• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Introduction
 Specifications for the hedging...
 Frontispiece
 Field operation
 Cost
 Field performance
 Summary






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 519
Title: Hedging machine for citrus groves
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026676/00001
 Material Information
Title: Hedging machine for citrus groves
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 12 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Prosser, David S
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1953
 Subjects
Subject: Fruit trees -- Pruning   ( lcsh )
Fruit trees -- Machinery   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Pruning   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Machinery   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by David S. Prosser, Jr.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "A contribution from the Florida Citrus Experiment Station"--T.p.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026676
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000926035
oclc - 18270457
notis - AEN6694

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Introduction
        Page 5
    Specifications for the hedging machine
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Frontispiece
        Page 4
        Page 9
    Field operation
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Cost
        Page 11
    Field performance
        Page 12
    Summary
        Page 12
Full Text



Bulletin 519


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
(A Contribution from the Florida Citrus Experiment Station)







Hedging Machine for Citrus Groves


By DAVID S. PROSSER, JR.


Fig. 1.-View of a machine-hedged citrus grove.


June 1953









S f/a BOARD OF CONTROL

Frank M. Harris, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
/2 3 J Eli H. Fink, Jacksonville
George J. White, Sr., Mount Dora
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.s
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.s
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist1'
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist'
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associates
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economista
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. L. Tennant, Ph.I., Agr. Economist
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agri. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agricultural
Statistician 2
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician
J. K. Lankford, B.S., Agr. Statistician
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer1
J. M. Myers, M.S.A., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Eng.
AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist 12
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Darrel D. Morey, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Assistant
Myron G. Grennell, B.S.A.E., Assistant
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant 3
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant 3
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., An. Hush.'1
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist'
S. John Folks, Jr., M.S.A., Asst. An. Husb. 3
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.8
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb. s
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman s
E. F. Johnston, M.S., Asst. An. Husb. s
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Hushb.
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Tech.'
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husb.8
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Hush.'
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy TechA.
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb. 3
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech. 3
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech. '
James M. Wing, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Hush.


EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor
L. Odell Griffith, B.A.J., Asst. Editor 8
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor s
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J., Assistant Editor

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist'
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist

HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist"
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist2"
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford D. Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
James Montelaro, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist"s
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and
Botanist s
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.'
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.'8
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.
SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist's
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist
Charles F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Micro-
biologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist s8
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
S. N. Edson, M. S., Asst. Soil Surveyors
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. G. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist'
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.
VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian 1
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist s
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)










BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, Jr., M.S., Entomologist in
Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. E. Webb, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Frank E: Guthrie, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Chipley
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A., F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S.. Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz., Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
1. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist'
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
J. W. Davis, B.S.A., Asst. in Ent.-Path.
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. U. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. En'omologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
I. H. Holtsberg, B.S.A., Asst. Ento.-Path.
K. G. Townsend, B.S.A., Asst. Ento.-Path.
J. B. Weeks, B.S.. Asst. Ento.-Path.
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Ass'. Biochem.
W. F'. Grierson-Jackson. Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
Marion F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant
Physiologist
Evert J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb.
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. N. Stoner, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
W. G. Genung, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Robert J. Allen. Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
H. L. Chapman, Jr., M.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
M. R. Bedsole, M.S.A., Asst. Chem.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer2
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chem.


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge 2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
F. M. Peacock, M.S., Asst. Animal Husb.

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben. F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
W. R. Langford, Ph.D.. Asst. Agronomist

SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Amegda Jack, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist


FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon. Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Associate Plant Path-
ologist Acting in Charge
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture
Strawberry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Vegetables--Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Pecans-Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meterologist in
Chg. 2

1Head of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4 On leave


S/1/









Hedging Machine for Citrus Groves

By DAVID S. PROSSER, JR.

CONTENTS
Page Page
Specifications for the Hedging Machine.... 5 Field Operation ............................................ 9
Saw s and Supports ................................ 5 Cost ................................................ ................... 11
Power Requirements and Drive .......... 9 Field Performance ...................................... 12
Construction D details .................................. 9 Sum m ary .......................... ....................... 12

INTRODUCTION
In the past few years considerable interest has been aroused
in a mechanical method of hedging citrus groves. This has been
brought about by the high cost of hedging and pruning by hand;
by the increasing acreage of citrus groves in which the trees
have grown together to form canopies; and by the education
of the grower to a complete program of fertilization, insect and
disease control calling for the use of large grove equipment and
necessitating space between trees for this equipment to operate
satisfactorily.
Hedging consists of cutting back the trees vertically on both
sides of the grove middles to a predetermined line to provide
an aisle or passageway six to eight feet wide for sunlight to
enter and for trucks and grove equipment to maneuver without
damage to either trees or equipment.
A machine (Fig. 2) has been developed at the Citrus Experi-
ment Station that will do a good job of hedging at a low cost.
It consists of a column of 12" circular saws on mandrels mounted
in a vertical line and overlapped slightly to provide a complete
vertical cutting line that can be easily and efficiently moved
down grove middles for hedging purposes.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HEDGING MACHINE
This machine is shown in Fig. 5 mounted on a flat bed truck
so that it may be quickly transported from one experimental
site to another. A better arrangement for local use is a trailer
mounting pulled by a tractor. Most machines under construc-
tion at present are of this latter type.
Saw and Supports.-The 12-gauge steel saws shown are slightly
heavier than standard woodworking saws. Most manufacturers
do not charge extra for supplying a heavier gauge steel and the
additional safety factor obtained warrants its use. A type "N"
tooth construction has been found to do the best cutting job









Hedging Machine for Citrus Groves

By DAVID S. PROSSER, JR.

CONTENTS
Page Page
Specifications for the Hedging Machine.... 5 Field Operation ............................................ 9
Saw s and Supports ................................ 5 Cost ................................................ ................... 11
Power Requirements and Drive .......... 9 Field Performance ...................................... 12
Construction D details .................................. 9 Sum m ary .......................... ....................... 12

INTRODUCTION
In the past few years considerable interest has been aroused
in a mechanical method of hedging citrus groves. This has been
brought about by the high cost of hedging and pruning by hand;
by the increasing acreage of citrus groves in which the trees
have grown together to form canopies; and by the education
of the grower to a complete program of fertilization, insect and
disease control calling for the use of large grove equipment and
necessitating space between trees for this equipment to operate
satisfactorily.
Hedging consists of cutting back the trees vertically on both
sides of the grove middles to a predetermined line to provide
an aisle or passageway six to eight feet wide for sunlight to
enter and for trucks and grove equipment to maneuver without
damage to either trees or equipment.
A machine (Fig. 2) has been developed at the Citrus Experi-
ment Station that will do a good job of hedging at a low cost.
It consists of a column of 12" circular saws on mandrels mounted
in a vertical line and overlapped slightly to provide a complete
vertical cutting line that can be easily and efficiently moved
down grove middles for hedging purposes.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HEDGING MACHINE
This machine is shown in Fig. 5 mounted on a flat bed truck
so that it may be quickly transported from one experimental
site to another. A better arrangement for local use is a trailer
mounting pulled by a tractor. Most machines under construc-
tion at present are of this latter type.
Saw and Supports.-The 12-gauge steel saws shown are slightly
heavier than standard woodworking saws. Most manufacturers
do not charge extra for supplying a heavier gauge steel and the
additional safety factor obtained warrants its use. A type "N"
tooth construction has been found to do the best cutting job
























V2-- 1 Pillow Blocks (Boll Bearing)

12-12"Cir.Sows With Ech Shaft.
Type'N"Tooth 1260.
Thickn.es. II Centers.


-Bumper Jack To Lift
Boom To Cutting Position
2Ton Copy. 9IBLift.


Boom In Lowered Position


o




s
?fc.

























Citrus Experiment Station
Hedging Mlch.
D0t:1-27-53 Scale. l0*- *d
File No. Sheet No.
DA 1-3 1
oa1o




o>




Citrl E~rrinn( totio
n~roino .
Do(~:T-53 oll
iil* (Sb~IWO
DI )-c (

Q~irg





r yE )


Control
This


St

les




Elevation


* 3"I
Seel AnSg.

eel Straps


12-12"Cir.Saws With


Scole I"" I'-0"


Section-'-A"
Scale *". I10


Sorw Revolve


In Down Position

Channel Bracet


Boom In Cutting Position


Truck Cob






ngine





t















ob
Plan Showing Sar Angle
Scal -" I'0"

n







7i








CitrusExperiment Stotior
Hedging Maoch.
Date:1-31-53 Scale I'-1'0'
File No. Sheet No
DOA-3 2
of 2 Sheet.


Fig. 4.-Diagram of hedger with boom in cutting position.


4 y i


11 t


V







8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

on a 12" diameter blade. The 1 3/16" saw shafts are supported
by 1 3/16" standard pillow block ball bearings attached to a bar
of 6" channel iron which forms the vertical support. The chan-
nel iron is welded at the bottom to a 2 7/16" shaft which carries
the entire weight of the upright column. This shaft runs across
the truck body and is mounted in heavy babbit bearings which
allow it to swing in an arc. This enables the saw column to be
lowered and locked for travel or storage (Fig. 3). When the
machine is in the grove and ready for hedging a lock-down de-
vice on the rear is loosened and the bar is raised by means of a
hand-operated hydraulic jack attached to the truck frame.
When the bar reaches its operating position, Fig. 4, two braces
are bolted to it to increase strength and rigidity. Brace "A"
is normally pivoted so that it is carried inside the main bar in
the down position and attached to the rear support in the up

Fig. 5.-Front view of hedging machine, showing belt guards and mounting.






















































Fig. 2.-The hedging machine in field operation.


61,^s







Hedging Machine for Citrus Groves


position. Brace "B" is carried in a rack on the side of the truck
and is bolted top and bottom when the bar is in operating position.
Power Requirements and Drive.-The drive consists of a
medium-sized gasoline engine, driving through two "C" vee belts,
to sheaves on the saw shafts. These sheaves are of variable
pitch construction so that the belt may be tightened by simply
screwing down one side of the sheave. The power requirements
can be roughly figured to be 11/2 horsepower for each saw blade
used. Power is transmitted from saw shaft to saw shaft by
"B" vee belts running in variable pitch sheaves. The most satis-
factory vee belt has been found to be the cog type belt with
internal wire rope. These do not stretch as much and will trans-
mit more horsepower per belt than the ordinary type. Best
results are obtained with the saws running at approximately
3,000 rpm.
Construction Details.-All saws in the above arrangement will
have the same direction of rotation, which in experiments has
been found to give the cleanest cut. If saws are rotated in
opposite directions they tend to snap the branches through in-
stead of cutting them. Saws should be overlapped about 1/4
of an inch and the whole line of saws should be set on a slight
angle of approximately 80 with the truck body, as shown in
Fig. 4. This allows the trailing edge of the blades to clear the
cut branches and helps decrease ragging. All engine controls
and the clutch throw out are located on the side of the truck
body away from the saws so that men operating the equipment
are not standing in the path of flying branches and debris.

FIELD OPERATION
In grove operations the saw column is raised and secured, the
driving engine started and the clutch engaged. After the saws
have reached their rated speed the truck is slowly moved for-
ward until the driver is headed in a straight line down the mid-
dle, with the truck in position to give the correct width of cut.
The driver then puts the truck in double low gear and lets it
move slowly down the middle, meanwhile watching the hedging
to make sure no saws become jammed from branches wedging
into them. If saws become jammed the driver stops the truck
immediately to prevent tearing off the caught branches. As
far as can be ascertained, there is no damage to the machine
from jamming, beyond the momentary slipping of the belts.
The driver may back up slowly and release the branches, or







Hedging Machine for Citrus Groves


position. Brace "B" is carried in a rack on the side of the truck
and is bolted top and bottom when the bar is in operating position.
Power Requirements and Drive.-The drive consists of a
medium-sized gasoline engine, driving through two "C" vee belts,
to sheaves on the saw shafts. These sheaves are of variable
pitch construction so that the belt may be tightened by simply
screwing down one side of the sheave. The power requirements
can be roughly figured to be 11/2 horsepower for each saw blade
used. Power is transmitted from saw shaft to saw shaft by
"B" vee belts running in variable pitch sheaves. The most satis-
factory vee belt has been found to be the cog type belt with
internal wire rope. These do not stretch as much and will trans-
mit more horsepower per belt than the ordinary type. Best
results are obtained with the saws running at approximately
3,000 rpm.
Construction Details.-All saws in the above arrangement will
have the same direction of rotation, which in experiments has
been found to give the cleanest cut. If saws are rotated in
opposite directions they tend to snap the branches through in-
stead of cutting them. Saws should be overlapped about 1/4
of an inch and the whole line of saws should be set on a slight
angle of approximately 80 with the truck body, as shown in
Fig. 4. This allows the trailing edge of the blades to clear the
cut branches and helps decrease ragging. All engine controls
and the clutch throw out are located on the side of the truck
body away from the saws so that men operating the equipment
are not standing in the path of flying branches and debris.

FIELD OPERATION
In grove operations the saw column is raised and secured, the
driving engine started and the clutch engaged. After the saws
have reached their rated speed the truck is slowly moved for-
ward until the driver is headed in a straight line down the mid-
dle, with the truck in position to give the correct width of cut.
The driver then puts the truck in double low gear and lets it
move slowly down the middle, meanwhile watching the hedging
to make sure no saws become jammed from branches wedging
into them. If saws become jammed the driver stops the truck
immediately to prevent tearing off the caught branches. As
far as can be ascertained, there is no damage to the machine
from jamming, beyond the momentary slipping of the belts.
The driver may back up slowly and release the branches, or







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


sometimes it is necessary to walk around the truck and pull
the branches out by hand with the machine stopped.
In the usual operation a second man walks beside the truck
on the driver's side and works the engine controls. This man
also takes the branches as they are cut and throws them to one
side or under the trees. Both the driver and the man throwing
brush should wear goggles as protection against flying sawdust.


Fig. 6.-Rear view of hedging machine, showing drive and construction
details.







Hedging Machine for Citrus Groves


The maximum speed the machine may be run to obtain good
results is about one mile per hour, which corresponds to an ap-
proximate rate of an acre per hour. In general the faster the
machine moves the more ragged will be the cutting. If only
small branches less than one inch in diameter are to be hedged,
speed is relatively immaterial, due to the fact that most small
branches sustain some ragging because of their lack of resist-
ance to the saw blades. This ragging has not proved to be
harmful in the past; the small branches and twigs recover rapidly
and put out a vigorous growth where hedging is done at the
proper time.
The best time to hedge appears to be immediately before the
spring flush of growth. Then the new growth comes out rapidly
and the dead wood and loss of production are held to a minimum.
Best results are obtained by hedging the east and west sides
of the tree, since there is less sunlight present on the north
side during the winter months. Growth of new wood is more
rapid and loss of bearing surface due to dying back is less where
sufficient sunlight may hit the hedged branches. If it is neces-
sary to hedge the north side of the tree it is advisable not to
cut back severely.
If it is desirable that the hedging job be finished by hand to
improve the appearance and to remove any branches missed by
the machine, a small truck with a series of wooden steps mounted
on the rear may be used to good advantage. A man with hand
shears can move up and down these steps as the truck progresses
down the middle and cut out the branches at the necessary
heights.
COST
Saws must be sharpened after approximately 100 hours use,
which usually costs about 90 cents per saw when the work is
done on a local sharpening machine. Belts and bearings may
reasonably be expected to last 1,000 to 2,000 hours and an en-
gine overhaul would be necessary on occasion. Due to the heavy
amount of sawdust in the air, the engine air cleaner should be
serviced daily. The initial cost of the machine may be roughly
computed as follows, based on current prices:
Saws ..................... ........- .... $11.00 each
Bearings ...... ...... ...... ........... 5.00 each
Belts ..... ............ ........... ........... 2.50 each
Sheaves ...................-...... --........ .--.... 4.25 each
Driving engine .......................$700.00 to $1,000.00
Steel framing and shafting .........................$50.00
Labor and installation ..............$200.00 to $250.00







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Total cost for a 12-saw unit should be in the neighborhood of
$1,500 without trailer or truck bed.
Some of the more recent machines under construction use two
individual units of 12 saws each mounted on channel arms, one
on either side of the truck and attached to the supporting shaft
in such a fashion that they may be slid back and forth on this
shaft to vary the width of the cut. Naturally the cost of a
machine of this type will be nearly double that of the single
machine.
FIELD PERFORMANCE
The hedging machine will cut out a grove approximately 10
times as fast as an equal number of men using hand shears.
If it is desired to hand finish the job the ultimate time by
machine will still be less than half that necessary for hand
hedging.
Preliminary experiments with the hedging machine have in-
dicated loss of production the first year after hedging as com-
pared with a check block, but an increased production over the
check in the second year. Also, there is a decrease of dead wood
in hedged blocks the second year due to increased sunlight and
effectiveness of the spray and dust program. Results on two
25-year-old commercial grapefruit groves over a two-year period
showed a loss of one-half box of fruit the first year compared
with unhedged trees, and an increase of one-fourth box per
tree over unhedged trees the second year. Average production
for the two years was approximately 14 boxes per tree in the
checks.
Other advantages to hedging not previously mentioned in-
clude the decreased cost of picking the fruit and decreased dam-
age to trees and trucks where using goats' for hauling or bulk
fruit operations in the grove.

SUMMARY
A mechanical hedging machine has been developed for use
in citrus groves in Florida. Construction specifications and
operational data have been presented. Use of this machine
affords an economical method of hedging citrus groves with the
attendant advantages of increased production, ease of movement
through grove, decrease in dead wood, and increased effective-
ness of spray and dust programs.

1 The term "goat" designates a stripped-down truck without cab, and
with narrow body floor for hauling fruit out of groves.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Total cost for a 12-saw unit should be in the neighborhood of
$1,500 without trailer or truck bed.
Some of the more recent machines under construction use two
individual units of 12 saws each mounted on channel arms, one
on either side of the truck and attached to the supporting shaft
in such a fashion that they may be slid back and forth on this
shaft to vary the width of the cut. Naturally the cost of a
machine of this type will be nearly double that of the single
machine.
FIELD PERFORMANCE
The hedging machine will cut out a grove approximately 10
times as fast as an equal number of men using hand shears.
If it is desired to hand finish the job the ultimate time by
machine will still be less than half that necessary for hand
hedging.
Preliminary experiments with the hedging machine have in-
dicated loss of production the first year after hedging as com-
pared with a check block, but an increased production over the
check in the second year. Also, there is a decrease of dead wood
in hedged blocks the second year due to increased sunlight and
effectiveness of the spray and dust program. Results on two
25-year-old commercial grapefruit groves over a two-year period
showed a loss of one-half box of fruit the first year compared
with unhedged trees, and an increase of one-fourth box per
tree over unhedged trees the second year. Average production
for the two years was approximately 14 boxes per tree in the
checks.
Other advantages to hedging not previously mentioned in-
clude the decreased cost of picking the fruit and decreased dam-
age to trees and trucks where using goats' for hauling or bulk
fruit operations in the grove.

SUMMARY
A mechanical hedging machine has been developed for use
in citrus groves in Florida. Construction specifications and
operational data have been presented. Use of this machine
affords an economical method of hedging citrus groves with the
attendant advantages of increased production, ease of movement
through grove, decrease in dead wood, and increased effective-
ness of spray and dust programs.

1 The term "goat" designates a stripped-down truck without cab, and
with narrow body floor for hauling fruit out of groves.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs