Ferguson, Louise

Guinard, Jean-Xavier

Rosa, Uriel A

Burns, Jacqueline :

Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Developing Mechanical Harvesting for California Black Ripe Processed Table Olives : 2007 - 2010 : Year 4 / 4 Final Report Project Leaders : Louise Ferguson , Extension Specialist , Department of Plant Sciences , 2037 Wickson Hall , Mail Stop II , UC Davis , 1 Shields Ave . , Davis CA 95616 , ( 530 ) 752 - 0507 [ Office ] , ( 559 ) 737 - 3061 [ Cell ] , LFerguson @ ucdavis.edu Jean - Xavier Guinard , Professor , Department of Food Science and Technology , UC Davis , JXGuinard @ ucdavis.edu Uriel Rosa , Associate Professor , Department of Bioagricultural and Mechanical Engineering , UC Davis , UARosa @ ucdavis.edu Jacqueline Burns , Professor , Department of Horticulture , University of Florida , JKBU @ UFL.edu Cooperating Personnel : Soh Min Lee , PhD Candidate , Food Science and Technology , UC Davis Kalmonate Kitsawad , Graduate Student , Food Science and Technology Chirat Sirimuangmoon , Graduate Student , Food Science and Technology Sergio Castro Garcia , Visiting Scientist from University of Cordoba , Spain Kitren Glozer , Associate Project Scientist , UC Davis William H . Krueger , UCCE Farm Advisor , Glenn County Elizabeth J . Ficthner , UCCE Farm Advisor , Tulare County Neil Oâ??Connell , UCCE Farm Advisor , Tulare County Mari - Paz Suarez , Visiting Scientist , University of Seville , Spain John Ferguson , Volunteer Peter Kaleko , Volunteer Skander Slama , Volunteer Industry Cooperators Ranch Cooperators Harvester Cooperators Processor Cooperators Rocky Hill Ranch DSE Bell Carter Olives Erick Nielsen Ranch Erick Nielsen Inc . Musco Family Olive Company Reporting Period : 1 January to September 31 , 2011 ( year 4 / 4 ) 1 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee PROJECT SUMMARY AND MAJOR CONCLUSIONS This is the final report for the fourth and final year of a project to develop economically feasible mechanical harvesting for California black ripe â?? Manzanillo â?? table olives . The objectives of this project were defined by , in order , the most limiting factors to mechanical harvesting ; 1 ) fruit damage ; 2 ) effective fruit removal technology ; and 3 ) developing an economically viable harvester and defining its operating parameters . At this point , fruit damage has largely been eliminated and both canopy contact and trunk shaking technologies have been demonstrated to be effective fruit removal technologies . However , in practice both harvesting technologies are limited by tree canopy shape and by their respective platforms . To achieve these objectives we focused on evaluating canopy contact and trunk shaking harvest technologies , evaluating the processed product , preparing trees with young orchard development and mature tree mechanical pruning , and evaluating potential abscission agents . The major cumulative research results thus far are : 1 ) Canopy contact and trunk shaking harvesting technology can produce processed â?? Manzanillo â?? olives that neither trained sensory or consumer panels could distinguish ; 2 ) Canopy contact harvesting is over 90 % efficient if the olives are accessible ; 3 ) Mechanically hedged and topped trees were harvested significantly more efficiently by a canopy contact head than hand pruned control trees in 2010 ; 4 ) Ten year old â?? Manzanillo â?? orchards trained with or without a trellis , in a 12x18 foot spacing , into a 12 foot tall , 6 foot wide tree skirted at 3 feet had statistically the same yields as conventionally trained trees ; 5 ) Sixteen year old â?? Manzanillo â?? trees spaced 13 X 26 feet and mechanically hedged 6 feet from the trunk on one side in 2008 , the other side in 2009 , and topped 12 feet and skirted at 3 feet both years , and not mechanically pruned in 2010 , had significantly lower yields in 2010 than hand pruned control trees , but not in 2008 and 2009 ; and 6 ) Evaluating the most viable potential abscission compounds produced insignificant and inconsistent results . The overall conclusion that can be synthesized from these results is that both canopy contact and trunk shaking harvesting technologies can achieve economically viable mechanical harvesting if the fruit is accessible to the machine . To demonstrate this , the canopy contact and trunk shaking technologies must be improved through engineering , tested on effective platforms and evaluated on properly trained trees . This approach will require an engineer to head the project with cooperating horticulturists to prepare the trees in coordination with the engineer . 2010 RESEARCH RESULTS In 2010 this project simultaneously focused on two major objectives : 1 ) improving the harvesting technology and 2 ) increasing harvester efficiency by adapting current orchards with mechanical pruning and developing new hedgerow orchards . The data below gives the final efficiencies of two harvesters ; a canopy contact head , tested in mechanically hedged and topped trees , and one trunk shaker tested in a hedgerow orchard . The 2010 crop was extremely heavy and the fruit small . Part I Evaluation of Mechanical Harvester Efficiency and Mechanical Harvester Effects on Fruit Grade and Quality Report for 2010 Harvest The 49 â?? 62 % final efficiency for the Canopy Contact I head was expected ( Table 1 ) . This was the range of harvest efficiencies demonstrated by this head in 2008 and no significant 2 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee engineering improvements have been added to this head since then . In 2008 , we concluded that we had learned as much as possible from this head in this configuration and should not evaluate it again unless the head had been improved . Our 2010 data confirms this ; the overall efficiency of the head has not improved , remaining below 64 % . Table 1 . Comparison of harvester technology final removal efficiency . Final Removal Efficiency Mechanically Efficiency Average Hand Pruned Hedged and Harvest Technology Range ( % ) ( % ) Trees * Topped Trees * * Canopy Contact I 49 â?? 62 % 55 % 57 % a # 50 % b # Canopy Contact II + 41 â?? 62 % 49 % Trunk Shaking + 31 â?? 49 % 43 % â?¢ * 3 , 83 tree rows : Rocky Hill Ranch , Tulare County ( Average FRF = 0.586 kg ) â?¢ * * 6 , 83 tree rows , Rocky Hill Ranch , Tulare County ( Average FRF = 0.597 kg ) â?¢ # Values within these two cells are significantly different per T - test @ p < 0.0001 â?¢ + 3 , 8 tree sets in hedgerow orchard : Nickels Soils Estate , Colusa County ( Average FRF = 0.657 kg ) The Canopy Contact I head was 7 % more efficient in mechanically hedged and topped trees having a statistically significant 57 % average final efficiency in mechanically pruned rows versus 50 % efficiency in conventionally pruned rows . However , these mechanically topped and hedged trees also had a statistically significant 19 % lower yield per acre . As harvesting technology efficiency improves , we need to demonstrate that the significant decreases in harvest cost will offset the gross return losses generated by mechanical topping and hedging to produce an equal , or greater , net return . Our results , and observations , strongly indicate the hedgerow configuration generated by the annual 12 foot topping , every other or third year mechanical hedging 6 feet from the trunk , and 4 foot skirting will be necessary to produce the flat â?? wall â?쳌 of hanging olive shoots that make the fruit most accessible to the canopy contact head . The receiving station grading data for 2010 ( Table 2 ) confirms the 2008 data for fruit quality . Both canopy contact heads and trunk shaking can produce a high percentage of cannable olives with low cull percentages , equal to those of hand - harvested controls ( HHC ) . The percentage of culls is a better method of evaluating harvest technology effects on fruit quality than the total adjusted price per ton as the latter can be strongly affected by fruit size percentages . The analyzed data in Table 2 demonstrates a significant difference in canning and cull percentages for the machine harvested fruit between the two processors ; indicated by A and B before the value in the table cells . Processor B consistently rated mechanically harvested significantly lower that Processor A . There were no significant differences in the rating of hand harvested controls between the two processors . 3 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Table 2 . Effect of mechanical harvesting on % canning fruit and % culls . @ % Canning * % Canning * % Culls * + Harvester Mechanically Hand Harvested % Culls * + Hand Harvested Control Mechanically Harvested Harvested Controls Canopy Contact I * * A : 95 % a A : 95 % a A : 0.98 % b A : 0.81 % a B : 85 % b B : 92 % b B : 4.56 % a B : 0.88 % a Canopy Contact II # A : 93 % a A : 94 % a A : 0.71 % b A : 1.45 % a B : 6.91 % a B . 0.66 % a B : 86 % b B : 89 % b Trunk Shaker # A : 96 % a A : 93 % a A : 0.69 % b A : 0.93 % a B : 2.91 % a B : 2.00 % a B : 86 % a B : 81 % b â?¢ * Olives were delivered to both processors on the same day â?¢ * * Replicated trial of 9 mechanically harvested and 12 HHC , 83 tree , rows ; Rocky Hill Orchards , Tulare County . â?¢ # 3 , 8 tree , replications for each harvesting technology ; Nickels Estate , Colusa County â?¢ + Values in highlighted cells followed by different letters ( a , b ) in a vertical direction are significantly different at p = < 0,0001 . Conclusion Part I : Evaluations of Harvester Efficiency and Effects on Fruit Quality The main conclusion from the 2010 harvester efficiency evaluations is that canopy contact harvesters harvested significantly more efficiently in topped and hedged trees ( 57 vs . 57 % ) . However , for both trunk shaking and canopy contact harvesting technologies the final harvest efficiencies remains below the needed 80 % . While canning and cull percentages were well within acceptable ranges for both canopy contact and trunk shaking harvest technologies there was a significant difference between processors in canning and cull percentages with one processor consistently rating the mechanically harvested fruit as having significantly lower quality . Part II Sensory Characteristics and Consumer Acceptance of Mechanically ( canopy contact harvester ) - Harvested California Black Ripe Processed Olives Report for 2010 Harvest Materials and Methods The study examined the sensory properties and consumer acceptability of 10 California black table olives that were produced according to the experimental design shown in Figure 1 below , and harvested either manually or with the canopy contact harvester method of mechanical harvesting . The labels used for the 10 samples throughout the report are shown in Table 1 . Our two industrial partners in this project ( Musco Family Olives and Bell - Carter ) received identical samples that were then processed with two different methods . Thus , 8 treatments , with the olive fruits being harvested either by hand or mechanically [ i.e . 2 harvesting methods ] , then shipped to processor A and B [ i.e . 2 processors ] , and then processed fresh or after being held in storage 4 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee tanks [ i.e . 2 processing methods ] , and 2 commercial products , one from each processor , were used in the study ( Figure 1 and Table 1 ) . Figure 1 â?? Experimental design for olive production and harvest Table 1 â?? Table olive samples Sample Harvesting Processing Processors Commercial Abbreviations methods methods A_Comm A Commercial - - A_Hand_F A - Hand Fresh olives A_Hand_S A - Hand Stored olives A_Mach_F A - Machine Fresh olives A_Mach_S A - Machine Stored olives B_Comm B Commercial - - B_Hand_F B - Hand Fresh olives B_Hand_S B - Hand Stored olives B_Mach_F B - Machine Fresh olives B_Mach_S B - Machine Stored olives 5 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Descriptive analysis The sensory properties of the olives were measured by descriptive analysis with a trained panel of 10 judges ( 8 female , 2 male ) , all of them are undergraduate and graduate students at UC Davis . This year , the panel developed a scorecard with 34 attributes of appearance , flavor ( taste and smell ) , texture , mouthfeel and after - taste ( Table 2 ) . After the panel training , all the products were evaluated in triplicate , following a randomized complete block design . Olives were presented at room temperature ( 20 ° C ) , in a spherical glass covered with a plastic lid ( 3 whole olives and one sliced in half ) . The intensity of the attributes was rated on a category line scale labeled with â?? low â?쳌 and â?? high â?쳌 at the ends of the scale , except for some of the appearance attributes and the lasting flavorwhich used the labels shown in Table 2 below . Table 2 â?? Sensory attributes evaluated in the descriptive analysis Attribute References Attribute References ( AROMA ) Briny / Salty Olive brine Size Small - - - big APPEARANCE Ocean - like Seaweed * Shape Round - - - Oval Sugary / Sweet smell 1 ) Honey * Glossy / Shiny Matte - - - Glossy SMELL 2 ) brown sugar * 1 ) Sauerkraut * Fermented / Vinegar Surface roughness Smooth - - - Rough 2 ) apple cider vinegar * Sautéed mushroom Sautéed mushroom * Degree of discoloration Earthy / Musty Potting soil * Skin brownness ( Dark brown color scale ) Metallic / Canned Iron tablet solution * Gradation ( Flesh ) Less gradient - - - More gradient Green / Grassy Parsley * Brightness - ( Grey / green color scale ) Grey / Green ( Flesh ) Floral Chrysanthemum * Brightness - ( Light brown color Grey / Brown scale ) ( Flesh ) Painty / Solvent - like Correction fluid * Inner roughness Smooth / soft - - - Rough Rancid / Oxidized Rancid olive oil * 6 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Table 2 â?? Sensory attributes evaluated in the descriptive analysis ( continued ) Attribute References Attribute References Overall flavor - Firmness TEXTURE / MOUTHFEE TASTE / FLAVOR Saltiness NaCl solution Crunchiness Umami MSG + brine Chewiness Bitterness Caffeine solution Juicy / Moisture release Sweetness Sugar solution Astringency / Dryne Steeped green tea ss Buttery * Melted butter Mouthcoating Aftertas Flavor Lasting * mixed with olives Consumer testing The olive samples were also evaluated by 109 consumers who were recruited among Picnic Day visitors and Davis Farmerâ??s Market customers . The screening criteria for participation were to be US Residents and black table olives users and liker . Each consumer was presented with 11 samples , with the first sample serving as a primer , for the purpose of eliminating the first - order effect typically encountered in consumer tests â?? the first sample receives a higher hedonic score than the subsequent samples in the serving order . The presentation order of the other 10 samples was randomized across consumers . Consumers were instructed to rate overall degree of liking of each sample , followed by degree of liking of appearance , flavor , and texture on the 9 - point hedonic scale , from â?? dislike extremely â?? to â?? like extremely , â?? and with â?? neither like nor dislike â?? in the middle . Two whole olives were served in plastic cups covered with lids at room temperature ( 20 ° C ) . Crackers and water were provided for rinsing and palate cleansing . Upon completion of the tasting , consumers filled an exit survey with demographic , attitude and olive usage information . Data analysis The descriptive analysis data was analyzed using a combination of univariate and multivariate statistics . Analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) was used to examine the effect of each source of variations in the design . Principal component analysis ( PCA ) was then applied to the matrix of mean intensity ratings across the samples to visually summarize the similarities and differences among the products in the design . 7 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee The consumer hedonic ratings were also analyzed using a combination of univariate and multivariate statistics . ANOVA was first performed to observe the effect of each source of variation in the design . The matrix of hedonic ratings of samples across consumers was then analyzed by preference mapping â?? a combination of factor analysis and classification methods designed to assess preference market segmentation and drivers of liking identification for product optimization purposes . Partial least square ( PLS ) regression was performed to examine the relation between the hedonic ratings by consumers and the sensory attributes measured by the descriptive analysis panel . Results and discussion Descriptive analysis There were no significant differences between mechanically - and hand - harvested olives for most of the aroma , taste / flavor and texture / mouthfeel attributes . However , the harvesting methods were significantly different in several appearance and after - taste attributes , as listed below ( Table 3 ) : Flavor â?? Earthy Taste - Bitterness Appearance â?? Size , Surface roughness , Degree of discoloration , Skin brownness and Brightness of grey / green ( flesh ) After - taste â?? flavor lasting This yearâ??s result confirms the result from year of 2008 - 2009 when canopy contact harvester was also applied that the differences between hand and machine harvested olives mostly lies in appearance and after - taste characteristics . Compared to the year of 2009 - 2010 when trunk shaker was applied , there were fewer differences in sensory attributes between mechanically - and hand - harvested olives , though the differences in the appearance and after - taste attributes still remain . There were many significant differences across a range of appearance , flavor , texture , mouthfeel and aftertaste attributes mainly between fresh - processed olives and olives stored before processing ( i.e . Processing method ) ; and also , between the 2 commercial olives and the other samples ( i.e . commercial vs . non - commercial ) . 8 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Table 3 . F - values for partitioned product source of variation . Commercial Harvesting Processing Processors Harvesting Harvesting Processor x vs . non - method method ( A vs . B ) method x method x Processing commercial ( hand vs . ( fresh vs . Processing Processor method machine ) stored ) method Briny / Salty 6.38 0.32 4.64 0.14 0.32 0.08 0.61 Ocean - like 6.91 1.60 28.39 0.23 1.36 0.58 1.27 Sugary / Sweet smell 37.82 0.04 52.28 0.23 0.52 0.06 10.38 Fermented / Vinegar 39.58 1.35 39.78 0.11 1.24 1.69 9.91 Sautéed mushroom 3.72 1.79 4.73 1.44 0.13 0.14 12.88 Earthy / Musty 4.28 0.06 22.15 0.00 0.14 10.51 3.45 Metallic / Canned 44.60 2.58 76.47 0.28 1.63 2.17 17.17 Green / Grassy 22.91 2.49 68.01 2.09 1.35 0.82 4.44 Floral 9.27 0.02 1.64 2.48 2.19 0.13 1.26 Painty / Solvent - like 35.85 0.94 74.26 4.81 0.06 1.35 2.69 Rancid / Oxidized 30.35 3.10 30.61 0.24 0.26 3.10 0.03 Overall flavor 13.34 3.66 1.97 1.68 0.14 1.71 1.22 Saltiness 31.75 0.00 2.14 0.07 0.46 1.21 4.32 Umami 12.96 0.06 36.04 0.07 0.00 3.57 1.63 Bitterness 4.64 2.54 94.93 18.55 5.20 0.93 11.21 Sweetness 12.00 0.06 70.46 0.05 2.66 0.41 0.35 Buttery 3.90 1.47 133.38 3.94 3.23 0.05 1.61 1 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Table 3 . F - values for partitioned product source of variation ( continued ) Size 34.66 4.63 23.50 15.73 10.16 7.73 1.86 Shape 4.37 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.87 0.02 Glossy 7.91 0.44 0.45 6.32 0.18 0.32 0.00 Surface roughness 25.62 0.49 3.45 7.21 2.69 4.08 17.46 Degree of 34.66 4.63 23.50 15.73 10.16 7.73 1.86 discoloration Skin brownness 11.18 35.68 26.51 59.45 5.69 20.56 1.53 Gradation ( Flesh ) 12.13 1.93 5.53 0.52 1.24 0.13 0.13 Brightness - 22.91 2.49 68.01 2.09 1.35 0.82 4.44 Grey / Green ( Flesh ) Brightness - 0.60 4.26 12.61 2.33 1.33 1.27 76.31 Grey / Brown ( Flesh ) Inner roughness 29.29 1.30 37.59 3.91 0.97 0.08 2.88 Firmness 74.22 0.19 6.97 6.29 0.40 0.34 13.29 Crunchiness 72.08 0.52 3.76 1.80 0.26 0.02 7.05 Chewiness 23.39 2.30 3.80 6.09 0.04 0.58 1.30 Juicy / Moisture 22.71 2.73 91.11 4.17 0.33 0.09 7.10 release Astringency / Dryness 1.11 1.11 26.36 18.72 3.04 1.21 0.27 Mouthcoating 0.38 0.28 55.18 3.26 0.42 0.44 2.34 Flavor Lasting 2.09 4.39 7.63 4.53 0.50 2.60 0.16 Bold denotes significant source of variation ( P < 0.05 ) 2 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Principal component analysis ( PCA ) was employed to illustrate the relationships among the sensory attributes and the products in a 2 - dimensional sensory map . The principal component ( PC ) biplot shows the main sensory features of each table olive sample â?? attributes located close to a given sample tend to be higher for that sample , whereas attributes which are found away from that sample tend to be lower . It also depicts the relationships among the sensory attributes â?? attributes which are positively correlated tend to form small angles with each other or to be clustered together on the plot , whereas attributes which are negatively correlated are found at opposite ends of the plot . The biplot of PC1 vs . PC2 is shown in Figure 2 below . PC1 and PC2 explained 75.49 % of the variation between products . CHEWINESS 6 1 FIRMNESS CRUNCHINESS 0.75 BHANDS 4 FLAVOR ASTRINENCY INTENSITY BROWN ( FLESH ) FLORAL BMACHS AHANDF 0.5 2 BITTERNESS SALTINESS SAUTEED FLAVOR INNER ROUGH % ) LASTING DISCOLOR AMACHF AHANDS 0.25 SUGARY 0 % ) SUR_ ROUGH ( 21.24 EARTHY / MUSTY BHANDF AMACHS ( 21.24SK_BROWNESS SHAPE BCOMM PAINTY / OCEAN - LIKE 0 SOLVENT - LIKE F2 - 2 GREEN ( FLESH ) BMACHF UMAMI GREEN RANCID F2GRADATION SWEETNESS GLOSSY / SHINY ( FLESH ) - 0.25 METALLIC JUICY BRINY - 4 FERMENTED BUTTERY SIZE - 0.5 MOUTHCOATIN ACOMM - 6 G - 0.75 - 8 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 - 1 - 1 - 0.75 - 0.5 - 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 F1 ( 54.25 % ) F1 ( 54.25 % ) Figure 2 - Principal component analysis of the descriptive analysis data showing the products ( left ) and sensory attributes ( right ) . â?¢ The main difference among products was observed between processing method ( fresh processed vs . non - fresh ( i.e . stored and commercial ) ) , as shown by PC1 ( 54.25 % ) . Fresh - processed olives , regardless of harvesting method and processor , were characterized by green flesh , higher skin brownness , surface roughness , ocean - like , sugary , sautéed mushroom aroma , umami , sweet buttery flavor and juicier mouthfeel . Olives held in storage tanks , especially by processor A were glossy , brighter flesh color , painty , rancid , metallic , briny , fermented , earthy , green aroma , bitter and longer flavor lasting . â?¢ The next largest difference was observed between commercial from processor A vs . stored olives from processor B , as shown by PC2 ( 21.24 % ) . Olives held in storage 1 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee tanks from processor B were characterized by brown flesh , more astringent , firmer , crunchier , chewier and had higher overall flavor intensity . â?¢ There was no difference between harvesting method . The differences between olives were largely due to processing method . Consumer test There was a significant difference in consumer acceptance between processing method ( fresh vs . stored ) . Processing method was the largest source of variation in overall and flavor liking . Commercial vs . non - commercial was a rather important source of variation for texture liking , followed by processing method . Appearance liking was affected by the interaction effects between processor and processing method ( Table 4 ) . Table 4 â?? F - values for partitioned product source of variation Com - mercial Harvest Process Harvest vs . method method Proces - method x Harvest Processor noncom - ( hand vs . ( fresh vs . sors ( A Process method x x Process mercial machine ) stored ) vs . B ) method Processor method Overall degree of 0.75 0.00 6.52 0.56 0.62 0.00 0.37 liking Appearance 0.36 0.14 1.43 0.95 2.76 0.01 6.66 liking Flavor 0.72 0.07 8.89 0.71 0.25 0.27 0.01 liking Texture / Mouth feel 12.42 0.07 6.21 1.16 0.13 0.18 2.15 liking Bold denotes significant source of variation ( P < 0.05 ) . An examination of the mean hedonic ratings confirms the observations above ( Figure 3 ) . The mean hedonic ratings for overall liking indicated fresh - processed olives were preferred over stored - processed olives ( Figure 3a ) . There was no significant difference between mechanically - and hand - harvested olives . The findings were true for flavor and texture liking , but to a lesser extent for appearance liking ( Figure 3b ) . There was a higher degree of appearance liking for stored - processed olives from processor B . In conclusion , the largest source of variation in consumer acceptance was â?? processing method . â?? 2 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee ( a ) 7 6 Score 5 Hedonic 4 Mean 3 2 1 Products ( b ) 9 8 7 6 overall 5 appearance 4 flavor 3 texture 2 1 Figure 3 â?? LS means for hedonic ratings of the 10 olive samples for ( a ) overall degree of liking and ( b ) including appearance liking , flavor liking , and texture liking ( N = 109 consumers ) 3 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee The overall degree of liking showed the highest correlation to flavor liking , and then to texture liking and appearance liking ( Table 5 , Figure 4b ) , similar to what we observed last year . This suggests that flavor characteristics are the most important determinants of consume liking for table olives . Table 5 â?? Pearsonâ??s correlation coefficients among hedonic ratings by consumers Overall degree of Appearance Variables Flavor liking Texture liking liking liking Overall degree 1 0.596 0.914 0.734 of liking * Values in bold are significantly different from 0 with a significance level alpha = 0.05 Preference mapping and consumer segmentation Figure 4 showed the results of the internal preference mapping analysis as bi - plot of the first two principal components ; showing the main direction ( as vectors ) of each individual consumerâ??s preferences for the 10 olives tested ( i.e . each dot represents each individual consumerâ??s main preference direction ) . The preference map showed that a number of consumers were located on bottom area of the plot , where fresh - processed olive samples were located . The stored - processed olive samples were on the upper area , with those from processor B located on the upper right side while those from processor A located on the left side of the plot . This observation is comparable to the previous yearâ??s result ( i.e . fresh - processed olives were liked over stored - processed olives ) . Unlike last year , however , the locations of mechanically - and hand - harvesting methods were placed closely on the plot . This indicated that harvesting method have little influence on consumer acceptance . The preference map also showed differences among the four stored - processed olives , which were due to different processor . This was not the case in last yearâ??s research . 20 1 0.75 BHANDS 10 ACOMM 0.5 BMACHS AHANDS % ) 0 0.25 % ) AMACHS ( 15.37 BHANDF BMACHF ( 15.37 BCOMM 0 AHANDF F2 - 10 0F2.25 AMACHF - - 0.5 - 20 LS mean - 0.75 - 30 - 1 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 0 10 20 30 40 - 1 - 0.75 - 0.5 - 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 F1 ( 18.15 % ) F1 ( 18.15 % ) Figure 4 â?? Internal preference map generated based on overall degree of liking , showing individual consumers and the olive samples ( N = 109 ) 4 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Consumer preference for Californian - style black olives could be classified into three possible segments , using cluster analysis ( Pearsonâ??s dissimilarity proximity matrix ; Average - linkage agglomerative method ) . The consumer segmentation results were shown in Figures 5 and 6 below . Processing method had the most influence on consumer acceptance . The majority of consumers ( cluster 2 , n = 57 ) preferred fresh - processed olives . The findings , again , indicated that harvesting method did not play an important role in consumer acceptance , while processors influence consumer acceptance to a certain extent . A smaller group of consumers in cluster 1 ( n = 14 ) did not displayed a common preference tendency , although preference towards processor A was noticed . Consumers in cluster 3 ( n = 38 ) tended towards fresh - processed olives from processor B and commercial products ( Figure 7 ) . Dendrogram 1.2 1 0.8 Dissimilarity 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 C107 C101 C103 C105 C102 C100 C108 C104 C109 C106 C44 C60 C74 C50 C28 C18 C19 C40 C41 C53 C10 C95 C66 C33 C71 C17 C31 C99 C16 C90 C24 C54 C23 C48 C63 C76 C83 C21 C89 C15 C42 C80 C96 C69 C94 C12 C43 C47 C55 C62 C81 C91 C26 C68 C36 C38 C61 C35 C87 C65 C70 C77 C20 C97 C11 C84 C25 C3 C7 C92 C13 C78 C39 C57 C88 C27 C46 C22 C1 C6 C29 C58 C73 C86 C32 C59 C93 C85 C82 C52 C45 C98 C14 C49 C30 C64 C79 C37 C34 C56 C51 C75 C9 C67 C72 C5 C4 C8 C2 Figure 5 â?? Cluster analysis dendrogram of the 109 consumers 5 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee 1 20 0.8 BHANDS 10 0.6 ACOMM BMACHS 0.4 AHANDS % ) ( 15.37 % ) 0 0.2 AMACHS ( 15.37 BHANDF BMACHF 0 BCOMM AHANDF - 1 - 0.5 0 0.5 F21 F2 - 10 - 0.2 AMACHF - 0.4 - 20 - 0.6 - 0.8 - 30 - 1 F1 18.15 % ) - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 0 10 20 30 40 F1 ( 18.15 % ) Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Figure 6 â?? Internal preference mapping with segmentation Examination of the interaction between cluster and product indicated that the three clusters were significantly different in overall liking , flavor liking and texture liking , but not appearance liking ( Table 6 ) . Mean hedonic scores for overall liking ( Figure 7 ) supports the findings above . Mean scores for appearance liking , flavor liking and texture liking for each cluster were shown in Figure 7 . Table 6 â?? F - values for differences in liking among consumer clusters Overall degree of Appearance Variables Flavor liking Texture liking liking liking Cluster x 5.68 1.31 4.49 2.59 product Bold denotes significant source of variation ( P < 0.05 ) 6 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee ( a ) 9 8 7 6 5 Cluster1 4 Cluster2 3 Cluster3 2 1 0 ( b ) 9 8 7 6 5 Cluster1 4 Cluster2 3 Cluster3 2 1 0 7 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee ( c ) 9 8 7 6 5 Cluster1 4 Cluster2 3 Cluster3 2 1 0 ( d ) 9 8 7 6 5 Cluster1 4 Cluster2 3 Cluster3 2 1 0 Figure 7 â?? Mean hedonic scores of 10 olive samples for each cluster , showing ( a ) overall liking , ( b ) appearance liking , ( c ) flavor liking and ( d ) texture liking . 8 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee The overall degree of liking showed the highest correlation to flavor liking , and then to texture liking and appearance liking ( Table 7 ) , similar to what we observed in the overall sample . This confirmed that flavor characteristics are the most important determinants of consume liking for table olives . Table 7 â?? Pearsonâ??s correlation coefficients among hedonic ratings by each cluster Overall degree of Appearance Variables Flavor liking Texture liking liking liking Cluster 1 overall degree 1 0.562 0.882 0.678 of rliking Cluste 2 overall degree 1 0.556 0.905 0.778 of rliking Cluste 3 overall degree 1 0.678 0.937 0.692 of liking * Values in bold are significantly different from 0 with a significance level alpha = 0.05 Identification of drivers of liking PLS - regression was performed in order to examine sensory drivers of consumer liking for black table olives ( Figure8 ) . This analysis provides a clearer insight of the black table olives preference characteristic of each consumer segment . The analysis displayed the sensory attributes that were associated with overall degree of liking by each cluster , and more specifically , the appearance attributes that were associated with liking for appearance of olives ( Figure 8b ) , the flavor attributes that were associated with liking of flavor of olives ( Figure 8c ) and the texture attributes that were associated with liking of texture of olives ( Figure 8d ) . 9 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee ( a ) ( b ) 10 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee ( c ) ( d ) Figure 10 â?? PLS2 - Regression of each cluster hedonic ratings ( i.e . a ) overall liking , b ) appearance liking , c ) flavor liking and d ) texture liking ) onto the sensory attributes from the descriptive analysis 11 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Consumer segment profiles , including demographics and behavioral information are shown in Table 8 and 9 . Table 8 â?? Demographic profiles of black table olives consumer segments Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Overall ( % ) ( % ) ( % ) ( % ) ( n = 14 ) ( n = 57 ) ( n = 38 ) ( N = 109 ) Gender Male 57.1 40.4 36.8 41.3 Female 42.9 59.6 63.2 58.7 Age 18 - 29 42.9 40.4 28.9 36.7 30 - 39 21.4 14.0 7.9 12.8 40 - 49 28.6 8.8 2.6 9.2 50 - 59 7.1 19.3 39.5 24.8 60 - 69 0.0 10.5 15.8 11.0 â?¥ 70 0.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 Ethnicity African / African 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 American Asian / Asian American 21.4 10.5 18.4 14.7 Caucasion ( non - 64.3 75.4 57.9 67.9 hispanic ) Hispanic / Latino 7.1 3.5 7.9 5.5 Middle Eastern 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 Native American 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pacific Islanders 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other ( specify ) 7.1 10.5 10.5 10.1 Marital status single 35.7 40.4 34.2 37.6 married 42.9 52.6 60.5 54.1 divorced / separated 14.3 3.5 0.0 3.7 widowed 0.0 1.8 2.6 1.8 Number of none 71.4 75.4 86.8 78.9 children under 18 years old 1 7.1 14.0 10.5 11.9 2 14.3 5.3 2.6 5.5 3 or more 7.1 5.3 0.0 3.7 Student 35.7 31.6 15.8 26.6 Occupation unemployed student 21.4 19.3 10.5 16.5 retired 0.0 14.0 15.8 12.8 unemployed 14.3 1.8 7.9 5.5 employed 64.3 64.9 63.2 64.2 Exercise ? everyday 28.6 15.8 23.7 20.2 2 - 3 / week 50.0 56.1 47.4 52.3 once a week 14.3 22.8 13.2 18.3 once a month 0.0 5.3 7.9 5.5 never 7.1 0.0 7.9 3.7 12 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Highest education HS diploma / GED 21.4 21.1 13.2 18.3 Bachelors Degree 57.1 40.4 44.7 44.0 Masters 7.1 19.3 15.8 16.5 Ph.D 14.3 10.5 23.7 15.6 Professional Degree 0.0 8.8 0.0 4.6 Income less than $ 50,000 28.6 33.3 26.3 30.3 $ 50,000 - $ 100,000 21.4 21.1 23.7 22.0 $ 100,000 + 35.7 35.1 28.9 33.0 Don't know / prefer no answer 14.3 10.5 18.4 13.8 Table 9 â?? Behavioral information of black table olives consumer segments Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 ( % ) ( % ) ( % ) Overall ( % ) ( n = 14 ) ( n = 57 ) ( n = 38 ) N = 109 ) Did you eat olives in â?¦ canape 7.1 24.6 7.9 16.5 pasta 57.1 63.2 65.8 63.3 pizza 92.9 86.0 89.5 88.1 salad 64.3 78.9 78.9 77.1 sandwich 64.3 38.6 42.1 43.1 cocktail 21.4 26.3 13.2 21.1 others ( description ) 21.4 31.6 18.4 25.7 Did you eat olives 71.4 77.2 71.1 74.3 by themselves ? Consumption frequency â?¥ 2 - 3 times a week 14.3 17.5 15.8 16.5 once a week 14.3 35.1 26.3 29.4 once every other week 35.7 21.1 28.9 25.7 once a month 7.1 14.0 52.6 26.6 less than once a month 28.6 8.8 26.3 17.4 Often eat olives by themselves 2 - 3 + times a week 0.0 14.0 5.3 9.2 once a week 14.3 17.5 7.9 13.8 once every other week 35.7 14.0 18.4 18.3 once a month 21.4 19.3 71.1 37.6 less than once a month 28.6 31.6 94.7 53.2 Do you buy . . . black ( whole ) 57.1 82.5 84.2 79.8 black ( sliced ) 35.7 38.6 34.2 36.7 green ( whole ) 50.0 66.7 57.9 61.5 green ( sliced ) 0.0 14.0 7.9 10.1 flavored / spiced ( black , whole ) 35.7 35.1 18.4 29.4 13 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee flavored / spiced ( black , sliced ) 7.1 5.3 0.0 3.7 flavored / spiced ( green , whole ) 50.0 50.9 26.3 42.2 flavored / spiced ( green , sliced ) 14.3 7.0 2.6 6.4 stuffed ( black , whole ) 7.1 19.3 13.2 15.6 stuffed ( green , whole ) 71.4 57.9 50.0 56.9 Source can / jar 85.7 77.2 78.9 78.9 deli 57.1 63.2 44.7 56.0 make my own 7.1 8.8 7.9 8.3 Purchasing â?¥ 2 - 3 times per frequency week 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.8 once a week 0.0 10.5 5.3 7.3 once in every other 21.4 19.3 15.8 18.3 week once a month 21.4 38.6 47.4 39.4 once in 3 months 21.4 17.5 10.5 15.6 less than once in 3 28.6 1.8 18.4 11.0 months never 7.1 7.0 2.6 5.5 Factors influencing choice Type 85.7 89.5 92.1 89.9 Variety 50.0 64.9 65.8 63.3 Origin 28.6 35.1 23.7 30.3 Local 28.6 36.8 44.7 38.5 Package 28.6 35.1 34.2 33.9 Nutrition 14.3 12.3 28.9 18.3 Brand 21.4 24.6 36.8 28.4 Price 85.7 63.2 71.1 68.8 Responsible for groceries yes , 100 % 42.9 38.6 42.1 40.4 yes , partially 35.7 54.4 42.1 47.7 no 21.4 5.3 13.2 10.1 Consider yourself â?¦ conservative 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 somewhat conservative 0.0 10.5 5.3 7.3 neither 28.6 8.8 15.8 13.8 somewhat adventurous 28.6 40.4 50.0 42.2 adventurous 42.9 38.6 26.3 34.9 14 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee Conclusion Part II : Processed Fruit Evaluations The main conclusion of this yearâ??s sensory and consumer research is that there were little differences in sensory quality between mechanically - and hand - harvested olives , which did not significantly influence consumer acceptance . Compared to last yearâ??s research , when we found notable differences between hand - and mechanically harvested olives ( but with a trunk - shaking device ) , this yearâ??s results found no significant differences between the two harvesting methods in both sensory qualities and consumer acceptance . The result was in line with the research done in 2008 - 2009 ( with a canopy contact device , similar to the device used this year ) . Moreover , there were some differences in sensory properties and consumer acceptance of stored - processed olives between the two processors . We were able to identify three consumer segments which differed in preference for black table olives : â?¢ Cluster 1 ( n = 14 ) : Stored - processed olives â?¢ Cluster 2 ( n = 57 ) : Fresh - processed olives â?¢ Cluster 3 ( n = 38 ) : Commercial olives and fresh - processed olives from processor B . The majority of consumers exhibited preferences for fresh - processed olives , thus fresh - processed olives have strong potential in the Californian - olive market . Final Conclusions 2010 Harvest Season Now that both canopy contact heads and trunk shaking harvesting technologies can produce acceptable percentages of cannable olives and cull percentages , the major emphasis should be on achieving 80 % final harvester efficiency . The primary way of doing this is engineering . These two harvesting technologies need to be developed into effective harvesters with self - propelled platforms that can maximize the efficiencies of the harvesting technology . The secondary method of improving the efficiency of these two harvest technologies is with mature tree pruning and young tree training . The sensory and consumer testing of 2010 fruit was consistent with the results obtained in 2008 . Neither sensory or consumer panels could determine the difference between hand and canopy contact mechanically harvested olives . Therefore processed fruit sensory and consumer evaluations are unnecessary in future trials . In conclusion , this four - year project has successfully achieved some of its major objectives . First , the primary limiting factor to mechanical harvesting , final processed fruit quality , has been eliminated . Second , the best two potential harvesting technologies , canopy contact heads and trunk shakers , have been identified and refined . For the latter , trunk shakers , the problem of trunk damage has also been eliminated . Third , how to improve harvesting efficiency through tree training and mechanical pruning , and how this will affect net return is being determined . What is now needed is a stronger effort directed towards engineering improvement of the harvesting technology , including an effective harvesting platform , and a closer coordination of the engineering with preharvest and in - harvest season tree training and pruning . As a secondary objective , the long - term effects of mechanical pruning and harvesting can be coordinated with the ongoing olive knot proposal . Final harvester development could be greatly accelerated if the 15 Ferguson et al . Final Report 2010 , California Olive Committee olive harvester fabrication industry could be involved in developing the final harvesters incorporating the two harvesting technologies we have developed thus far . My colleagues and I gratefully acknowledge the support of the California Olive Committee . 16