Research Article
Volume 3 Issue 2 - 2018
Oil Characteristics of High Yield Olive Genotypes Obtained by Crossing of Belle D’espagne with Uslu and Karamurselsu Cultivars
Yasin Ozdemir*, Seda Kayahan, Aysun Ozturk, Nesrin Aktepe Tangu and Ozge Keskinel
Ataturk Central Horticultural Research Institute, Yalova, Turkey
*Corresponding Author: Yasin Ozdemir, Ataturk Central Horticultural Research Institute, Yalova, Turkey.
Received: June 18, 2018; Published: July 14, 2018
This research is aimed to determine olive oil characteristic of 4 cultivar candidates which were obtained by cross breeding program of Ataturk Horticultural Central Research Institute Yalova/Turkey. “Belle d’Espagne X Karamurselsu” was parents of BK022 and BK024 and “Belle d’Espagne X Uslu” was parents of BU015 and BU016. Gemlik cultivar was used for compare. Olives were harvested at 4,5 maturation index and oil content of their fruits and free acidity, peroxide value, K232 and K270 indices, fatty acid composition, total phenol content, total antioxidant activity and sensory profile of their oils were evaluated. BU015 had high oil yield with highest total antioxidant activity and sensory characteristic. BU016, BK022 and BK024 had lower oil content than Gemlik cultivar. This research could represent a helpful tool for breeding researcher to select cultivar candidates for registration with high quality indices and sensory profile. According to evaluated characters, registration of BU015 as oil purpose cultivar has the potential to be beneficial for producers and consumers.
Keywords: Olive oil; Olive crossing; Olive genotype
Olive cultivation is increasing around the world, expanding from its native area of cultivation and to meet this new demand, breeding is playing an important role to introduce new cultivars with desirable attributes of olive oil quality (Breidi., et al. 2016). From the quality point of view, olive oil is highly appreciated due to its fatty acid (high monounsaturated oleic acid content) and other compounds composition. These components are responsible from health benefits associated to the long term consumption of olive oil (León.,  et al. 2018,  García-Rodríguez., et al. 2017). Fatty acid composition (Sánchez de Medina., et al. 2015a), phenolic profiles (Pérez., et al. 2014, El Riachy., et al. 2012), α‐tocopherol, pigments (León., et al. 2011) and volatile compounds (García‐Gonzalez., et al. 2010) of olive oil have been studied in olive breeding programs. High variability for most olive oil quality components has been reported in progenies from breeding programs (Sánchez de Medina., et al. 2015b; De la Rosa., et al. 2016). Most of the olive breeding programs were based in specific crosses between cultivars of well-known merit (De la Rosa., et al. 2013). One of these breeding program carried out in Ataturk Central Horticultural Research Institute, Yalova/Turkey and 393 olive genotypes were produced. The main objective of this research was to determine the usefulness of cross breeding of “Belle d’Espagne X Karamurselsu” (BK013 and BK022) and “Belle d’Espagne X Uslu (BU015 and BU016) to obtain high oil content and quality. They produced by previously mentioned cross breeding project and selected according to high fruit yield per tree and low periodicity. In this study, oil content of olives and variability for oil quality components including free acidity, peroxide value, specific absorbance (K232 and K270), fatty acid composition, total phenol content, total antioxidant activity and sensory profile of their oils was determined for fruit of BK013, BK022, BU015 and BU016.
Material and Method
In this study, olive of 4 cultivar candidates which were chosen by breeding researcher on the basis of their high productivity and low periodicity according to results of national cross breeding project (Obtaining New Olive Varieties by Crossing, 1990-2018) and Gemlik cultivar were evaluated to compare. All those trees were planted at in 1.5m x 3m distance in olive genotype observation orchard of Ataturk Central Horticultural Research Institute (Yalova/Turkey) in 2001. Maturity index of olives were followed and determined according [10] and olives were randomly handpicked in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 nearly 4,5 maturity index for optimum balance between oil yield and quality (Boskou, 2006). Code of olives and their maturity index were given in Table 1.
Code Crossing combination Muturity index
BK 022 Belle D’Espagne X Karamurselsu 4.2 ± 0.2
BK 024 Belle D’Espagne X Karamurselsu 4.7 ± 0.4
BU 015 B. D’espagne X Uslu 4.4 ± 0.3
BU 016 B. D’espagne X Uslu 4.6 ± 0.2
Table 1: Crossing combination and maturity index of olives.
Oil content analysis
Then olives were turned into paste by laboratory scale hammer (100 rev/min) and kneader. After that olive paste was dried. Oil of the dried olive paste was extracted by soxhlet apparatus, for at least 8 hours, with petroleum ether extraction at 60°C (Cemeroglu 2007).
Olive oil Production
Damaged and unhealthy olives were removed and olives were washed without delay. Then olives were turned into paste by laboratory scale hammer (100 rev/min) and kneader (45 minutes) after which 0.4 kg batches of olive paste was put into press cloth and pressed (250-300 kg/cm2) with a hydraulic press. Liquid phase from press was separated into water and oil phase by using separatory funnel. The obtained oil was centrifuged (8000 rev/min) and filtered through a coarse filter (20 µm). Finally, oil was filled into dark glass bottles without any air space and stored at 4°C until analyze. Olive oil samples were analyzed within 3 days after production.
Oil analysis
Free acid content and peroxide value were determined by titrimetric methods according to the official methodologies of Turkish Food Codex-Communiqué of Analysis Methods of Olive Oil and Pomace Oil (Anonymous. 2015). For determination of specific absorbance value, 0.5 g of oil were weighted (with 0.0001 accuracy) and dissolved into 50 mL cyclohexane 50 mL. Mixture was put into 1 cm quartz cuvette and its absorbance was measured at 232 and 270 nm with spectrophotometer (Anonymous, 2015). Total phenol content of these samples was determined by Folin-Ciocalteu method according to Gutfinger (1981) and antioxidant activity was detected by DPPH method according to (Usenik., et al. 2007).
Fatty acid methyl ester composition was determined by gas chromatography according to Anonymous (2015). 0.2g oil and 10 ml of hexane were put into a vial and shaken. After that, 0.5 mL of a methanolic KOH solution (2N) was added and stirred. 0.5 µl were taken from the upper phase and injected into the gas chromatography (Hewlett-Packard, USA). Saturated fatty acids (SFA), monounsaturated fatty acids, (MUFA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), MUFA/PUFA, linoleic acid/linolenic acid and iodine number (IN) of olive oil samples were determined by using their fatty acid composition (Kyriakidis and Katsiloulis, 2000). The formulas used in the calculation are given below:
SFA (%) = palmitic acid + stearic acid + arashidic acid + behenic acid
MUFA (%) = palmitoleic acid + oleic acid + eicosenoic acid
PUFA (%) = linoleic acid + linolenic acid
IN= 0.93 × (oleic acid + eicosenoic acid) + 1.35 × (linoleic acid) + 2.62 × (linolenic acid)
Negative (fusty/muddy sediment, musty, winey-vinegary acid sour, rancid etc.) and positive (bitter, pungency and fruity) sensory characteristics of olive oils were evaluated by 10 trained and experienced panelists according to official method of International Olive Council-Sensory Analysis of Olive Oil (Anonymous. 2015b). The official evaluation sensory analysis of virgin olive oils sheet of Anonymous (2015b) was used. The values, expressed as centimeters, were statistically processed to calculate the median of each characteristic.
Statistical Analysis
Randomized experimental design was used and analysis of variance was applied with the Duncan multiple comparison test of the means (p < 0.05) to determine the presence of significant differences among the samples. Statistical analysis was performed by using the JMP v. 5.0 statistical package program (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C., U.S.A.). Different letters indicate significant difference in same colon of tables.
Results and Discussion
The main objectives of the olive cross breeding program were reported as: earliness of bearing, high oil yield, oil quality, suitability to different plantation systems and disease resistance (Rallo., et al. 2016). Oil content of olives and free fatty acid content, peroxide value and specific absorption at ultraviolet light of olive oils were given in Table 2.
Sample Oil content (%) Free fatty acid cotent (oleic acid %) Peroxide value (meqO2/kg) Specific absorption at ultraviolet light
K232 K270
BK022 16.62 ± 0.47b 0.36 ± 0.094 6.83 ± 0.53c 1.73 ± 0.17 0.15 ± 0.029
BK024 17.05 ± 1.60b 0.53 ± 0.094 10.43 ±0.49ab 1.80 ± 0.28 0.12 ± 0.018
BU015 20.67 ± 0.47a 0.50 ± 0.14 12.33 ± 1.44a 1.64 ± 0.25 0.17 ± 0.020
BU016 18.6 ± 1.24ab 0.53 ± 0.05 9.52 ±0.68bc 2.06 ± 0.16 0.14 ± 0.033
Gemlik 20.12 ± 1.63a 0.67 ± 0.05 11.97 ± 2.16ab 1.87 ± 0.21 0.18 ± 0.016
p 0.028 0.09 0.0083 0.26 0.18
Table 2: Oil content of olives and free fatty acid content, peroxide value and specific absorption at ultraviolet light of olive oils.
Zegane., et al. (2015) reported that free fatty acid cotent and peroxide value (meqO2/kg) olive oils from different cultivars and geographical origins between 0.14-0.42% oleic acid and 3.04-10.00 meq O2/kg. Free fatty acid cotent (0.36-0.67%) and  peroxide value (6.83-12.33 meq O2/kg) determined higher than result of Zegane., et al. (2015). Specific absorption of ultraviolet light at K232 and K270 of ninety olive oil samples were reported between 1.4-3.18 and 0.10-0.84 respectively (Guzmán., et al. 2015). In this study specific absorption at ultraviolet light determined between 1.64-2.06 (K232) and 0.12-0.18 (K270).
Phenolic compounds have been widely studied because of their nutraceutical effects, relevant contribution to the sensory properties of olive oil, with special emphasis on bitterness and pungency, and stabilizing role to ensure the long shelf‐life of olive oil as compared to other vegetable oils (Segura-Carretero., et al. 2010). Total phenolic content, antioxidant activity and sensory characteristics of olive oil samples were given in Table 3.
Sample Total phenolic content (mg gallic acid/kg) Antioxidant activity (µmol trolox/kg) Sensory characteristics
Fruity Pungent Bitter
BK022 218.35 ± 11.02bc 613.17 ± 98.38b 3.57 ± 0.29 2.8 ± 0.53ab 3.63 ±0.30a
BK024 306.82 ± 29.86a 710.23 ± 81.50b 2.77 ± 0.13 2.93 ± 0.20ab 3.17 ± 0.49ab
BU015 246.83 ± 24.71b 938.07 ± 24.51a 3.17 ± 0.20 3.43 ± 0.30a 3.87 ± 0.54a
BU016 176.56 ± 7.18c 629.57 ± 90.91b 2.7 ± 0.51 2.2 ± 0.25bc 3.03 ± 0.37ab
Gemlik 184.85 ± 14.66c 568.83 ± 47.41b 3.17 ± 0.25 2.0 ± 0.25c 2.4 ±0.21b
p 0.0003 0.004 0.09 0.0092 0.04
Table 3: Total phenolic content, antioxidant activity and sensory characteristics of olive oils.
High variability was reported within and between the different cross progenies, with considerable deviation from their parents and highest total phenol content of oil (700 mg gallic acid/kg) in 'Leccino' × 'Ascolana Tenera' seedlings were reported by Breidi., et al. (2016). In this study total phenol content and antiozidant activity of cultivar candidates were between 176.56-306.82 mg gallic acid/kg and 613.17-938.07 µmol trolox/kg. Our total phenol resulr were lower than result of Breidi., et al. (2016). Among of 136 olive genotypes from a Picual × Arbequina crosses, UCI-41, UCI-36, UCI-39, UCI-68, UCI-133 and UCI-63 were reported, reported as outstanding genotypes because of their remarkable sensory properties. In this study statistical different not detected for fruity characteristic but BK015 and BK024 were determined as featured olive oils according to pungent and bitter characteristics. Negative (fusty/muddy sediment, musty, winey-vinegary acid sour, rancid etc.) characteristic was not detected in sensory panel. Median of positive characters were higher than 2 for all of the samples.
Fatty acid composition, with special emphasis on oleic acid and palmitic acid, is one of the most critical quality factors to be evaluated in olive oil. For this reason, the profile of fatty acids is frequently used as a decision tool in olive breeding programs (Breidi., et al. 2016, Sánchez de Medina., et al. 2015a). In this study Major and minor fatty acids of olive oil samples were given in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.
Sample Palmitic acid Palmitoleic acid Stearic acid Oleic acid Linoleic acid Linolenic acid
BK022 13.55 ± 0.7 1.29 ± 0.3 2.15 ± 0.3 71.88 ± 1.2a 9.01 ± 1.5 0.87 ± 0.12
BK024 12.36 ±0.1 0.64 ± 0.05 2.82 ± 0.5 65.72 ± 2.7b 8.63 ± 5.1 0.94 ±0.11
BU015 13.75 ± 0.6 1.14 ±0.3 1.93 ± 0.08 66.70 ± 7.03b 12.79 ± 7.8 0.96 ± 0.03
BU016 12.7 ± 1.6 0.88 ± 0.35 2.23 ± 0.2 70.19 ± 4.6a 12.02 ± 3.3 0.85 ± 0.14
Gemlik 14.94 ± 1.3 1.49 ± 0.50 2.04 ± 0.2 66.23 ± 4.5b 12.18 ± 1.3 0.87 ± 0.09
p 0.18 0.15 0.069 0.048 0.79 0.77
Table 4: Major fatty acids of olive oils (% in fatty acid).
Sample Margaric acid Heptadecanoic acid Arachidic acid Eicosenoic acid Behenic acid Lignoseric acid
BK022 0.11 ± 0.01 0.25 ± 0.07a 0.39 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.05 0.10 ± 0.03 0.043 ± 0.02
BK024 0.13 ± 0.08 0.22 ± 0.20a 0.45 ± 0.06 0.33 ± 0.03 0.11 ± 0.01 0.026 ± 0.004
BU015 0.067 ± 0.02 0.13 ± 0.07b 0.37 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.05 0.09 ± 0.01 0.043 ± 0.01
BU016 0.07 ± 0.04 0.12 ± 0.10b 0.40 ± 0.04 0.32 ± 0.07 0.12 ± 0.03 0.040 ± 0.01
Gemlik 0.05 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.03c 0.39 ± 0.06 0.27 ± 0.07 0.10 ± 0.02 0.045 ± 0.06
p 0.35 0.03 0.41 0.78 0.60 0.65
Table 5: Minor fatty acids of olive oils (% in fatty acid).
Sample SFA MUFA PUFA IN MUFA/PUFA Linoleik/Linolenik
BK022 16.34 73.73 9.88 83.03 7.49 10.28
BK024 15.89 66.92 9.57 76.34 6.99 9.22
BU015 16.24 68.28 13.75 83.29 4.96 13.33
BU016 15.57 71.51 12.87 84.97 5.55 14.15
Gemlik 17.60 68.05 13.04 81.99 5.21 14.05
Table 6: Calculated important parameters of olive oils by using fatty acid composition.
Unfavorable composition of fatty acids has been reported as one of the main shortcomings, lowering the quality of olive oils due to the essential role of this fraction in oils stability with direct responsibility for undesired odors and flavors (Sánchez de Medina., et al. 2015a, León., et al. 2004). It is worth mentioning that qualitative restrictions according to the fatty acids composition are imposed by the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) regulations. Thus, the allowed ranges for the two most concentrated FAs, oleic acid and palmitic acid are 55.0–83.0% and 7.5–20.0%, respectively (both expressed as w/w) (Anonymous, 2012). In this study oleic acid and palmitic acid resu lts within the appropriate limits of Anonymous (2012).
Genotypes from 'Leccino' × 'Ascolana Tenera' crossing revealed interesting percentage of fatty acid profile, especially for oleic (85.42%) and linoleic (5.38%) acids (Breidi., et al. 2016). Results revealed clear differences between Sikitita × Arbosana and Picual × Koroneiki crosses in the composition of the most significant fatty acid, while Arbequina × Arbosana was not properly discriminated from the other crosses (Sánchez de Medina., et al. 2015b). In this study only oleic acid and heptadecanoic acid were determined as statisticaly different  between olive oil samples. Oleic acid content of BK022 and BU016 were remarkable among samples.
Olie oils of Belle D’Espagne X Karamürselsu (BK013) were reported as remarkable high PUFA content of 22 genotypes and Lucas x Tavsanyuregi crossing (LT017) was reported as  a lanced on LA and LnA with a ratio 3.66 (Ozdemir and Kurultay, 2016). In this study BU015 had highest PUFA and BK022 highest MUFA content. BK024 had lowest IN values. MUFA/PUFA and Linoleic/Linolenic ratios were determined between  4.96-7.49 and 9.22-14.15 respectively.
Regarding olive oil quality, generic parameters according to the official methods described in Regulation EC 2568/91 of the Commission of the European Union such as free acidity, peroxide value, UV spectrophotometric indices (K232, K270) and sensory analysis have been taken into account (Anonymous, 1991). All of our result were within limit of Codex Standart (Anonymous, 2015c) Negative characteristic did not detected and median of positive characters were higher than 2 for all of the samples.
Evaluation of the total phenol contetn, antioxidant activity, fatty acid profile and sensory characteristics at the initial stage of selection can serve to identify potential new olive cultivars in breeding programs that produce oils with improved qualities. MUFA especially oleic acid is favorable in diet because of its important cardiovascular benefits. In turn, SFA are nutritionally unfavorable since they increase the amount of cholesterol. From these perspective; BK022 and BU016 were determined remarkable cultivar candidate for tehir low SFA and high MUFA content oils.
BK022, BK024 and BU016 had lower oil content than Gemlik. It was a major disadvantage for selection of this cultivar candidates. BU015 had similar oil content in fruit and MUFA and PUFA content in oil with Gemlik. Additionally, BU015 had higher pungent and bitter sensory characters, total phenol content and antioxidant activity and lower SFA than that is of Gemlik. So that as a general evaluation of this study, BU015 can be selected among cultivar candidates because of its mentioned characteristics.
This work was supported by project “Oil Property Determination of Some Crossed Olive Types Project (TAGEM/HSGYAD/12/A05/P01/03)” in Ataturk Central Horticultural Research Institute and funded by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of Turkey.
  1. Anonymous. “Official Journal European Communities”. N.L. 248 of 5 September, Regulation CE 91. (1991): 2568.
  2. Anonymous. IOOC/T.15/NC No. 3–25 Trade standard applying to olive oils and olive‐pomace oils (2012).
  3. Anonymous. “Trade standard applying to olive oils and olive-pomace oils”. International Olive Council, COI/T.15/NC No 3/Rev (2015).
  4. Anonymous. “Sensory Analysıs Of Olive Oil, International Olive Council”. COI/T.20/Doc. No 15/Revsion (2015).
  5. Anonymous. “Standard For Olive Oils And Olive Pomace Oils Codex Stan 33-1981”. Adopted in 1981 Revision (2015).
  6. Boskou D. “Olive oil, chemistry and technology”. American Oil Chemists' Society Press, 176 p, Newyork USA (2006).
  7. Breidi M., et al. “Olive oil quality in crossbred progeny of'Leccino”. In VIII International Olive Symposium, 1199 (2016): 535-542.
  8. Cemeroglu B. “Food Analysis. Bizim Buro Publication”. Ankara, Turkey (2006).
  9. De la Rosa R., et al. “Fruit characteristics and fatty acid composition in advanced olive breeding selections along the ripening period”. Food Research International 54 (2013): 1890-1896.
  10. El Riachy M., et al. “Phenolic profile of virgin olive oil from advanced breeding selections”. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10 (2012): 443-453.
  11. García‐Gonzalez DL., et al. “Quality characterization of the new virgin olive oil var”. Sikitita by phenols and volatile compounds Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58 (2010): 8357-8364.
  12. Gutfinger T. “Polyphenols In Olive Oil”. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 58 (1981): 966-968.
  13. García-Rodríguez R., et al. “Exploration of genetic resources to improve the functional quality of virgin olive oil”. Journal of Functional Foods 38 (2017): 1-8.
  14. Gutfinger T. “Polyphenols in olive oil”. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 58 (1981): 966-968.
  15. Guzmán E., et al. “Evaluation of the overall quality of olive oil using fluorescence spectroscopy”. Food chemistry 173 (2015): 927-934.
  16. Kyriakidis NB., et al. “Calculation of iodine value from measurements”. (2016).
  17. fatty acid methyl esters of some oils: comparison with the relevant american oil chemists “society method”. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 77. 1235-38.
  18. León L., et al. “Repeatability and minimum selection time for fatty acid composition in olive progenies”. HortScience 39 (2014): 477–480.
  19. León L., et al. “Oil composition of advanced selections from an olive breeding program”. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 113 (2011): 870–875.
  20. León L., et al. “Using Wild Olives in Breeding Programs: Implications on Oil Quality Composition”. Frontiers in plant science 9 (2018): 232.
  21. Ozdemir Y., et al. “Fatty acid composition and some quality parameters of olive oils at green ripeness of genotypes obtained by cross breeding”. International Conference on Natural Science and Engineering (ICNASE’16) (2016): 2024-2037.
  22. Pérez AG., et al. “Assessment of volatile compound profiles and the deduced sensory significance of virgin olive oils from the progeny of Picual Arbequina cultivars”. Journal of Chromatography A 1428 (2016): 305-315.
  23. Pérez AG., et al. “Variability of virgin olive oil phenolic compounds in a segregating progeny from a single cross in Olea europaea L and sensory and nutritional quality implications”. PLoS One9.3 (2014): 92898.
  24. Rallo L., et al. “New olive cultivars and selections in Spain: results after 25 years of breeding”. In VIII International Olive Symposium 1199 (2016): 21-26.
  25. Sánchez de Medina V., et al. “The effect of genotype and ripening index on the phenolic profile and fatty acids composition of virgin olive oils from olive breeding programs”. European journal of lipid science and technology117.7 (2015): 954-966.
  26. Sánchez de Medina V., et al. “Composition of fatty acids in virgin olive oils from cross breeding segregating populations by gas chromatography separation with flame ionization detection”. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 95 (2015): 2892–2900.
  27. Segura‐Carretero A., et al. “Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention”. Elsevier, Oxford (2015): 167–174.
  28. Usenik V., et al. “Sugars, organic acids, phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of sweet cherry (Prunus Avium L.)”. Food Chemistry 107 (2007): 185-192.
  29. Zegane O., et al. “Physicochemical characteristics and pigment content of Algerian olive oils: effect of olive cultivar and geographical origin”. International Journal of Chemical and Biomolecular Science 1.3 (2015): 153-7.
Citation: Yasin Ozdemir., et al. “Oil Characteristics of High Yield Olive Genotypes Obtained by Crossing of Belle D’espagne with Uslu and Karamurselsu Cultivars”. Nutrition and Food Toxicology 3.2 (2018): 597-603.
Copyright: © 2018 Yasin Ozdemir., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.