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

5. Using growth regulators to reduce vegetative growth Gibberellin inhibitors reduce branch elongation ControlUniconazole

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 reduce vegetative growth – side effects Loosely hanging Branches Promotion of lateral-bud development ControlUniconazole

9. Using growth regulators to reduce vegetative 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.

11. Performance of different varieties in ‘High- density’ orchards, Golan Heights, 2005/6. Oil yield (kg/ha.) % of oil Fruit yield (kg/ha.)Cultivar 1,03415.36,760Leccino 2,19518.911,580Arbequina 1,11019.65,690Barnea 44222.21,980Maalot 2,80026.410,600Askal 34017.31,964Souri 1,37118.97,273Picholine 2,26923.19,811Korneiki

12. Oil yield (kg/ha.) % of oil Fruit yield (kg/ha.)Cultivar 2,13920.310,480Leccino 3,56020.217,640Arbequina 2,70022.512,030Barnea 1,76227.56,410Maalot Askal 1,48020.87,107Souri 1,75619.29,140Picholine 2,42122.116,520Korneiki Performance of different varieties in ‘High- density’ orchards, Golan Heights, 2006/7.

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

15. Effect of different training systems on tree growth in a high-density orchard-Magal, 2005. Leaf area index Training system Cultivar 4 th year 3 rd year 6.1 bc4.9 aCentral leaderBarnea 6.3 bc4.3 bY- trellisBarnea 5.8 cd3.3 cCordonBarnea 7.1 a4.8 aCentral leaderArbequina 5.6 cd4.3 bY- trellisArbequina 5.5 cd3.4 cCordonArbequina 6.0 ab5.0 aCentral leaderMaalot 5.9 c4.0 bY- trellisMaalot 7.7 d2.7 dCordonMaalot

16. Effect of different training systems on tree growth in a high-density orchard-Magal, 2005. Yield Training system Cultivar Oil (kg/ha) Fruit (kg/tree) 2,5228.7Central leaderBarnea 1,7396.0Y- trellisBarnea 3621.3CordonBarnea 1,9907.7Central leaderArbequina 1,4205.4Y- trellisArbequina 2851.1CordonArbequina 1,0433.8Central leaderMaalot 1730.6Y- trellisMaalot 540.2CordonMaalot

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 גזע באר חייל, דצמבר 05

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

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

27. יבולי 2006 בניסוי שיטות עיצוב- באר חייל טיפוליבול (לשורה) ברנע, זקוף, 3 מ712 ק"ג ברנע- זקוף, 1.5 מ'759 ק"ג קורטינה, זקוף, 3 מ'120 ק"ג קורטינה, זקוף, 1.5 מ'209 ק"ג אחוזי שמן (אבנקור)- ברנע: 12.5%, קורטינה: 17.1%

29. Comparing productivity and harvesting costs: high-density orchards vs. trunk-shaking cultivation systems 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 ?

31. Comparing productivity and harvesting costs: high-density orchard vs. trunk-shaking cultivation systems– harvesting costs 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. Average 2006200520042003 9,36517,5005,54013,7207,030Trunk-shaker 6,94510,6605,5408,3803,200Overhead harvester (act.) 12,15618,6649,70014,6605,600Overhead harvester (cal.)* * 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

35. Mechanical pruning Topping: Hedging: After the 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. Although the orchard is high-density, sufficient room beside the orchard should be provided for the harvester to maneuver and unload the fruit

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

39. Jojoba Harvester Jojoba Harvester

40. 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

41. Thank You