





























1 

 

In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

  

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN: 2375-1061 Vol. 12 (1), pp. 001-005, January, 2024. Available 
online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 

 

Optimizing olive harvest methods for maximum 
yield and efficiency 

 
G. Cicek*, S. K. Sumer and H. Kocabiyik 

 
Department of Agricultural Machinery, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 17020 Canakkale, Turkey. 

 
Accepted 21 November, 2023 

 
In this research, olives were harvested by four different methods (wood rake, wood stick, mechanical 
bough shaker + wood stick and electronic harvesting rake + wood stick) and an effort was made to 
determine their effect on olive yield. From the data obtained during a two year period, the method with 
the highest work capacity was determined to be the third method (mechanical bough shaker + wood 
stick), and the lowest work capacity was obtained from the first method (wood rake). When the average 
work capacities for two years are examined, the highest work capacity was obtained for the 3rd method 
(51.53 kg/man hour), followed by the 2nd method (31.43 kg/man hour), 4th method (28.01 kg/man hour) 
and the 1st method (19.19 kg/man hour), respectively. When the yield averages for two years are 
examined, the highest yield was obtained for the 3rd method (21.64 kg), followed by the 4th method 
(14.06 kg), 2nd method (13.64 kg) and 1st method (19.19 kg), respectively. 

 
Key words: Olive, harvesting tool, yield, work capacity. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 

 
Olive is accepted by world health organizations as an 
important source of nutrition, makes a significant 
contribution to the economy and the agriculture of olive 
cultivating nations. Olives are grown on around 10 million 
hectare area containing 800 million trees. It has been 
determined that over 90% of the harvested olives are 
used for making oil and that the annual olive oil 
production in the world is over 2.5 million tons (Wiesman, 
2009). According to the International Olive Oil Council 
(IOOC) 97% of the worlds olive production occurs in 
Mediterranean countries.  

Turkey is an important olive producer like Spain, Italy, 
Greece and Tunisia, produces 8.5% of the world olives, 
5% of world olive oil production and 11.5% of worlds table 
olive production (Anonymous, 2004). The total olive 
cultivation area in Turkey is 600,000 hectares and it 
represents 2% of the total agricultural land and 22% of all 
fruit and vineyard producing lands. The employment of 
approximately 400 thousand families means not only the  
 
 
 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: giyas@comu.edu.tr. Tel: +90 
286 218 00 18. Fax: +90 286 218 05 45. 

 
 
 
 

 
utilization of the family work capacity but also represents 
2% of all agricultural employment (Yapici, 2006; Aksu et 
al., 2003).  

In olive harvesting, as in many other agricultural crops, 
the requirement for labor and the cost are higher than 
that required for other processes in olive production. In all 
olive production processes, harvesting is the process that 
requires the most labor. The work carried out in Turkey 
has shown that, olive harvesting takes up 40 to 80% of 
the total labor time and that it represents 30 to 60% of the 
total production cost (Anonymous, 2002, Saracoglu, 
2006). In olive production, 50 to 65% of the total labor 
requirements are attributable to the harvesting phase 
(Caran, 1998; Saracoglu, 2006).  

Currently, olive harvesting is carried out by both 
traditional methods and using harvesting machines. The 
use of machines in harvest has resulted an increase in 
yields. On the other hand, completion of the harvest 
within the optimum period of time which varies according 
the crop differences is an other important factor for a 
succesful harvest operation (Say, 2009). Mechanized 
harvest in olive production allows timely operations. 
Therios (2009) indicated that 10 to 15 trees/h or more 
can be harvested using harvesters with two or three 



2 

 

 
 
 

 

operators. However, the equipment and the machines 
used in harvesting can cause various types of damages 
to the olive trees. Peeling and even breakages were 
observed at the points where the bough shakers are tied 
to the trees. Breakages also occur in shaking and raking 
methods. The olive tree should not be damaged to be 
able to obtain the best quality of olives.  

On the other hand, Wiesman (2009) indicated that 
damage to olive trees were caused by traditional methods 
in many regions. Thus the yield is low, the trees are 
severely damaged, and the cost of the harvesting 
operation is high. Different mechanical harvesting 
methods were proposed and developed instead of hand 
harvest. Keeping in views of the above fact the present 
investigation was undertaken to study the effect of 
different harvest methods on olive yield and work 
capacity. 
 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
The study was carried out in an olive grove in Burhaniye (Turkey) 
where olive cultivation is quite common. The trees with the same 
attributes were identified (age, yield, applied agricultural treatments) 
for the trials of the four different machine harvesting methods. The 
method of harvesting applied for the first year was repeated for the 
second year as well. For each method three repeats were carried 
out. Randomized plots design was applied for selection of the trees 
for the repeats.  

Olives were harvested with workers using wood rakes in the first 
method (harvesting with wood rake). Olives were harvested with 
workers using wood sticks in the second method (harvesting with 
wood stick).  

In the third method (mechanical bough shaker + wood stick) 
olives were harvested by employing experienced workers in the use 
of the mechanical bough shaker. The hook at the end of the 
machine was hooked onto the boughs and the vibration from the 
engine enabled the harvesting of the olives. Olives remained in the 
tree after machine harvest was harvested using wood sticks.  

The fourth method (electronic harvesting rake + wood stick) used 
the electronic harvesting rake machine. This machine was applied 
to all the boughs of individual trees by an experienced worker and 
as in the previous method the remaining olives were harvested 
using a wood stick. Working time was measured using a 
chronometer and the weights of the olives were determined for 
each method. Work capacity and the weight of the harvested crop 
were determined for the obtained (ASAE, 2006).  

The collected olives were weighed using an electronic sensitive 
weighing device. In all the methods 5 to 8 canvas fabrics in the size 
of 10×10 m were used to prevent the loss of olives and also the 
damages that occur when the olives fell on the ground.  
The harvesting methods given above were repeated for the trees in 
each application in the following year. The data were statistically 
analyzed using analysis of variance and DUNCAN multiple 
comparison test. The effect of different harvesting methods on olive 
yield was investigated for two years. 
 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
Work capacity data 
 
Work capacities that  were  determined for four different 

 
 
 
 

 

harvesting methods are given in Table 1 for the 1st and 
2nd years.  

From the harvesting data acquired, it was observed 
that there was an increase in work capacity in methods 1 
and 2 where wood rake and wood stick were used. In 
methods 3 and 4, in which machines were used for 
harvesting, there was a decrease in work capacity used 
and an increase in work capacity when wood sticks were 
used.  

In the third method when only mechanical bough 
shaker was used the two year average for the work 
capacity was 161.27 kg/man hour. Although having to 
use a wood stick after the machine to harvest the 
remaining olives results in a decrease in work capacity, 
the overall best result was obtained from this method. 
Wiesman (2009) and Therios (2009) indicated that 10 - 
15 trees/h or more can be harvested using harvesters 
with two or three operators.  

The same situation applies to the 4th method. When 
electronic harvesting rake is used on its own, the two 
year average work capacity was 72.61 kg/man hour, and 
using the wood stick after electronic harvesting rake to 
bring down the remaining olives decreased the work 
capacity to 28.01 kg/man hour.  

During the 1st year the highest work capacity was 
obtained from the 3rd method (34.52 kg/man hour) 
among the harvesting methods. The second highest work 
capacity was obtained from the 4th method (28.01 
kg/man hour) which was followed by the 2nd method 
(20.29 kg/man hour) and the 1st method (14.3 kg/man 
hour), respectively.  

During the 2nd year the highest work capacity was 
obtained from the 3rd method (68.54 kg/man hour), while 
the second highest work capacity was obtained from the 
2nd method (42.58 kg/man hour), followed by the 4th 
method (32.05 kg/man hour) and finally the 1st method 
(24.09 kg/man hour). There was a high statistical 
significance between the changes in the 1st and the 2nd 
year’s variances (r: 0.91). The use of the same 
harvesting method on the some tree in two succeeding 
years did not affect the work capacity (Table 2).  

The work capacities of the different methods increased 
for all of the methods from 1st year to the second. The 
highest increase was determined for to the 2nd method 
(109.81%), which was followed by the 3rd method 
(98.56%), the 1st method (68.49%) and the 4th method  
(33.71%), respectively (Table 2). Saracoglu (2003) 
obtained the highest work capacity with mechanical 
bough shaker in olive harvest.  

The average work capacities for two years associated 
with the harvesting methods are given in Table 3. When 
the average work capacities for two years were 
examined, the highest work capacity was obtained for the 
3rd method (51.53 kg/man hour), followed by the 2nd 
method (31.43 kg/man hour), 4th method (28.01 kg/man 
hour) and the 1st method (19.19 kg/man hour), 
respectively. The effect of applied harvesting methods on 



3 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 1. The work capacities of different methods used (kg/man hour).  

 
   Wood rake   Shaker  Electronic rake  Wood stick  

  Year 1 Year2 % Year 1 Year 2 % Year 1 Year 2 % Year 1 Year 2 % 

 Method 1 14.3 24.09 68.49          

 Method 2          20.29 42.58 109.81 

 Method 3    169.74 152.8 -9.97    10.98 18.75 70.82 

 Method 4       87.3 57.91 -33.66 8.44 12.22 44.91 
 
 

 
Table 2. The work capacity of different methods (kg/man hours) and the associated variation ratios (%).  

 
 Method 1 Change Method 2 Change Method 3 Change Method 4 Change 

 

Year 1 14,3 
68.49 

20.29 
109.81 

34,52 
98.56 

23,97 
33.71  

Year 2 24,09 42.58 68.54 32.05 
 

    
 

 
 

 
Table 3. Average work capacities for two years for the harvesting methods (kg/man hour).  

 
 Average work capacity (kg/man hour) 

Method 1 19.19 ± 5.54 

Method 2 31.43 ± 12.73 

Method 3 51.53 ± 19.61 

Method 4 28.01 ± 5.48 
 
 

 

use of bough shaker. The increase in work 
capacity due that experience of the operator is 
important during the quantities. The use of 
inexperienced labor for machine harvesting for the 
2nd year has resulted in a reduction in work 
capacity (Table 1). Friedley et al. (1973) indicated 
work capacities had a statistical significance of (P 
< 0.01).  

The use of different labor in the 1st and 2nd 
years may be the source of the variance between 
the harvest to the use of wood sticks after 
machine harvesting was reflected in the average 

 
 

 

work capacity for all methods. There were statisti-
cally significant differences in work capacities for 
all of the methods (Table 3). 
 

 

Crop quantity data 

 

The 1st and 2nd year crop quantities and the 
change rates obtained from the four different 
harvesting methods are given in Tables 4 and 5. 
In the 1st year, the highest yield was obtained 
using the 3rd method (16.49 kg). While the 

 
 

 

second highest crop yield was obtained from the 
4th method (14.05 kg), which were followed by the 
2nd method (9.58 kg) and the 1st method (6.09 
kg). The different values obtained in the first year 
may be attributed to the differences in the trees.  

In the 2nd year the highest yield was obtained 
from the 3rd method (26.78 kg). The second 
highest yield was obtained from the 2nd method 
(17.69 kg), which was followed by the 4th method  
(14.08 kg) and 1st method (11.35 kg), respect-
tively. It can be seen that there was an increase in 
the yield for the first three methods for the second 



4 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 4. The crop quantities obtained from four different harvesting methods (kg).  

 
   Wood rake   Shaker  Electronic rake  Wood stick  

  Year 1 Year 2 % Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 % Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 % Year1 

 Method 1 6.09 11.35 86.46          

 Method 2          9.58 17.69 84.66 

 Method 3    11.98 22.2 85.31    4.51 4.58 1.55 

 Method 4       10.08 11.08 9.92 3.97 2.99 -24.51 
 
 

 
Table 5. The crop quantities (kg) and the variances (%) obtained.  

 
 Method 1 Change Method 2 Change Method 3 Change Method 4 Change 

 

          

Year 1 6.09 
86.46 

9.58 
84.66 

16.49 
62.40 

14.05 
0.21 

 

Year 2 11.35 17.69 26.78 14.08 
 

    
 

          

 
 

 

year, while there was no change for the fourth 
method. This reduction results from bough 
breakages during harvesting with wood sticks 
after the machines in the first year. Erdogan et al. 
(2003) indicated that bough shakers do not 
damage trees and its bark.  

When the variances between the crop quantities 
for the 1st and the 2nd years were examined, it 
was determined that there was a reduction in crop 
quantities using the 4th method while there was 
an increase using other harvesting methods. The 
increase was the highest in the 1st method 
(86.46%), while it was 84.66% for the 2nd method, 
62.4% for the 3rd method and 0.21% for the 4th 
method, respectively (Table 4). There was a high 
statistical significance between the changes in the 
1st and the 2nd year’s variances (r:+0.75). 
However, the reduction in the crop harvested by 
the 4th method cannot be attributed to method 
differences. As was stated previously, the bough 
breakages are responsible for the crop 

 
 

 

reduction in the second year.  
When the yield averages of two years were 

examined, the highest yield was obtained from the 
3rd method (21.64 kg), followed by the 4th method 
(14.06 kg), 2nd method (13.64 kg) and 1st method 
(19.19 kg), respectively. There was a statistical 
significant (P<0.01) difference between the yield 
based on different harvesting methods. When 
viewed from a statistical perspective there was no 
yield difference between the 2nd and the 4th 
methods (Table 6).  

When the variances in average work capacities 
of two years and the total yields were compared, 
high correlation (r: +0.78) between the two 
variables can be observed (Table 7). As was 
stated previously, the variance in work capacity 
may be attributed to the use of different workers 
for machine harvesting, and the variance in yield 
results from bough breakages. When the 
differences are ignored, a correlation coefficient 
was obtained between 0.90 and 1. Thus, it can be 

 
 

 

seen from the two year data that the crop 
quantities have a positive influence on work 
capacity. 
 

 

Conclusıon 

 

Although many studies in the olive industry, 
mechanical harvesting technology is still not fully 
developed. Yield changes have been similar to 
one another in the trees which were harvested by 
different methods. The highest increase occurred 
in the first and the second methods. Bough 
breakages were seen during harvesting with wood 
sticks. Bough breakages cause decline in yield in 
the following year.  

The use of wood stick after machines results in 
a reduction of the work capacity. The use of 
machines for olive harvesting at a maximum rate 
will ensure that more crops are harvested in a 
shorter time. The pruning method of the olive trees 



5 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 6. The two year yield averages of the harvesting methods (kg).  

 
  Yield average (kg) 

 Method 1 8.72 ± 3.04 

 Method 2 13.64 ± 4.49 

 Method 3 21.64 ± 5.96 

 Method 4 14.06 ± 0.82 
 

 
Table 7. Variances of the average work capacity and the total yield (%).  

 
 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 

Average work capacity 68.49 109.8 98.56 33.71 

Total yield 86.46 84.66 62.4 0.21 
 
 

 

determines the harvesting period. Pruning method 
applicable for machine harvesting should be preferred. In 
accordance with the data obtained from this study, it can 
be seen that the use of suitable equipment during 
harvesting and repeating the appropriate technique every 
year, will eliminate negative influences such as bough 
breakages and bark peelings, reducing costs and olive 
losses from trees. There fore, there will be an increase in 
the work capacity and yield. 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

 

This work was supported by Academic research projects 
(Project no: 2009/48) of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart 
University. 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Aksu B, Dizdaroglu D, Donmez S (2003). Sofralik ve yaglik zeytinde 

uretim maliyetleri ve karlilik. Turkiye I. Zeytinyagi ve Sofralik Zeytin 
Sempozyumu Bildirileri, TEAE Yayinlari, Yayin No:112, Turkey.  

Anonymous (2002). Tarim istatistikleri ozeti. DIE. Turkey. 
Anonymous (2004). http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections?subset= 

agriculture.  
ASAE (2006). Agricultural machinery management. ASABE Standarts. 

ASAE EP496.3 FEB2006, pp. 387.  
Caran D (1998). Zeytinde hasat. Zeytin Yetistiriciligi Kursu Kitabi, Tarim 

ve Koyisleri Bakanligi, Zeytincilik Arastirma Enstitusu Mudurlugu. 
Turkey. 

 
 

 
Erdogan E, Guner M, Dursun E, Gezer I (2003). Mechanical harvesting 

of apricots. Biosyst. Eng., 85(1): 19-28.  
Fridley RB, Mehlschau JJ, Hartmann HT, Logan SH (1973). Mechanical 

harvesting of olives. Trans. ASAE, pp. 58-61.  
Saracoglu T (2006). Effective parameters on the mechanic olive 

harvest. Tarimsal Mekanizasyon 23. Ulusal Kongresi. Canakkale, pp. 
109-114.  

Saracoglu T, Ozarslan C (2003). The determination of some handy type 
olive harvest machines performances. Tarimsal Mekanizasyon 21. 
Ulusal Kongresi. Konya, pp. 302-309.  

Say SM (2009). Bugday uretiminde optimum hasat doneminin 
belirlenmesi (Determination of Optimum Harvest Period in Wheat 
Production) (in Turkish). J. Agric. Mach. Sci., 5(1): 61-69.  

Therios I (2009). Olives (Crop production science in horticulture). CABI 
Head Office, Nosworty Way, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8DE. 
UK, pp. 245-254.  

Wiesman Z (2009). Desert olive oil cultivation. Advanced Bio 
Technologies. Elsevier’s Science and Technology Rights Department 
in Oxford, UK, pp. 4-207.  

Yapici C (2006). Balıkesir ili Burhaniye ilcesinde yaglik zeytin ureten 
isletmelerin ekonomik analizi. Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi. 
Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu Yuksek Lisans Tezi. Canakkale, pp. 1-5. 


