Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Olive oil composition as a function of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium plant nutrition

Olive oil composition as a function of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium plant nutrition

BACKGROUND: Macronutrients play fundamental roles in processes affecting olive oil productivity and are expected to influence oil composition. A necessary step in optimal nutrient application management for olives is an understanding of the relationship between olive tree nutritional status and oil quality parameters. We studied the independent effects of N, P and K concentrations in irrigation solution on the oil quality of ‘Barnea’ olives by applying a wide range of macronutrient concentrations under highly controlled conditions.

Eric Ariel Ben-David

August 23, 2022
Tweet

More Decks by Eric Ariel Ben-David

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. Olive Oil Composition as a Function
    Of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
    Potassium Plant Nutrition
    Eric Ben-David, Ran Erel, Arnon Dag, Zohar Kerem,
    Alon Ben-Gal, Loai Basheer and Uri Yermiyahu

    View full-size slide

  2. Recent modernization of olive cultivation –
    densely planted irrigated orchards.
    Introduction

    View full-size slide

  3. Recent modernization of olive cultivation.
    Levels of nutrients influence plant growth, fruit
    production and oil yield.
    Introduction

    View full-size slide

  4. Introduction
    Recent modernization of olive cultivation.
    Levels of nutrients influence plant growth, fruit
    production and oil yield.
    Agro-technologies, cultivars and milling
    technologies influence health promoting
    compounds and sensorial properties of olive oil.
    Gutierrez, F., Jimenez, B., Ruiz, A. and Albi, M.A. 1999. Effect of olive ripeness on
    the oxidative stability of virgin olive oil extracted from varieties Picual and Hojiblanca
    and on the different components involved. J Agric Food Chem 47, 121-127.
    Beltran, G., del Rio, C., Sanchez, S. and Martinez, L. 2004. Influence
    of harvest date and crop yield on the fatty acid composition of virgin
    olive oils from cv. Picual. J Agric Food Chem 52, 3434-3440
    .
    Tura, D., Gigliotti, C., Pedo, S., Failla, O., Bassi, D. and Serraiocco, A. 2007. Influence of
    cultivar and site of cultivation on the levels of lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidants in virgin
    olive oils (Olea europea L) and correlation with oxidative stability. Scientia Hort 112, 108-119.

    View full-size slide

  5. Recent modernization of olive cultivation.
    Levels of nutrients influence plant growth,
    fruit production and oil yield.
    Agro-technologies influence olive oil
    composition.
    Sparse knowledge about the relations
    between nutrients & oil quality particularly
    under irrigation conditions.
    Fern´andez-Escobar R, Beltr´an G, S´anchez-Zamora MA, Garci´a-Novelo J, Aguilera MP and Uceda
    M, Olive oil quality decreases with nitrogen over-fertilization. HortScience 41:215–219 (2006).
    Morales-Sillero A, Jim´enez R, Fern´andez JE, Troncoso A and Beltr´an G, Influence of fertigation in
    ‘Manzanilla de Sevilla’ olive oil quality. HortScience 42:1157–1162 (2007).
    Introduction

    View full-size slide

  6. 6
    9
    6
    5
    4
    3
    Perica, 2001
    Dimassi et al., 1999
    Fernandez-Escobar et al,. 1999
    Sibbett and Ferguson, 2002
    Sharma et al., 2005
    .,
    Jordao et al, 1994
    Cimato et al., 1990 Tattini et al., 1990
    Fernandez-Escobar et al,. 2008 Hartmann and Brown, 1953
    Fernandez-Escobar et al,. 2004 Klein an Weinbaum, 1984
    Fernandez-Escobar et al,. 2000 Therios, 1988
    Inglese et al., 2002 Tabatabai, 2006
    Hartmann, 1958 Fernandez-Escobar et al., 2004
    Jastrotia et al., 1999
    Klein and Lavee, 1977
    Martin and Fernandez-Escobar, 1997
    Restrepo-Diaz et al., 2008 Restrepo-Diaz et al., 2008
    Perica, 2001 Arquero et al., 2006
    Ben Mimoun et al., 2004 Hartmann and Brown, 1953
    Jastrotia et al., 1999
    Klein and Lavee, 1977
    Hartmann and Brown, 1953 1
    Simoes et al., 2002
    Fernandez-Escobar et al., 2006
    Fernandez-Escobar et al., 2002
    Inglese et al., 2002
    23 2 8 32
    15
    9
    5
    Morales et al., 2007
    Perica et al., 1994
    Perica et al., 1994
    6
    Non-irrigated Irrigated Seedlings
    NPK in
    leaves
    N
    Fertilization
    K
    Fertiliza-
    tion
    P-Fer.
    Fertilization
    & oil
    Total

    View full-size slide

  7. Oil Quality
    Quality indices:
    1. Acidity.
    2. Peroxide value.
    3. Polyphenols content.
    4. Fatty acid composition.

    View full-size slide

  8. Acidity (FFA): % free fatty acids (oleic acid).
    <0.8% for extra virgin.
    Introduction

    View full-size slide

  9. Introduction
    Acidity (FFA): % free fatty acids (oleic acid).
    <0.8% for extra virgin.
    Peroxide Value: a measure of the active oxygen
    and the potential to go rancid. Primary products of
    oxidation. ≤ 20 mEQ O2
    /kg oil.

    View full-size slide

  10. Acidity (FFA): % free fatty acids (oleic acid).
    <0.8% for extra virgin.
    Peroxide Value: a measure of the active oxygen
    and potential to go rancid. primary products of
    oxidation.
    Polyphenols (P”P): strong antioxidants; important
    for stability and flavor characteristics (bitterness
    and pungency).
    Introduction

    View full-size slide

  11. Introduction
    Acidity (FFA): % free fatty acids (oleic acid).
    <0.8% for extra virgin.
    Peroxide Value: a measure of the active oxygen
    and potential to go rancid. primary products of
    oxidation.
    Polyphenols (P”P): strong antioxidants; important
    for stability and flavor characteristics.
    Fatty Acid Profile (FAP): % individual fatty acids
    in the oil. Influence stability and nutritional value.
    Authenticity assurance. Oleic = desirable
    nutritionally ; linoleic and linolenic = undesirable
    for stability .

    View full-size slide

  12. Oleic acid C 18:1 Linoleic acid C 18:2 Linolenic acid C 18:3
    PUFA
    MUFA
    Introduction
    Purity Standards for Olive Oil
    (2002 EU) (1996 IOC)
    55.0
    -
    83.0
    3.5
    -
    21.0
    1.0 Max.
    (EU – 0.9)
    Oleic acid C 18:1
    Linoleic acid C 18:2
    Linolenic acid C 18:3
    Fatty acid
    composition
    (methyl esters %)

    View full-size slide

  13. To study the independent effects of N, P and K levels in the
    irrigation solution on the composition of olive oil (var.
    ‘Barnea’) using wide concentrations range under highly
    controlled conditions.
    Objective
    N P
    K

    View full-size slide

  14. Fruits picked by hand upon reaching an appropriate
    ripeness index.
    Methods

    View full-size slide

  15. Fruits picked by hand upon reaching an appropriate
    ripeness index.
    Oil was extracted using an ‘Abencor’ system.
    Methods

    View full-size slide

  16. Fruits picked by hand upon reaching an appropriate
    ripeness index.
    Oil was extracted using an ‘Abencor’ system.
    Oil quality indices analyzed according to ISO & IOC.
    Methods

    View full-size slide

  17. Leaf (□) and fruit flesh (○)
    concentrations of N, P and K
    Symbols are means (n = 6) and
    lines are best-fit regression using
    all data (p<0.0001).
    N
    Strong associations: irrigation solution
    vs. tissue levels & leaf vs. flesh conc.
    Saturation curves for N & P; N levels
    higher in leaf; opposite for P & K.
    Wide range of mineral conc. in tissue.
    Enable study of oil quality as a function
    of mineral conc. in tissue.
    Flesh importance - synthesis and
    accumulation of oil occur in the flesh.
    Leaf
    Flesh
    P
    K
    Results - Mineral Accumulation in Tissue

    View full-size slide

  18. Acidity (FFA)
    Trend repeated for 2
    consecutive years.
    FFA was negatively
    influenced by N conc.
    FFA more than
    doubled between the
    two extreme
    treatments.
    y = 0.36x - 0.16
    R2 = 0.77
    y = 0.37x - 0.35
    R2 = 0.83
    0.0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    0.5
    0.6
    0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
    Flesh N concentration (% DW)
    FFA conc. (%)
    2008
    2007
    N

    View full-size slide

  19. Polyphenols (P”P)
    Highest P”P content at
    deficiency level for N
    (lowest N treatment).
    0
    150
    300
    450
    600
    750
    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
    Flesh N concentration (% DW)
    P"P conc. (ppm)
    2008
    2007
    y = 0.36x - 0.16
    R2 = 0.77
    y = 0.37x - 0.35
    R2 = 0.83
    0.0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    0.5
    0.6
    0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
    Flesh N concentration (% DW)
    FFA conc. (%)
    2008
    2007
    N
    Acidity (FFA)
    Trend repeated for 2
    consecutive years.
    FFA was negatively
    influenced by N conc.
    FFA more than doubled
    between the two
    extreme treatments.

    View full-size slide

  20. y = 9.0728x-0.9147
    R2 = 0.6312
    y = 44.403x-0.4698
    R2 = 0.765
    0
    50
    100
    150
    200
    250
    0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
    P conc. (% DW)
    P"P conc. (ppm)
    2008
    2007
    Polyphenols (P”P)
    Three lowest P
    treatments produced the
    highest P”P content.
    Low initial P”P due to
    irrigation/N
    fertilization.
    y = 0.54x + 0.12
    R2 = 0.89
    0.00
    0.05
    0.10
    0.15
    0.20
    0.25
    0.30
    0.35
    0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
    Flesh P conc. (% DW)
    FFA conc. (%)
    2008
    2007
    Acidity (FFA)
    P conc. influenced
    acidity negatively in
    2008 but not in 2007
    and not as strongly as
    N.
    Acidity increased from
    0.14% to 0.23%
    between the two
    extreme P treatments.
    P

    View full-size slide

  21. K
    0.00
    0.05
    0.10
    0.15
    0.20
    0.25
    0.30
    0.35
    0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
    Flesh K conc. (% DW)
    FFA conc. (%)
    2008
    2007
    0
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    120
    0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
    Flesh K conc. (% DW)
    P"P conc. (ppm)
    2008
    2007
    FFA and P”P were not
    influenced despite the
    wide concentrations
    range and high levels
    of K.
    FFA
    P”P

    View full-size slide

  22. Fatty Acid Profile (FAP)
    y = -4.5x + 63.5
    R2 = 0.80
    y = -8.0x + 68.8
    R2 = 0.60
    51
    54
    57
    60
    63
    66
    0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
    Flesh N conc. (%)
    C18:1 conc. (%)
    y = 28.7x + 16.3
    R2 = 0.64
    y = 11.8x + 20.3
    R2 = 0.46
    12
    14
    16
    18
    20
    22
    24
    26
    0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
    y = 2.07x + 0.72
    R2 = 0.93
    y = 2.14x + 0.73
    R2 = 0.95
    0.4
    0.6
    0.8
    1.0
    1.2
    1.4
    1.6
    0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
    2008
    2007
    y = -26.4x + 62.1
    R2 = 0.51 y = -11.9x + 57.9
    R2 = 0.44
    51
    54
    57
    60
    63
    66
    0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
    Flesh P conc. (%)
    MUFA
    y = 0.40x + 0.59
    R² = 0.85
    y = 0.38x + 0.58
    R2 = 0.69
    0.4
    0.6
    0.8
    1.0
    1.2
    1.4
    1.6
    0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
    C18:3 conc. (%)
    2008
    2007
    y = 4.6x + 15.1
    R2 = 0.75
    y = 7.96x + 9.19
    R2 = 0.66
    12
    14
    16
    18
    20
    22
    24
    26
    0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
    C18:2 conc. (%)
    PUFA
    Higher flesh’ N levels
    led to sharply lower
    MUFA & higher PUFA.
    C18:3 & flesh’ N levels
    correlated particularly
    well.
    Higher flesh’ N levels
    in 2007 correlated with
    lower MUFA & higher
    PUFA compared with
    2008.
    P displayed similar
    trends albeit weaker.
    K had no effect on FAP.
    C18:1
    C18:3
    C18:2
    N
    P
    K

    View full-size slide

  23. ‘Barnea’ oil composition was significantly
    influenced by N & P levels; K had a minor effect.
    Conclusions

    View full-size slide

  24. ‘Barnea’ oil composition was significantly influenced
    by N & P levels; K had a minor effect.
    Decreased MUFA and P”P content coupled with
    increased PUFA suggest decreased oil stability.
    Conclusions
    PUFA
    MUFA
    P”P
    FFA C18:3
    C18:2
    C18:1





    ↑ N





    ↑ P
    --------
    --------
    --------
    -----
    ------
    ↑ K

    View full-size slide

  25. ‘Barnea’ oil composition was significantly influenced
    by N & P levels; K had a minor effect.
    Decreased MUFA and P”P content coupled with
    increased PUFA suggest decreased oil stability.
    Peroxide value was not influenced by the mineral’s
    concentrations.
    Conclusions

    View full-size slide

  26. Conclusions
    ‘Barnea’ oil composition was significantly influenced
    by N & P levels; K had a minor effect.
    Decreased MUFA and P”P content coupled with
    increased PUFA suggest decreased oil stability.
    Peroxide value was not influenced by the mineral’s
    concentrations.
    The study highlights the potential hazard of over-
    fertilization with N & P.

    View full-size slide

  27. Conclusions
    ‘Barnea’ oil composition was significantly influenced
    by N & P levels; K had a minor effect.
    Decreased MUFA and P”P content coupled with
    increased PUFA suggest decreased oil stability.
    Peroxide value was not influenced by the mineral’s
    concentrations.
    The study highlights the potential hazard of over-
    fertilization with N & P.
    Validating the results under field conditions is
    necessary.

    View full-size slide