High-density olive orchards in Israel

1. High-density olive orchards in Israel Dag, A., Avidan B. and Lavee, S. ARO, The Volcani Center, Israel Birger, R, Israeli Olive Board, Israel

2. Objective To facilitate the use of ‘overhead’ mechanical harvesters ↓ Reduces costs relative to hand harvesting and brings orchards into production within a few years.

3. Tools • Growth regulators • Selection of cultivars • Tree-training design • Mechanical pruning • Economic calculation

4. Growth regulators

5. Uniconazole Control Using growth regulators to reducevegetative growth Gibberellin inhibitors reduce branch elongation

6. Effect of gibberellin inhibitors on branch elongation, cv. Barnea

7. Effect of Uniconazole on tree height and yield of cv Barnea

8. Using growth regulators to reducevegetative growth – side effects Loosely hanging Branches Promotion of lateral-bud development Uniconazole Control

9. Using growth regulators to reducevegetative growth – conclusions • Growth regulators can reduce tree growth. • Growth inhibition may be followed by increased fruit set. • 0.1 g/tree Uniconazole in soil application gave the best results in terms of growth inhibition and fruit set.

10. Cultivars

11. Performance of different varieties in ‘High-density’ orchards, Golan Heights, 2005/6.

12. Performance of different varieties in ‘High-density’ orchards, Golan Heights, 2006/7.

13. Training

14. ‘Y-form’: Cordon: Central leader: Tree-shaping design

15. Effect of different training systems on tree growth in a high-density orchard-Magal, 2005.

16. Effect of different training systems on tree growth in a high-density orchard-Magal, 2005.

17. Effect of different training systems in a high density orchard –conclusions • The heavy pruning required to achieve a ‘Cordon’ tree shape delays tree development and reduces yield the first year. • This delayed development is disappearing in the second year. • Cultivar-yield ranking was: ‘Barnea’ > ‘Arbequina’ > ‘Maalot’. • Highest leftover fruit at harvest: ‘Arbequina’ (ca. 15%) • A small number of trees were uprooted during harvesting, mainly in the ‘Y’-form pruning system.

21. דרך השמן

22. עיצוב מטע לבוצרת- היקף גזעבאר חייל, דצמבר 05

24. עיצוב מטע לבוצרת, קורטינה- שטף קרינה,באר חייל, מרץ 06

25. עיצוב מטע לבוצרת, ברנע- שטף קרינהבאר חייל, מרץ 06

27. יבולי 2006 בניסוי שיטות עיצוב- באר חייל אחוזי שמן (אבנקור)- ברנע: 12.5%, קורטינה: 17.1%

28. Operating profit

29. Traditional olive orchards – ca. 10 x 10 m Intensive olive orchards – ca. 4 x 7 - 7 x 7 m High-density olive orchards – ca. 2-2.5 x 4 m ? Comparing productivity and harvesting costs: high-density orchards vs. trunk-shaking cultivation systems

31. Comparing productivity and harvesting costs: high-density orchard vs. trunk-shaking cultivation systems– harvesting costs • ‘Trunk shaker’- 1,650$ / ha. • ‘Overhead harvester’- 533$/ ha.

32. Olive yield (kg/ha) in two adjacent ‘Arbequina’ plots:one plot pruned for ‘overhead’ harvester, other plot pruned for ‘trunk-shaker’, Halutza 2003-6. * Calculated for 4 m between rows

33. Comparing productivity and harvesting costs: high-density orchard vs. trunk-shaking cultivation systems- conclusions • Reduction in harvest costs • Not much change in fruit yield • Higher costs in orchards establishment

34. Mechanical pruning

35. Topping: After the pruning: Hedging: Mechanical pruning

36. Mechanical pruning – Results • Four different regimes of topping and hedging with the high-vigor ‘Barnea’ cv. • Yield ranged from 1.3 to 4.6 kg/tree for the different treatments (differences not significant). • Low yields seem to be the result of heavy pruning, which reduced the proportion of fruit-bearing shoots.

37. - Small proportion of leafs and branches • Relatively low level of damage to the harvested fruit

38. Jojoba Harvester

39. Acknowledgements • Kibutz Magal, Kibutz Gshur,Hulda, Halutza • R & D Ramat Negev • Chief Scientist – Ministry of Agriculture • Technicians; Izak Zipory, Yair Meny, Yulia Sabutin, Moshe Aharon • Ehud Hanoch; Yonis Morira

40. Thank You