Printer Friendly

DETERMINATION OF RAW AND PROCESSED BLACK OLIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX CULTIVARS.

Byline: Y. Ozdemir, A. Ozturk, N. A. Tangu, M. E. Akcay, U. Ozyurt and S. Ercisli

Keywords: Cross breeding, genotype, oleuropein, total phenol, antioxidant activity, sensory test.

INTRODUCTION

Fruits are genetically very diverse groups and grown in temperate, subtropical and tropical regions and have been recognized for their human health benefits. Most of the fruits have high content of non-nutritive, nutritive, and bioactive compounds such as flavonoids, phenolics, anthocyanins, phenolic acids, and as well as nutritive compounds such as sugars, essential oils, carotenoids, vitamins, and minerals (Sahin et al., 2002; Ercisli et al., 2008; Halasz et al., 2010; Ercisli et al., 2011; Butuic-Keul et al., 2019; Guney et al., 2019) Olive production in the world is concentrated in the Mediterranean countries including Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, Tunisia and Morocco. New olive cultivars with better table olive characteristics than standard olive cultivars have potential to increase profit in the table olive industry and to satisfy consumer expectations.

One of the most important components, responsible for the nutritional benefits of olive fruit, are phenolic content, which are main secondary metabolites in olive fruits (Amiot et al., 1986) and can be used for selection of cultivar candidates (Bellini et al., 2008; Leon et al., 2008). Crossbreeding studies have been continuing in olives and promising cultivars have been released in the last years (Arcas et al., 2013). In Mediterranean countries including Turkey (Arsel and Cirik, 1994; Ozdemir et al., 2011), Tunisia (Trigui, 1996), Greece (Pritsa et al., 2003) and Italy (Bellini et al., 2002) crossbreeding and clonal selection studies have been conducted.

These studies aimed to select genotypes characterized by early bearing, resistance to pests and to abiotic stresses, limiting alternate bearing, suitability to intensive culture and to mechanical harvesting, as well as high-quality productions, in terms of both organoleptic characteristics of fruits and oils, and high contents in substances useful for human health (Bellini et al., 2008; Ozdemir et al., 2011). The present study was aimed to determine characteristics of raw and processed (spontaneous fermentation was used for processing) black olives of six cultivar candidates and comparing them with those of olives from Gemlik cultivar, one of the widespread standard table olive cultivars in Turkey. Determined olive characteristics were used for final selection steps of these olive cultivars candidates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, olives from six cultivar candidates as well as Gemlik cultivar were evaluated. These cultivar candidates were developed by cross-breeding of Gemlik and Edincik su cultivars. These trees were planted at 1.5 m x 3 m within and between rows on field in olive genotype observation orchard of Ataturk Central Horticultural Research Institute (Yalova/Turkey) in 2001. Maturity index of olives were followed according to Berenguer et al. (2006) and olives were randomly handpicked in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years. Code of olives and their maturity index were given in Table 1.

Method of table olive production: Olives were processed to table olive according to method of spontaneous fermentation in brine (Anonymous, 2014; Ozdemir et al., 2011). Olives were kept in 10% brine, also plates and stones were put as force source on olive fruits (3.5 kg/m2) to accelerate olive debittering and increase dry matter of olives. Salt concentration were controlled in brine at 3 days intervals and adjusted to 7%. Olives were fermented in brine at 16 AdegC until pH fall to 5.0 approximately in 6 months.

Physical and Chemical Analysis: An official method according to TS 774 (1992) has been used to determine fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio. The average weight of fruit and flesh to seed ratio was determined using 100 fruits. Fruit and seed size were measured using digital compass (Mitutoyo, Japan). Color values of olive skin were measured with a color meter (Konica Minolta, Japan). Maturity index was determined after Hassan et al. (2011). Salt contents were determined after the method described by Garcia et al. (1991). Texture hardness of olive was measured with fruit hardness tester (W.O.W FRH-5, Japan). A conventional oven (75+-2 AdegC) was used to determine water content of fruits (Esti et al., 1998). Folin-Ciocalteu method was used for total phenol determination (Thaipong et al., 2006) and antioxidant activity was determined by DPPH method (Usenik et al., 2008).

Absorbance value of oleuropein was determined by spectrophotometric method at 345 nm according to Mastorakis et al. (2004). pH, titratable acidityand sodium chloride content were determined according to official method (TS 774, 1992).

Sensory Analysis: Sensory profile of processed olives were determined by the panel of ten trained judges with 9 point scale (Aponte et al. (2010). Three sessions as 1 hour (4-5 samples/session) were conducted to complete the analysis. Olive sample preparation, serving and tasting were arranged following Galan-Soldevilla and Ruiz Perez-Cacho (2010). The appearance and color attributes were assessed by the whole panel on the complete sample before carrying out the tasting. Firstly odor, after that ease of separation from seed, taste, bitterness and finally, general appreciation attributes were evaluated (Galan-Soldevilla et al., 2013).

Statistical analysis: The experiment was laid out under completely randomized design with four replications. Data related to physical and chemical characteristics of raw and processed olives were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means were separated by LSD test (pa$?0.05). SPSS 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) was used for raw data analysis. There were no differences between 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years thus the data of both years were pooled.

Table 1. Olives and their maturity index (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years)

Cultivar codes###Maturity Index

GE-076###5.6

GE-320###5.1

GE-366###5.7

GE-397###5.2

GE-409###5.3

GE-493###5.6

Gemlik###5.4

Table 2. Fruit and seed size, fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio of raw olives (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years)

Sample###Fruit length###Fruit width###Seed length###Seed width###Fruit weight###Flesh to seed

###(cm)###(cm)###(cm)###(cm)###(g)###ratio

GE076###2.2###1.9###1.4NS###0.8###4.3c###5.5

GE320###2.5###2.1###1.6###0.9###5.9b###5.7

GE366###2.2###2.0###1.4###0.9###5.4b###5.6

GE379###2.3###2.0###1.4###0.8###4.8c###5.5

GE397###2.6###2.1###1.8###1.0###6.5a###5.8

GE409###2.5###2.2###1.6###1.0###6.2a###6.0

Gemlik###2.5###1.8###1.4###0.7###4.4c###5.3

LSD0.05###NS###NS###NS###NS###NS###NS

Table 3. Color values, hardness, pH and titratable acidity of raw olive (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years).

Sample###Color values###Hardness (g)###pH###Titratable acidity

###L###a###b###(% oleic acid)

GE076###25.04NS###5.51NS###-0.14NS###500NS###5.51NS###0.30b

GE320###28.78###5.46###0.80###490###5.46###0.22d

GE366###22.19###5.43###0.66###510###5.43###0.37a

GE379###26.48###5.32###0.50###470###5.32###0.34b

GE397###27.05###5.48###0.42###480###5.48###0.27c

GE409###26.87###5.63###0.75###510###5.63###0.32b

Gemlik###28.22###5.52###0.43###490###5.52###0.38a

Table 4. Water, total phenol, oleuropein absorbance value and antioxidant activity of raw olives (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years)

Sample###Water###Oleuropein absorbance###Total phenolics###Antioxidant activity

###(%)###value (K345)###(gallic acid mg/ 100g)###(uM trolox/ kg)

GE076###71.85NS###2.52a###463.15a###4296.23a

GE320###71.56###1.39c###316.84b###3261.35b

GE366###72.03###1.85bc###221.53c###3680.66b

GE379###70.31###2.04b###202.61cd###3304.52b

GE397###71.14###1.26c###175.22d###2618.73c

GE409###70.10###1.12cd###219.53c###3142.16bc

Gemlik###72.27###1.08d###320.17b###4268.53a

Table 5. Fruit and seed size, fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio of processed olive (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years).

Sample###Fruit width###Fruit length (cm)###Seed width###Seed length###Fruit weight (g)###Flesh to seed

###(cm)###(cm)###(cm)###ratio

GE076###1.4c###1.8d###0.8NS###1.4NS###3.9e###5.3NS

GE320###1.5c###2.4ab###0.9###1.6###5.4b###5.7

GE366###1.6bc###2.1c###0.9###1.4###5.0bc###5.9

GE379###1.7ab###2.4ab###0.8###1.4###4.7cd###5.5

GE397###1.9a###2.6a###0.9###1.8###6.0a###5.8

GE409###1.7ab###2.4b###1.0###1.6###5.3b###6.0

Gemlik###1.8ab###2.4b###0.8###1.4###4.5d###5.4

Table 6. Color values, hardness, pH and titratable acidity of processed olive (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years).

Sample###Color values###Hardness (g)###pH###Titratable acidity

###L###A###b###(% oleic acid)

GE076###30.42NS###8.61b###7.01b###260c###4.60NS###0.49b

GE320###34.68###11.69a###10.51a###290bc###4.65###0.59a

GE366###26.16###5.21d###2.99d###330ab###4.79###0.33c

GE379###25.78###7.83c###2.85d###290bc###4.82###0.47b

GE397###29.18###9.16ab###4.11c###350a###4.83###0.36c

GE409###29.15###11.53a###6.31b###340ab###4.72###0.48b

Gemlik###27.81###7.66c###2.92d###380a###4.55###0.49b

Table 7. Water, salt and total phenol, oleuropein absorbance value and antioxidant activity of processed olives (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years)

Sample###Water###Oleuropein absorbance###Salt (%)###Total phenolics###Antioxidant activity

###(%)###value (K345)###(gallic acid mg/ 100g)###(uM trolox/ kg)

GE076###64.74e###0.26a###3.83d###100.68b###130.29NS

GE320###69.03a###0.18cd###4.17b###97.61b###140.60

GE366###63.88e###0.19bc###4.07bc###91.05c###141.07

GE379###68.06ab###0.19ab###4.43a###113.23a###138.68

GE397###65.10de###0.18b###3.90cd###91.00c###140.55

GE409###67.26bc###0.16d###4.07bc###96.09bc###147.26

Gemlik###66.36cd###0.16d###4.20b###111.16a###140.56

Table 8. Sensory evaluation scores of processed olives (0-9) (average of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years)

Sample###Appearance###Color###Odor###Ease of separation###Taste###Bitterness###General###Total

###from seed###appreciation###Score

GE076###5.7c###5.5NS###5.8NS###6.5NS###6.0ab###0.3NS###6.5b###36.2NS

GE320###5.5c###5.0###6.0###7.7###4.8b###0.5###5.3c###33.2

GE366###7.2a###7.5###5.9###7.0###7.2a###0.3###7.2a###43.7

GE379###6.7b###7.7###6.2###6.8###7.3a###0.4###6.5b###40.5

GE397###7.0b###6.8###5.9###7.0###6.5ab###0.3###7.0a###40.8

GE409###6.5b###6.5###6.1###6.0###4.8b###0.3###5.0c###33.2

Gemlik###7.5a###7.3###6.2###6.3###5.5ab###0.4###6.2b###38.3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Consumers prefer high fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio; moreover, price of olive increases in parallel to these values (Son, 2004). Therefore, these values are required to be as high as possible for a new developed cultivar. Fruit and seed size with fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio of raw olive are shown in Table 2. No significant differences were observed among the physical characters of olives except fruit weight. In this study, fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio was observed higher than reported by Rallo et al. (2008) and Arji and Bahmanipour (2014) but similar Medina et al. (2010) for evaluated olive cultivars and cultivar candidates. The differences could be due to different materials used (cultivars, genotypes, accessions), growing conditions, soil properties etc.

Color values, hardness, pH and titratable acidity of raw olive samples are presented in Table 3. The hardness of a material is measured as its surface resistance to penetration against an indenter. It is also an important table olive quality criterion (Castro-Garcia et al., 2009). In present study, hardness, pH and titratable acidity of olive samples were observed between 470-510 g, 5.32-5.63 and 0.22-0.38% oleic acid, respectively. Olives has four surface colors; green, turning color, natural black and ripe olives (BOE, 2001). In this research table olives were categorized in natural black olive.

Water and total phenol content, oleuropein absorbance value and antioxidant activity of raw olives are given in Table 4. Oleuropein absorbance value is an indicator of olive bitterness. Low oleuropein absorbance value of olives is required for olives since, it provide easiness and short time for debittering of olives (Boskou et al., 2015, Ozdemir et al., 2014). On the contrary, antioxidant activity and total phenol content of olives are required at high values because of their role on prevention against certain diseases especially cancer (Dimitrios, 2006, Kris-Etherton et al., 2002). Antioxidant activity was in accordance with the results of Uylaser et al. (2000). However, oleuropein absorbance values and total phenolic content were higher than the results from the previous studies (Kumral et al., 2009; Sanchez Gomez et al., 2006). This disparity may be due to use of different material.

The criteria for choosing an appropriate new cultivar for table olives can be listed as proper shape with good size, high flesh/stone ratio, ease in releasing the seed and texture (Sanchez Gomez et al., 2006). Fruit and seed size, fruit weight and flesh to seed ratio of processed olives were given in Table 5. Flesh to seed ratio requirement is at least 5 for new table olive cultivar candidates according to breeding researchers (Varol et al., 2009). In this research flesh to seed ratio of all table olives had higher value than 5.

Glossy black color and high flesh hardness of table olives were a few of the required criteria (Boskou et al., 2015, Varol et al., 2009). Color values, hardness, pH and titratable acidity of processed olives were given in Table 6. When bitterness removed (fruits fermented), they are oxidized by exposure to air and this process improves the skin color (Fernandez Diez, 1991). In this research, olives did not expose to air particularly in a processing step, instead air only contacted to olive during processing steps. Black color values of spontaneous fermented olive without oxidation step were less than oxidized table olive (Boskou et al., 2015).

Water, salt and total phenol content, oleuropein absorbance value and antioxidant activity of processed olives were shown in Table 7. Oleuropein absorbance of the olives decreased during fermentation, which is related with diffusion to brine (Ozdemir et al., 2014). Oleuropein absorbance value and total phenolic content of the samples were in accordance with the previous studies (Ben Othman et al., 2008; Morello et al., 2004; Uylaser et al., 2000). Titratable acidity content of the processed table olives were lower than Poiana and Romeo (2006); moreover, water content were higher than Kumral et al. (2009).

Debittering steps were used in table olive processes to loss bitter taste and astringency due to phenolic compounds (Ben Othman et al., 2008). Oleuropein was important phenolic component and it is responsible from this bitter taste (Panagou, 2006). Oleuropein absorbance value gives information about the content of oleuropein in olive samples (Kumral et al., 2009). In this research after processing, 85.18-90.69% loss was detected in oleuropein absorbance value.

With processing, olive fruit pulp loss of phenolic compounds; nevertheless, table olives still remain as an important source of phenolic compounds (Boskou et al., 2006). In this research after processing olives, total phenol content and antioxidant loss were determined between 44.11-78.26% and 94.63-96.97%, respectively. GE379 and Gemlik showed higher total phenol content after processing. Despite using the same production method, statistically significant difference was determined in salt content of processed olive samples, which changed between 3.83-4.43%. This difference was thought to be associated with the olive skin permeability and tissue hardness properties of olives, which depend on genetic factors of olive cultivar candidates.

Fermentation improved flavor and texture characteristics (Sanchez Gomez et al., 2006) and color as a consequence of the different anthocyanin polymerization (Romero et al., 2004). Result of sensory evaluation of processed olives was shown in Table 8. In order to produce spontaneous fermented black table olives, fruits should be ripe (not over ripe). It means at the end of the season olive fruit retain an excellent color after processing but their texture is not hard enough to attract consumer (Sanchez Gomez et al., 2006). Further more, in this research olives were harvested between 5,1-5,6 maturation index and processed with spontaneous fermentation. After that color, appearance, taste and general appreciation scores were determined higher than 5.0 by sensory evaluation test.

As a result of the sensory evaluation of olive cultivars, appearances as well as taste and general appreciation were affected sensory criteria. In other words, GE366 had statistically highest scores for his sensory attributes and total score. It was followed by GE379 and GE397. GE409, GE076 and GE320 had lower total score than Gemlik cultivar, which was used for comparison. Previous studies indicated compositional and sensory differences of horticultural crops (Zia-Ul-Haq et al., 2014; Gecer et al., 2020).

Conclusion: According to results significant differences were observed for titratable acidity, oleuropein absorbance value, total phenol content and antioxidant activity of raw olive. Also fruit width, length and weight, color values, hardness, titratable acidity, oleuropein absorbance value, water, salt and total phenol content, appearance, taste and general appreciation sensory scores of processed olives were significantly different. GE076 (463.15 mg gallic acid equivalent/100 g) among raw olives but GE379 (113.23 mg gallic acid equivalent/100 g) among processed olives had high total phenol content. GE366 was found to have the highest total sensory scores and the GE320 lowest. GE397 was found to have highest fruit weight with good flesh to seed ratio and second highest total sensory scores.

REFERENCES

Amiot, M.J., A. Fleuriet and J.J. Macheix (1986). Importance and evolution of phenolic compounds in olive during growth and maturation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 34 (5): 822-826.

Anonymous (2014). Table Olive Communique, Turkish Food Codex Regulation, Published on date and number: 23.08.2014-29097, Communique No: 2014/33.

Aponte, M., V. Ventorino., G. Blaiotta., G. Volpe., V. Farina, G. Avellone and G. Moschetti (2010). Study of green Sicilian table olive fermentations through microbiological, chemical and sensory analyses. Food Microbiol. 27(1):162-170.

Arcas, N., F.N. Arroyo Lopez., J. Caballero., R. D'Andria., M. Fernandez., R. Fernandez-Escobar., A. Garrido., J. Lopez-Miranda., M. Msallem., M. Parras., L. Rallo and R. Zanoli (2013). Present and future of the Mediterranean olive sector. Options Mediterraneennes, A, 106: 182-192.

Arsel, H, and N. Cirik (1994). A general overview of olive breeding in Turkey. Olivae 52:25-27.

Arji, I, and F. Bahmanipour (2014). Adaptation ability of some olive cultivars and genotypes in Ilam province. Seed Plant Improv. J, 30 (4): 761-775.

Bellini, E., E. Giordani., M.V. Parlati and S. Pandolfi (2002). Olive genetic improvement: thirty years of research. Acta Hortic. 586:105-108.

Bellini, E., E. Giordani and A. Rosati (2008). Genetic improvement of olive from clonal selection to cross-breeding programs. Adv. Hort. Sci. 22:73-86.

Ben Othman, N., D. Roblain., P. Thonart and M. Hamdi (2008). Tunisian table olive phenolic compounds and their antioxidant capacity. J. Food Sci. 73 (4):C235-C240.

Berenguer, M.J., P.M. Vossen., S.R. Grattan., J.H. Connell and V.S. Polito (2006). Tree irrigation levels for optimum chemical and sensory properties of olive oil. HortScience, 41(2):427-432.

BOE (2001). Boletin Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 1230/2001. 2001. Reglamentacion tecnico-sanitaria para la elaboracion, circulacion y venta de las aceitunas de mesa. BOE num 279, 21/11/2001, 42587-42594.

Boskou, G., F.N. Salta., S. Chrysostomou., A. Mylona., A. Chiou and N.K. Andrikopoulos (2006). Antioxidant capacity and phenolic profile of table olives from the Greek market. Food Chem. 94:558-64.

Boskou, D., S. Camposeo and M.L. Clodoveo (2015). Table olives as sources of bioactive compounds. Olive and Olive Oil Bioactive Constituents, 217.

Butiuc-Keul, A., A. Coste., A. Farkas., V. Cristea., V. Isac and A. Halmagyi (2019). Molecular characterization of apple (Malus x domestica Borkh.) genotypes originating from three complementary conservation strategies. Turk. J. Agric. For, 43: 464-477.

Castro-Garcia, S., U.A. Rosa., C.J. Gliever., D. Smith., J.K. Burns., W.H. Krueger and K. Glozer (2009). Video evaluation of table olive damage during harvest with a canopy shaker. HortTechnology, 19(2): 260-266.

Dimitrios, B. (2006). Sources of natural phenolic antioxidants. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17 (9): 505-512.

Ercisli, S., M. Akbulut., O. Ozdemir., M. Sengul and E. Orhan (2008). Phenolic and antioxidant diversity among persimmon (Diospyrus kaki L.) genotypes in Turkey. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 59 (6): 477-482.

Ercisli, S., A. Ipek and E. Barut (2011). SSR marker-based DNA fingerprinting and cultivar identification of olives (Olea europaea). Biochem Genet 49 (9-10): 555-561.

Esti, M., L. Cinquanta and E. La Notte (1998). Phenolic compounds in different olive varieties. J. Agric. Food Chem, 46: 32-35.

Fernandez Diez, M.J (1991). Olives. Encylopedia of Food Science and Tecnology, Volume: 3 Ed: Y.H. Hui, Wiley-Sons, New York, 1910-1925.

Galan-Soldevilla, H. and P. Ruiz Perez-Cacho (2010). Sensory characterization of Alorena olives Universidad de Cordoba (Cordoba-Spain). Private report to the Manzanilla-Alorena industrial sector.

Galan-Soldevilla, H., P. Ruiz Perez-Cacho and J.A. Hernandez Campuzano (2013). Determination of the characteristic sensory profiles of Alorena table-olive. Grasas y Aceites, 64(4): 442-452.

Garcia Garcia, P., M. Brenes Balbuena. A. Garrido Fernandez (1991). Metodos instrumentales para la determinacion de NaCI en las salmueras de aceitunas. Grasas y Aceitas, 42:261-266.

Gecer, M.K., T. Kan., M. Gundogdu., S. Ercisli., G. Ilhan., H.I. Sagbas (2020). Physicochemical characteristics of wild and cultivated apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.) from Aras valley in Turkey. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol, 67:935-945.

Guney, M., S. Kafkas., A. Koc., S. Aras., H. Keles and H. Karci (2019). Characterization of quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) accessions by simple sequence repeat markers. Turk. J. Agric. For, 43: 69-79.

Halasz, J., A. Pedryc., S. Ercisli., K.U. Yilmaz and A. Hegedus (2010). S-genotyping supports the genetic relationships between Turkish and Hungarian apricot germplasm. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 135 (5): 410-417.

Hassan, H.E., A.A. El-Rahman, and M.M. Attia (2011). Color properties of olive fruits during its maturity stages using image analysis. AIP Conference Proceedings 1380(1), 101-106.

Kumral, A., F. Basoglu, and I. Sahin (2009). Effect of the use of different lactic starters on the microbiological and physicochemical characteristics of naturally black table olives of Gemlik cultivar. J. Food Process. Pres. 33(5): 651-664.

Kris-Etherton, P. M., K.D. Hecker., A. Bonanome., S.M. Coval., A.E. Binkoski., K.F. Hilpert and T.D. Etherton (2002). Bioactive compounds in foods: their role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Am. J. Med. 113 (9): 71-88.

Leon, L., R.De la Rosa., A. Gracia and L.D. Barranco (2008). Fatty acid composition of advanced olive selections obtained by crossbreeding. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88 (11):1921-1926.

Mastorakis, M., T.G. Sotiroudis., A. Xenakis and S. Miniadis-Meimaroglou (2004). Spectrophotometric analysis of enzymic and non-enzymic oxidation of oleuropein. Chem. Phys. Lipids, 130(1): 58-58.

Medina, E., C. Gori., M. Servili., A. De Castro., C. Romero and M. Brenes (2010). Main variables affecting the lactic acid fermentation of table olives. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 45: 1291-1296.

Morello, J.R., M.P. Romero and M.J. Motilva (2004). Effect of the maturation process of the olive fruit on the phenolic fraction of drupes and oils from Arbequina, Farga, and Morrut cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52 (19): 6002-6009.

Ozdemir, Y., M.E. Akcay and S. Kurultay (2011). A study on table and oil olive cultivars obtained by cross breeding. Bahce 40:29-36.

Ozdemir, Y., E. Guven and A. Ozturk (2014). Understanding the characteristics of oleuropein for table olive processing. J. Food Process. Technol. 5:1-6.

Panagou, E.Z. (2006). Greek dry-salted olives: monitoring the dry-salting process and subsequent physico-chemical and microbiological profile during storage under different packing conditions at 4 and 20 AdegC. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 39:322-329.

Poiana, M. and F.V. Romeo (2006). Changes in chemical and microbiological parameters of some varieties of Sicily olives during natural fermentation. Grasas y Aceites, 57(4): 402-408.

Pritsa, T.S., D.G. Voyiatzis., C.J. Voyiatzi and M.S. Sotiriou (2003). Evaluation of vegetative growth traits and their relation to time to first flowering of olive seedlings. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 54:371-376.

Rallo, L., D. Barranco., R. de la Rosa and L. Leon (2008). Chiquitita olive. HortScience, 43(2): 529-531.

Romero, C., M. Brenes., K.Yousfi., P. Garcia., A. Garcia and A. Garrido (2004). Effect of cultivar and processing method on the contents of polyphenols in table olives. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52: 479-484.

Sahin, U., O. Anapali and S. Ercisli (2002). Physico-chemical and physical properties of some substrates used in horticulture. Gartenbauwissenschaft, 67(2):55-60.

Sanchez Gomez, A.H., P. Garcia Garcia and L. Rejano Navarro (2006). Elaboration of table olives. Grasas y Aceites, 57 (1): 86-94.

Son, L. (2004). Effects of hand and chemical thinning on fruit size and quality of 'Priana'and 'Beliana'apricot (Prunus armeniaca) cultivars. New Zeal. J. Crop Hort. 32:331-335.

Thaipong, K., U. Boonprakob., K. Crosby., L. Cisneros-Zevallos and D.H. Byrne (2006). Comparison of ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays for estimating antioxidant activity from guava fruits extracts, J. Food Compos. Anal. 19: 669-675.

Trigui, A (1996). Improving the quantity and quality of olive production in Tunisia: Unavoidable need and outlook for olive identification and breeding. Olivae, 61:34-40.

TS 774 (1992). Turkish Standards Institute, Turkish Table Olive Standard. Ankara, Turkey.

Usenik, V., J. Fabcic, and F. Stampar (2008). Sugars, organic acids, phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Food Chemistry, 107: 185-192.

Uylaser, V., M. Korukluoglu., D. Gocmen., A. Yildirim and I. Sahin (2000). The effect of different types and applications on product quality in green olive production. Proceedings of 1st Olive Symposium, pp. 220-226.

Varol, N., L. Erten and T. Turanli (2009). Olive. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, General Directorate of Organization and Support, Publication no:52, 330 p.

Zia-Ul-Haq, M., S. Ahmad., S.A. Bukhari., R. Amarowicz., S. Ercisli., H.Z.E. Jaafar (2014). Compositional studies and biological activities of some mash bean (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) cultivars commonly consumed in Pakistan. Biol. Res, 47:23.
COPYRIGHT 2020 Knowledge Bylanes
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2020 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Y. Ozdemir, A. Ozturk, N. A. Tangu, M. E. Akcay, U. Ozyurt and S. Ercisli
Publication:Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
Date:Dec 31, 2020
Words:4735
Previous Article:ANATOMICAL ADAPTATIONS OF TOLERANCE TO SALT STRESS IN CENCHRUS CILIARIS L., A SALINE DESERT GRASS.
Next Article:BEAUVERIA PSEUDOBASSIANA REHNER AND HUMBER, 2011 A NEW ENTOMOPATHOGENIC FUNGUS FROM GARA MOUNTAIN, IRAQ.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |