Determination of Damage Index of Olive Fruit (Koroneiky variety) in Different Harvesting Methods and Times in Golestan Province

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 5, Volume 9, Issue 1 - Serial Number 17, 2019, Pages 61-72   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v9i1.62482

Authors

A. Memari¹; H. Shamsabadi^{* 1}; M. H. Rahmati¹; M. H. Razzaghi²

¹Mechanical Biosystems Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

²Agricultural Engineering Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Golestan Province, Gorgan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Olive is one of the plants, that has been cultivated for long in Iran. The average extracted oil is about 65 kg per tree. Four to five kg olives give approximately one liter oil. Olive harvesting problem, is one of the obstacles to development cultivation in Golestan province. Concurrency olive harvesting time with a number of field crops, seasonal precipitation and a lack of the workers are some limitations for development of this fields. Investigative study of the alternative methods instead of the traditional can be desirable strategy for cultivation development of this product. But gardeners are not eager to use this equipment due to lack of harvesting machine. With regard to the afore-mentioned items, the objective of this study was to determine the appropriate method, the optimal time and interaction effect of the two afore-mentioned factors on the measured traits in order to damage reduction during harvesting time.
Materials and Methods
This research was conducted with the two factors, i) date of harvesting and ii) harvesting method. In this regard, harvesting operation carried out at the three dates including; i) 19 December, ii) 3 January and iii) 18 January in 2015. At the three afore-mentioned harvesting dates; olives were harvested with the three methods including; i) traditional (hitting with the long wood by worker), ii) manual comb and iii) motorize pneumatic comb shaker. The measured traits during operations before and during the harvesting time were the abscission naturally percentage, at the start and the end of the harvest, amount of harvesting (harvested fruit percentage), the remaining fruits percentage on the tree, damaged fruits percentage and damaged fruit index. The experimental design carried out in this research was a split plot based on the randomized complete block design, with three replications. The main plots attributed to olive harvesting time at three levels. The sub-plots attributed to types of olive harvesting method at three levels. After sampling and data collection, the data were set in the Excel software. The obtained data analyzed by using SAS software. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and comparison of means extracted from the output of analysis of the data with a probability level of 5%.
Results and Discussion
Interaction effect of harvesting time and harvesting method on maturity index was significant at 1% level (Table 1). The lowest and highest value of maturity index occurred at the time of 19 December and 18 January (2.28 and 4.07), respectively. The effect of harvesting time on naturally abscission percent was significant at the 5% level. The lowest (1.16) and highest (2.21) naturally abscission attributed at the time of 18 December and 18 January, respectively.
The effect of harvesting method on the percentage of the remaining fruits on the tree was significant at the 1% level. The lowest (2.71%) and the highest (5.89 %) value of the remaining fruits occurred in the manually comb and traditional methods, respectively.
The effect of harvesting method on the amount of remaining fruit on the tree per kg of harvesting was significant at the 1% level. The highest (62.86 gr) and the lowest (27.92 gr) value of this trait yielded in the traditional and manually methods, respectively.
Interaction effect of the harvesting time × harvesting method on the damaged fruits was significant at 1% level. The highest and the lowest values of the damaged fruits took place in 19 December and in the traditional and the manual comb methods, respectively.
The effect of harvesting time on abscission leaf percent was significant at the 1% level. The highest value of 13.2% and the lowest value of 4.47% occurred in 18 January and 19 December, respectively.  
Interaction effect of harvesting time and harvesting method on the damaged fruits index, was significant at the 1% level in 18 January. The highest (1.002) and the lowest (0.424) yielded in traditional and manually comb methods, respectively.
Conclusion
The results showed that in order to percentage of remaining fruits on the tree, remaining amount on the tree per kg, damaged fruit and damaging fruit index, the best method of olive harvesting is the manually comb method. The lowest percentage of leaves abscission naturally occurred on 19 December. The Lowest percentage of leaf abscission was on 18 January. So the best of olive harvesting method (variety Koroneiky) in the study area, the use of manual comb with maturity index 3.58 is suggested.

Keywords

Average maturity index; Damaging index; Harvesting methods; Harvesting time; Olive

References

1. Abbott, J. A. 2004. Textural quality assessment for fresh fruits and vegetables. Pages 265-279. Quality of Fresh and Processed Foods, Springer.

2. Almeida, A., S. D. Reynolds, B. A. Dias, O. Peca, A. Pinheiro, J. Lopes, and L. S. Santos. 1997. Mechanical olive harvesting systems. Pages 209-214. III International Symposium on Olive Growing 474.

3. Bentaher, H., and B. B. Rouina. 2002. Mechanical harvesting of "Chemlali de Sfax" olive–trees. Pages 365-368 in Vitagliano C, Martelli GP, eds. IV International Symposium on Olive Growing 586. Valenzano, Italy

4. Castro-Garcia, S., F. J. Castillo-Ruiz, F. Jimenez-Jimenez, J. A. Gil-Ribes, and G. L. Blanco-Roldan. 2015. Suitability of Spanish ‘Manzanilla’table olive orchards for trunk shaker harvesting. Biosystems Engineering 129: 388-395.

5. Cherng, A.-P., and F. Ouyang. 2003. A firmness index for fruits of ellipsoidal shape. Biosystems Engineering 86: 35-44.

6. Conde, C., S. Delrot, and H. Geros. 2008. Physiological, biochemical and molecular changes occurring during olive development and ripening. Journal of Plant Physiology 165: 1545-1562.

7. Dag, A., Z. Kerem, N. Yogev, I. Zipori, S. Lavee, and E. Ben-David. 2011. Influence of time of harvest and maturity index on olive oil yield and quality. Scientia Horticulturae 127: 358-366.

8. Ferguson, L., U. Rosa, S. Castro-Garcia, S. Lee, J. Guinard, J. Burns, W. Krueger, N. O'connell, and K. Glozer. 2010. Mechanical harvesting of California table and oil olives. Advances in Horticultural Science 53-63.

9. Freihat, N. M., A. Al-Shannag, and N. El Assi. 2008. Qualitative responses of “Nabali” olive oil to harvesting time and altitudes at sub-humid Mediterranean. International Journal of Food Properties 11: 561-570.

10. Ghorbanpour, H., M. Khoshtaghaza, and M. Mostofi sarkari. 2012. Effect of Frequency and Vibration Time on Shaker Performance for Mechanized Harvesting of Orange (Thomson cultivar). Journal of Agricultural Machinery 2 (2): 96-101. (In Farsi).

11. Hamedi, M. M., and S. A. Damirchi. 2004. Thermal fixation effects on the quality and extraction amount of olive oil. Journal of Food Science and Technology 1: 25-30. (In Farsi).

12. Hamidoghli, Y., S. Jamalizadeh, and M. Ramzani Malekroudi. 2008. Determination of harvesting time effect on quality and quantity of olive (Olea europea L.) oil in Roudbar regions. Food, Agriculture and Environment 6: 238-241.

13. Hoehn, E., F. Gasser, B. Guggenbühl, and U. Künsch. 2003. Efficacy of instrumental measurements for determination of minimum requirements of firmness, soluble solids, and acidity of several apple varieties in comparison to consumer expectations. Postharvest Biology and Technology 27: 27-37.

14. Kermani, A. M. 2015. Evaluation of Mechanical Harvesting of Oil Olive by four types of harvesting machine. Journal of Systems Engineering and Agricultural Mechanization Research 16: 1-18. (In Farsi).

15. Mirnezami ziabari, H. 1998. The health benefits of olive. Danesh Negar: 137. (In Farsi).

16. Mobli, H., T. Tavakoli Hashjin, H. Oghabi, and R. Alimardani. 2004. Study of the strength properties of pistachio nuts and cluster stem joints for the design and development of a harvesting machine. International Agrophysics 18: 139-144.

17. Rostami-Ozumchuluei, S., M. Ghasemnezhad, and M. Ramzani-Malekroudi. 2016. Effect of fruit harvest time on antioxidant compounds of oil in some olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars at Roodbar region. Journal of Food Science and Technology (2008-8787) 13. (In Farsi).

18. Roudsari, O. N., K. Arzani, A. Moameni, and M. Taheri. 2012. Spatial Variability of Selected Soil Properties in an Olive Orchard in Tarom Region, Zanjan Province, Iran. Environmental Sciences 10: 49-58. (In Farsi).

19. Saglam, C., Y. Tuna, U. Gecgel, and E. Atar. 2014. Effects of Olive Harvesting Methods on Oil Quality. APCBEE Procedia 8: 334-342.

20. Sanders, K. 2005. Orange harvesting systems review. Biosystems Engineering 90: 115-125.

21. Vossen, P. M. 2006. Olive Maturity Index Uc Cooperative Extension.

22. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/2116/29133)

23. Zare, F., G. H. Najafi, T. Tavakoli Hashjin, and A. M. Kermani. 2014. Determination of physical, mechanical and aerodynamic properties of four varieties olive produced in Iran. Journal of Food Science and Technology 11. (In Farsi).