C. Zerbato, and M.T. Cas-
sia. 2013. Quality of performance of the operation of sugarcane
mechanized planting in day and night shifts. Aust. J. Crop Sci.
7:1396–1406.
Voltarelli, M.A., R.P. Silva, C. Zerbato, V.F.A. Silva, and C.S.S. Paixão.
2015. Monitoring of losses in the mechanized harvesting process of
industrial tomato. Eng. Agric. 23:315–325.