COC-Annual-Report-2016-17.Pdf

2016-2017 California Olive Committee Annual Report 2016-2017 ANNUAL REPORT

1 2 Table of Contents SECTION I- ADMINISTRATIVE Message from Executive Director...... 3 Chairman’s Corner...... 4 B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s ...... 5 All About Ripe Olives...... 6 COC Information...... 9 COC Staff...... 10 Budgets for Activities...... 11 Assessment Rates...... 13 District Map...... 14

SECTION II- 675$7(*,&3/$11,1* Summary...... 17 Strategic Plan...... 19

SECTION III- INSPECTION Inspection Summary...... ......5 Incoming Inspection Chart...... ...... ...... ....6 Outgoing Inspection Chart...... ...... ...... 7 6 7)LQGLQJVRQ0XOWL6FDQ FSMA Summary SECTION IV- RESEARCH 2016-2017 Research Summary...... .... Investigating Anti-Oxidants to Decrease the Leaf Abscission with Ethephon Applications...... . (Dr. Louise Ferguson and Dr. Elizabeth Fitchner) Investigation of Chemical and Biological Formation of Styrene in Black Ripe Table Olives...... (Dr. Selina Wang) Comprehensive Nutrition Analysis of California Green and Black Ripe Olives...... (Dr. Selina Wang) 3URSDJDWLQJ'ZDULQJ2OLYH5RRWVWRFNVDQG(VWDEOLVKLQJD/RQJ7HUP2UFKDUG...... . (Dr. Richard Preece and Dr. Louise Ferguson) Epidemiology and Management of Olive Knot Caused by Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. Savastanoi.... (Dr. J.E. Adaskaveg) Managing Alternate Bearing in Olives with PGRs and Pruning...... (Dr. Carol Lovatt and Dr. Elizabeth Fitchner) Canopy Management, Tree Hedging, and Topping to Optimize Yield...... (Dr. Rich Rosecrance) Preliminary Field Study to Identify New Olive Fly Control Materals...... (Dr. Dani Lightle) Northern Sacramento Valley Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring Project...... (Dr. Ernie Simpson) San Joaquin Valley Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring Project...... (Dr. Jim Stewart)

1 SECTION V- 0$5.(7,1* &$*URZQ3DUWQHUVKLS...... ...... ..17 3URJUDP5HYLHZ...... ...... ..1 3URJUDP2XWOLQH...... ...... ..1

SECTION VI- EXPORTS USADEC Summary...... .. Foreign Agricultural Service...... .1 2018 Export Markets China...... ..1 India...... ..1 Japan...... ..1 SECTION VII- CALIFORNIA OLIVE STATISTICS

California Ripe Olive Data California Ripe Olive Data Summary...... Shipments, Pack, and Ending Inventory-All Styles...... Chart-Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory...... Pack, Shipments, and Carry Out-All Styles...... Chart-Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Pitted...... Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Pitted...... Chart-Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Sliced...... Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Whole, Broken Pitted, Ltd...... Chart-Consumer and Food Service Shipments-% by Month...... Shipments by Month-Whole and Pitted...... Chart-Consumer and Food Service Sliced Shipments-% by Month...... Shipments by Month-Limited Styles...... Chart-Shipments by Size Grade-Whole and Pitted...... Shipments by Size Grade-Whole and Pitted...... Shipments by Size Container-All Styles...... Pack by Size of Container-All Styles...... Chart-Pack by Size Grade-Whole and Pitted...... Sizes Packed-Whole & Pitted...... Crop and Prices Crop and Prices Summary...... Producing County Report: In Tonnage...... 2016-2017 Producing County Report: In Commercial Acreage...... California Olives Received: Sevillano, Manzanillo, and Other Varieties...... Olive Grower Prices and Deliveries (In Canning and Limited Size Tons)...... California Olive Receipts By Variety Delivered to Regular Handlers...... Grower Deliveries to Handlers By Size Grade...... Imports Imports Summary...... Bulk and Canned Imports in Grower Tons...... REFERENCES...... .

2 message from the executive director In 2017, the California Olive Committee (COC) had an excellent year, due to the hard work of the Committee Board, its Sub-Committees and the entire industry. As the COC continues to execute its Strategic Action Plan, several projects were concluded, and many others started as part of this new chapter for the California olive industry.

7R EHJLQ WKH LQGXVWU\ ILQDOL]HGLWVRSWLFDOVL]HU7KLVSURMHFWhas assisted the industry in taking any subjectivity out of the grading SURFHVV7KHUHVXOWLVPRUHDFFXUDWHVL]LQJZKLFKLVEHQHILFLDOIRUERWK growers, canners, and customers.

“It is with great pleasure and honor to continue to represent the California olive ALEXANDER J. OTT industry, and I am pleased to present to EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR you this year’s annual report.” CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE

$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHLQGXVWU\EHJDQLWVÀUVWIXOO\HDUXQGHUWKH0DUNHW$FFHVV3URJUDP 0$3 DQG (PHUJLQJ 0DUNHW 3URJUDPV (03 WKURXJK WKH )RUHLJQ $JULFXOWXUDO 6HUYLFH ,Q DFFRUGDQFH WR WKH industry’s Strategic Action Plan, the industry conducted several studies outlining potential export PDUNHWV$VDUHVXOWWKHLQGXVWU\LGHQWLÀHGWKUHHPDUNHWVWREHJLQDPDUNHWH[SRUWSURJUDP7KHVH PDUNHWVLQFOXGHG-DSDQ&KLQDDQG,QGLD7KHLQGXVWU\WKHQDSSOLHGIRU0$3DQG(03GROODUVWR pursue these three markets. As a result of solid research and industry support, the California Olive &RPPLWWHHUHFHLYHGRYHULQIHGHUDOIXQGLQJIRULWVH[SRUWHIIRUWV)RUDÀUVW\HDUSURJUDPWKH industry should be proud of its efforts in educating foreign buyers about the availability of California Olives. Heading into 2018, the industry will expand on its current export markets and add a couple of additional export markets to its list for education and export purposes.

As part of our domestic education efforts, the COC continues to partner with other commodity SURJUDPV LQFOXGLQJ WKH %X\ &DOLIRUQLD 0DUNHWLQJ $JUHHPHQW DOVR NQRZQ DV &$ *URZQ 7UDGH VKRZVVXFKDVWKH3URGXFH0DUNHWLQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ 30$ ·V)UHVK6XPPLWDQG8QLWHG)UHVK3URGXFH Association Expo. & Conference continue to provide a great opportunity to share the California olive growers’ stories and the availability of California olives. The results have been greeted with much appreciation for the industry’s hard work to promote and market a high quality, processed product.

Things are rolling at the California Olive Committee, and the above highlighted programs are just an insight to what the Committee has been executing on behalf of the industry. It is with great pleasure and honor to continue to represent the California olive industry, and I am pleased to present to you this year’s annual report.

Thank you again for your continued support, please do not hesitate to contact us to provide feedback on how we may continue to assist you and the industry.

Highest Regards,

Alexander J. Ott

3 CHAIRMAN’S CORNER

“It continues to be an honor to serve the COC as your Chairman... Thank you again and here’s to a successful 2018 season!”

In 2014, the California Olive Committee approved a Strategic Action Plan. The mission adopted was simple: “Provide and maintain a YLDEOHDQGSURÀWDEOHWDEOHROLYHLQGXVWU\µ%DVHGRQWKHLQGXVWU\PLVVLRQ statement, the Committee developed eight focuses. These include:

0DLQWDLQDQGDGGUHVV5HJXODWRU\FRPSOLDQFHFRQFHUQVDQG issues; • Effective Communication for the industry and its components; MICHAEL SILVEIRA • Leverage Quality (marketing) &+$,50$1 •Conduct Research; CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE 0DLQWDLQDGGUHVVDQGLPSOHPHQW)HGHUDO0DUNHWLQJ2UGHU *UDGHV6WDQGDUGV YDULHWLHV VW\OHV $SSO\UHFHLYHDQGLPSOHPHQW*UDQWV0$37$6&(03GROODUV • Review and implement Quality standards; and • Enforce Standards (Section 8e).

Thanks to the Board’s efforts and the development, approval, and implementation of the Strategic Plan, the California Olive Committee has seen tremendous success in all of these areas. 6SHFLÀFDOO\ ZH KDYH GHYHORSHG D JUHDW ZRUNLQJ WHDP UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKH 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI Agriculture; provided all information to the industry through our newsletters, workshops, and annual reports; increased awareness of California ripe olives through marketing, trade shows, and tasting SURJUDPVFRQWLQXHRQJRLQJUHVHDUFKWRDGGUHVVROLYHIUXLWÁ\ROLYHNQRWDQGRWKHUROLYHGLVHDVHV UHFHLYHGLQLWVÀUVW\HDURIDSSO\LQJIRU0DUNHW$FFHVV3URJUDP 0$3 DQGWKH(PHUJLQJ 0DUNHW3URJUDP (03 GROODUVIRUH[SRUWSURJUDPVLPSOHPHQWHGRSWLFDOVL]LQJDQGHOHFWURQLFUHSRUWLQJ for non-subjective standards; and continue to enforce our Section 8 (e).

This long list of accomplishments would not have occurred without the continued support of the growers, the Committee members, the canners, and the relationships, communication and partnerships built throughout the industry.

It continues to be an honor to serve the COC as your Chairman. We will repeatedly strive to SURYLGHDJUHDWRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWZLOOFRQWLQXHWRGREHQHÀFLDOZRUNIRUWKHLQGXVWU\7KDQN\RXDJDLQ and here’s to a successful 2018 season!

Sincerely,

0LFKDHO6LOYHLUD

4 2016-2017 Board of directors

PRODUCERS

DISTRICT #1 (Counties of Alpine, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz all counties north thereof)

Members Alternates Ed Curiel Chris Henderson Edward Garcia Scott Patton Pablo Nerey Michael Silveira

DISTRICT #2 (Counties of Mono, Mariposa, Merced, San Benito, Monterey, and all counties south thereof)

Members Alternates Mark Hendrixson Vito DeLeonardis Mark Heuer Paul Danielson Art Hutcheson Bert Quezada Julia Inestroza Rick Benson Pat V. Ricchiuti Vacant

HANDLERS Members Alternates Cody McCoy Carla Anderson Doug Reifsteck Vacant Tim T. Carter Phil Quigley Julia Tinsley Vacant Janet Edwards Larry McCutcheon Felix Musco Benjamin Hall Bill McFarland Wai Wu Dennis Burreson Scott Hamilton

5 all about ripe olives Olive Heritage

A History as Old as Western Civilization

The wild olive (oleaster) grows in most countries of the Mediterranean, even in Southeast Asia and other areas. It is an unimpressive straggly plant, with little UHVHPEODQFHWRWKHROLYHWUHH2OHDHXURSDHDZKLFKPD\KDYHEHHQÀUVWFXOWLYDWHG DVHDUO\DVÀYHWKRXVDQG\HDUVDJRLQ&UHWHDQG6\ULD

New World Transplant

7KH ROLYH WUHH ÁRXULVKHG LQ 6SDLQ 7XQLVLD 0RURFFR DQG 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ countries for thousands of years, but it was not until the mid-sixteenth century that there is a record of cuttings being carried to Peru by the Spaniards. In the 1700s Franciscan monks brought the olive to Mexico and then north to &DOLIRUQLDE\ZD\RIWKHPLVVLRQV7KHÀUVWFXWWLQJVZHUHSODQWHGLQDWWKH San Diego Mission. However, it was not until the late 1800s that commercial cultivation began in warm, sunny valleys of Central and Northern California.

An Industry Founded by a Housewife

In the 1800s many acres of olive trees were planted because of the demand for olive oil. Freda Ehmann and her son, Edwin, purchased such an orchard in the Oroville area of Northern California around that time. Soon, with the trees barely producing and oil prices dropping, only their tough German heritage convinced them to continue to search for other outlets for their fruit. Consulting with a Berkeley professor on processing methods, Freda began experimenting with 280 gallons of olives in barrels on the back porch of her home. The black olives she produced were a decided success and the California Ripe Olive Industry was born. Freda Ehmann’s grandson would later write: “Where science and chemical exactness had failed, the H[SHULHQFHDQGFDUHRIDVNLOOIXODQGFRQVFLHQWLRXVKRXVHZLIHVXFFHHGHGµ

The California Olive Industry Today

Today, the California Olive Industry consists of two canneries which process the 80,000 to 125,000 tons of olives produced by approximately 27,000 acres growing in the warm inland valleys of the state. There are about 1,000 JURZHUVZLWKRUFKDUGVYDU\LQJIURPDVIHZDVÀYHDFUHVWRPXOWLFURSIDUPVZLWKRYHUDFUHV7XODUH&RXQW\ in the central San Joaquin Valley has over 56 percent of olive acreage, while Kern, Fresno and Madera counties account for about 8 percent. In the Sacramento Valley to the north, Glenn, Tehama, Shasta and Butte counties represent about 36 percent of the acreage.

The California Varieties

California has two main varieties —Manzanillo, which represents most of the acreage; Sevillano, which produce the larger sizes. Approximately 95 percent of ripe olives consumed in the United States come from California, and over 90 percent of the California crop is processed as black and green ripe olives. The remaining olives are processed into various specialty styles, or crushed for olive oil.

Cultivation and Harvest

The mild winters and hot dry summers of California’s great valley are reminiscent of the olive’s native Mediterranean home. The olive tree tends to be alternate bearing, producing a large crop one year with a smaller crop the next. Modern cultivation practices of pruning and thinning have helped to minimize this characteristic to some extent.

6 2OLYHWUHHVEORRPLQ0D\ZLWKGHOLFDWHFUHDPFRORUHGÁRZHUV%\PLG6HSWHPEHUWKHKDUYHVWEHJLQV2OLYHV destined for the canneries are picked when they are still green, but beginning to show a little color. Most olive orchards are picked by hand except for a few larger acreages, which are mechanically harvested by machines that shake the trees and catch falling olives in a frame. Dumped into bins, the olives are taken to the cannery where they are sorted, graded, and processed.

Curing

Olives, as they come from the tree, are too bitter to eat without some kind of curing. There are many different methods used around the world. In California, most olives become California black or green ripe olives, however, a few become specialty olives.

These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have DÀUPWH[WXUHDQGVPRRWKPHOORZWDVWH2QFHFXULQJLVFRPSOHWHDVHULHVRIFROGZDWHUULQVHVUHPRYHVHYHU\ WUDFHRIFXULQJVROXWLRQ'XULQJWKHFXULQJSURFHVVZKLFKWDNHVVHYHUDOGD\VDÁRZRIDLUEXEEOLQJWKURXJKWKH olives produces the natural, rich dark color. In green olives, however, the oxygen step is omitted to retail the ULFKJUHHQFRORULQJ$WUDFHRIRUJDQLFLURQVDOW IHUURXVJOXFRQDWH LVDGGHGWRDFWDVDFRORUÀ[HUVRWKHROLYHV will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored.

&DQQLQJLVWKHÀQDOVWHS5LSHROLYHVDUHFDQQHGLQDPLOGVDOWEULQHVROXWLRQDQGEHFDXVHWKH\DUHDORZDFLG product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules.

7RHQVXUHFRQVLVWHQWTXDOLW\FRORUÁDYRUDQGWH[WXUHDOOFDQQHG5LSH2OLYHVSDFNDJHGLQ&DOLIRUQLDDUH inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. California Ripe Olives come whole, pitted, sliced, chopped, or wedged. They are readily available year round in the grocery store.

Monounsaturated Fats: A Nutritious Choice

Select your fat sources wisely, by decreasing consumption of foods high in saturated fats and choosing foods high in monounsaturated fats more often.

California Ripe Olives are a good source of monounsaturated fat. There are only two grams of fat in a 15 gram serving, with the majority of fat coming from monounsaturates and part of the remaining fats being essential fatty acids. One serving contains only three percent of your total fat intake for the day. Contrary to what you may think, olives are not high in calories. In fact, an extra large Black Ripe Olive has only seven calories and a serving equal to only 25 calories! This makes olives an ideal snack or LQJUHGLHQWIRUDGGLQJÁDYRUDQGYDULHW\WRWKHORZHUIDWPHDOV\RXSUHSDUH

Fats are not Created Equally

It’s important to understand the different types of fat and those foods most commonly associated with them. )DWVDUHJHQHUDOO\FODVVLÀHGDVVDWXUDWHGSRO\XQVDWXUDWHGDQGPRQRXQVDWXUDWHG:KLOHVRPHIDWVVDWXUDWHG DUHOLQNHGWRHOHYDWHGOHYHOVRI/'/FKROHVWHURO ´EDGµFKROHVWHURO LQWKHEORRGPRQRXQVDWXUDWHGDFWXDOO\ ORZHU´EDGµ/'/OHYHOV,W·VFULWLFDOWRSD\DWWHQWLRQWRWKHW\SHRIIDWLQYDULRXVIRRGV)RFXVRQGHFUHDVLQJ saturated fats and choosing sources of monounsaturated fats like those found in olives and olive oil. Here are the basics:

Saturated Fat Most commonly found in foods of animal origin. Sources include red meats, poultry, dairy products, eggs, and coconut and palm oils.

Polyunsaturated Fat 0RVWRIWHQIRXQGLQIRRGVRISODQWRULJLQ6RXUFHVDUHFRUQVDIÁRZHUVXQÁRZHUDQG sesame oils, and some nuts and seeds.

7 Monounsaturated Fat Also found in foods of plant origin. Sources include olives and olive oil along with canola oil, nuts, and avocados.

Recommended Sources of Fat Health experts recommend that no more than 30 percent of daily calories come from fat sources with most of your fat intake coming from polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. Fat and Cholesterol: There is a Link

Simply put, cholesteroOPDGHLQWKHERG\SULPDULO\LQ\RXUOLYHULVD´FRXVLQµRIIDWEHORQJLQJWRDFKHPLFDO JURXSFDOOHGOLSLGV&KROHVWHURODQGIDWWUDYHOLQWKHEORRGVWUHDPLQSDFNDJHVFDOOHG´OLSRSURWHLQVµ

Medical experts are concerned about the two main ways that cholesterol is carried in your bloodstream. 2QHLVORZGHQVLW\OLSRSURWHLQV/'/FKROHVWHUROLVFRQVLGHUHG´EDGµEHFDXVHDKLJKOHYHORI/'/FKROHVWHURO increases the risk of fatty deposits forming in the arteries, which in turn increases the risk of heart disease. The other way that cholesterol is carried in the bloodstream is in high-density lipoproteins, or HDL (good)-cholesterol. HDL seems to have a protective effect against heart disease. In fact, low levels of HDL (good)-cholesterol are related to an increased risk of heart disease.

Choose Your Fat Wisely

To protect against heart disease, it’s important to lower LDL- cholesterol, and not the HDL-cholesterol. Polyunsaturated fats can help lower (bad) LDL-cholesterol, but at the same time, they have also been found to lower the (good) HDL-cholesterol. That’s why nutrition authorities recommend that monounsaturated fats be the major source of fat in the diet. Monounsaturates, like the fat found in olives and olive oil, can help lower (bad) LDL-cholesterol while maintaining or raising the (good) HDL-cholesterol.

Identifying Fats - Being a Better Label Reader

Look for the Nutrition Facts panel, like the one shown here for ripe olives, to get information about the product’s serving size and WKHDPRXQWVRIQXWULHQWVOLNHIDWVRGLXPDQGÀEHU5HPHPEHUDOO IRRGVÀWLQWRDKHDOWK\GLHWDVORQJDV\RXEDODQFH\RXUFKRLFHV $VSHFLÀFIRRGLVQHLWKHU´JRRGµQRU´EDGµUDWKHULW·V\RXUWRWDO daily diet that counts.

1. Serving sizes are now standard for similar foods. All other information on the label is related to serving size.

2. Calories and Calories from Fat are shown. The non-fat calories include carbohydrate and protein.

3. Total Fat, Monounsaturated, Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat represent the grams of fat in a single serving. Some products may not have all of these listed. Look for the term monounsaturated and select the best sources like olives and olive oil.

4. Total Carbohydrate lists the amount in grams per serving.

5. % Daily ValueVKRZVKRZIRRGVÀWLQWRDGDLO\GLHWRIFDORULHV)RUH[DPSOHWKH'DLO\9DOXHFROXPQ shows the fat in a serving compared to 65 grams of fat - the amount recommended for a 2,000 calorie a day diet.

Care and Storage

&DOLIRUQLD5LSH2OLYHVDUHSDFNHGLQDOLJKWEULQHVROXWLRQQRWRQO\WREULQJRXWWKHÁDYRURIWKHIUXLWEXWDOVRWR protect them in transportation. The recommended shelf life for unopened cans is 36-48 months. They may be stored at room temperature.

Once opened, store unused California Ripe Olives in their original brine in the open can and cover with plastic wrap to allow oxygen to permeate. Do not store California Ripe Olives in an airtight container as harmful toxins may develop. If the original brine has been discarded, replace with a solution of one cup of water and 1/2 teaspoon salt in order to keep the olives wet and free from external odors. Partially used cans of California Ripe Olives may be held in the refrigerator for up to ten days.

8 california olive committee information Established Under A Federal Marketing Order

Federal Marketing Order No. 932 was established in 1965 by olive growers and canners under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to effect the orderly marketing of olives grown in California.

The California Olive Committee administers the Marketing Order programs. The Committee, serving for a period of two years, consists of eight producer members, plus 8 alternates, representing the growers from our olive growing districts. The remaining members include 8 handler members plus 8 alternates, representing the two canneris in California.

Decisions made by the Committee are subject to approval by the Secretary of United States Department of Agriculture. At the present time, provisions of the Marketing Order apply only to black and green canned ripe olives and not to tree-ripened, Spanish style, olive oil, Sicilian, Greek, or other styles of olive. The program is funded by an assessment, established every December, on each ton of olives received for use as canned ripe olives.

Committee Functions and Expenditures

Committee functions and expenditures fall into four main categories:

• Administrative;

• Crop & Processing Research;

• Incoming & Outgoing Inspection; and

• Marketing and Public Relations.

Administrative

The Committee employs an Executive Director and staff responsible for administering each and aspect of the program. Their duties include compiling statistical data for the industry, ensuring compliance with the Order, and overseeing marketing and public relations functions.

Crop and Production Research

Each year the olive industry funds research conducted by the University of California and others on various LVVXHVHIIHFWLQJWKHSURGXFWLRQ,QUHFHQW\HDUVIXQGVKDYHEHHQDOORFDWHGWRFRPEDWWKHROLYHÁ\ÁDYRU SURÀOLQJPHFKDQLFDOKDUYHVWLQJDQGGLVHDVHSUHYHQWLRQ Incoming and Outgoing Inspection

1. Incoming regulations set up under the Order state that each lot of natural condition olives received by a KDQGOHUGHVLJQDWHGIRUFDQQHGULSHROLYHVDUHVL]HJUDGHGE\&DOLIRUQLD6WDWHLQVSHFWRUVDQGFODVVLÀHGDV canning, limited, undersize, or culls to ensure fair payment to the grower for his fruit.

2. Outgoing regulations require that inspection be made of canned olive products by inspectors of the U.S. 'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUHWRHQVXUHVWDQGDUGVRIVL]HFRORUDQGÁDYRUDUHPHW7KHRXWJRLQJLQVSHFWLRQ also ensures that handlers dispose of undersize and cull obligations into outlets other than canned ripe olives. Outgoing regulations also apply to imported canned ripe olives.

Marketing Program

The Committee executes various marketing and PR efforts to promote and build awareness about California Ripe Olives. Efforts include utilization of social media, partnerships, news media and special events.

9 meet the COC Staff

Alexander J. Ott Todd W. Sanders [email protected] [email protected] Executive Director Director of Trade

Elizabeth Brown Carranza Liza Ramon [email protected] [email protected] Program Supervisor Program Coordinator

Janette Ramos Emily Baker [email protected] [email protected]

2IÀFH0DQDJHU Intern

10 Budget for activities

BUDGET FOR ACTIVITIES FISCAL YEAR 2017

General Administration $513,000

x General Administration Expenditures $367,100 x Crisis Communication/Attorney $25,000 x Industry Export Studies $121,000

Research 2017 $367,767

Prior Research 2016 $23,063

Marketing $823,500

Inspection $98,000 TOTAL BUDGET $1,558,956

11 Budget for activities BUDGET FOR ACTIVITIES FISCAL YEAR 2018

General Administration $401,000

x Crisis Communication/Attorney $25,000

Industry Export Program $191,000

MAP/TASC Funding $250,000

Research 2018 $297,777

Prior Research 2017 $216,975

Marketing $973,500

Inspection $77,000

TOTAL BUDGET $2,432,252

12 &DOLIRUQLD2OLYH&RPPLWWHH $VVHVVPHQW5DWHVDQG%XGJHWV

Crop Assmt Rate Assess Tons COC Admin Research ($) Marketing ($) Brand ($) Total Budget per Ton ($) ($) ($) ($) 196-67 1.75 49,298 65,500 65,500 196-68 2.5 n/a 52,000 52,000 196-69 6.5 69,218 80,617 17,075 232,580 330,272 19-70 6.5 53,157 76,430 17,397 185,000 278,827 19-71 9 36,730 80,472 15,000 219,528 315,000 19-72 13 35,077 92,000 46,000 420,850 558,850 19-73 13 20,009 84,595 22,500 160,000 267,095 19-74 15 57,393 97,960 35,000 653,391 786,351 19-75 15 48,939 97,550 43,000 1/ 624,945 765,495 19-76 15 52,245 117,350 26,100 1/ 753,100 896,550 19-77 14 62,151 127,526 22,000 741,474 891,000 19-78 12 33,881 102,262 26,738 450,000 579,000 19-79 15 102,959 117,350 35,000 1,017,650 1,170,000 19-80 14.33 49,424 116,000 40,000 1,040,128 1,196,128 19-81 16.73 71,447 114,859 44,775 1,330,991 1,490,625 1981-82 28.26 38,964 123,143 33,887 899,600 1,056,630 1982 Interim 58,450 47,868 250,780 357,098 1983-COC 12.65 114,622 142,250 50,242 1,299,030 2,544,222 1983-BC 8.93 1,052,700 1984-COC 26.22 47,276 141,832 37,526 1,052,660 2,009,518 1984-BC 16.54 777,500 1985-COC 19.8 79,118 150,700 60,000 1,316,060 2,162,360 1985-BC 8.25 635,600 1986-COC 20.91 83,361 148,800 61,185 1,534,250 2,318,235 1986-BC 6.92 574,000

Fiscal Year Assmt Rate Assess Tons COC Admin Research Marketing Capital Total Budget 1987 20.03 95,424 189,550 80,500 1,592,350 1,862,400 1988 23.92 57,300 435,434 51,948 1,140,100 1,627,482 1989 25.39 74,200 312,014 79,032 1,511,250 1,902,296 1990 20.68 100,000 337,540 94,500 1,627,250 8,650 2,067,940 1991 20.23 104,600 353,545 126,000 1,635,000 2,114,545 1992 20.68 57,192 348,230 65,000 1,419,000 1,832,230 1993 25.75 147,000 393,000 80,000 2,323,000 2,796,000 1994 27.21 101,000 384,730 80,000 3,258,860 25,000 3,748,590 1995 30.04 69,300 389,650 80,000 2,412,000 2,881,650 1996 28.26 62,182 388,350 213,000 1,999,435 2,600,785 1997 14.99 144,075 390,890 173,375 1,595,000 2,159,265 1998 17.10 85,585 357,900 50,000 1,308,500 34,000 1,750,400 1999 26.18 67,990 352,685 466,150 1,123,640 1,942,475 2000 21.73 122,113 356,190 903,550 1,212,495 2,472,235 2001 27.90 46,374 343,490 408,337 596,415 1,348,242 2002 10.09 123,439 339,650 250,000 811,935 27,000 1,428,585 2003 13.89 89,006 347,090 250,000 633,500 1,230,590 2004 12.18 102,727 360,563 225,000 633,500 (Insp)50,000 1,269,063 2005 15.68 85,862 337,014 200,000 680,000 1,217,014 2006 11.03 114,761 290,421 210,000 800,700 1,301,121 2007 47.84 16,270 252,171 365,775 362,450 980,396 2008 15.60 108,059 288,552 500,000 750,000 (Insp)50,000 1,588,552 2009 28.63 49,250 359,549 495,000 627,800 1,482,349 2010 44.72 22,150 324,923 300,000 255,000 (Insp)50,000 929,923 2011 16.61 151,683 335,900 1,093,009 700,000 (Insp)75,000 2,203,909 2012 31.32 25,587 333,500 333,791 480,000 (Insp)50,000 1,197,291 2013 21.16 74,755 333,800 213,018 637,380 (Insp)105,000 1,289,198

2014 15.21 86,110 346,500 217,582 565,600 (Insp)37,800 1,167,482 2015 26.00 35,399 465,500 259,231 450,000 (Insp)122,00 1,296,731 2016 26.00 71,703 484,800 210,815 727,800 (Insp)10200 1,515,415 201 26.00 (Insp) 1,,

13 District map

14 strategic planning

15 16 strategic planning summary

7KH&2&LQVSHFWLRQSURJUDPVFRQWLQXHWRHYROYHSURJUHVVDQGSURYLGH PRUHYDOXHWRWKHLQGXVWU\7KHSURJUDP\HDUZDVWKHLQDXJXUDO\HDUIRU WKH2OLYH(OHFWURQLF5HSRUWLQJ6\VWHP 2(56 ,QWKHV\VWHPZDVUHILQHG 7KH &2& DGGHG PRUH IHDWXUHV WR KHOS ZLWK FRQJHVWLRQ DW WKH VFDOH KRXVH LQFOXGLQJELQWDJSULQWRXWVDQHZHQWU\DSSOLFDWLRQDQGLPSURYHPHQWVIRUWKH XVHUVRIWKHV\VWHP

2(56 KDV D ORJLQ DQG DFFRXQW IHDWXUH IRU HYHU\ JURZHU *URZHUV QRZ UHFHLYHUHDOWLPHGDWDDQGVSHDNRILWVDELOLW\WRFUHDWHJUHDWHUUHWXUQV8VLQJ WKHGDWDJURZHUVKDYHEHWWHUDFFHVVIRUFURSGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ)RUH[DPSOH JURZHUVPD\XVHWKLVV\VWHPWRDVVLVWLQWLPLQJRISLFNLQJLGHQWLI\DFFHOHUDWHG ULSHQLQJRUUHYLHZFURS´WUDVKµUHSRUWVDWWKHUHFHLYLQJVWDWLRQ

7KLVWHFKQRORJ\DWWKHFOLFNRIEXWWRQSURYLGHVJURZHUVZLWKWKHWRROVDQG RSSRUWXQLW\ WR PDQDJH WKHLU RUFKDUGV DQG UHYLHZ FHUWLILFDWHV ZLWK PD[LPXP HIILFLHQF\7KHLQGXVWU\FRQWLQXHVWRFDSLWDOL]HRQWHFKQRORJ\LQDGYDQFHPHQW RIRXUSURFHVVWRSURYLGHUHDOYDOXH&XUUHQWO\WKHLQGXVWU\VWDUWHGWUDQVLWLRQLQJ IURPXVLQJFDEOHJUDGHUVWRRSWLFDOVL]HUVRQDOOYDULHWLHVH[FHSW6HYLOODQR7KH RSWLFDOVL]HUFXWVGRZQRQODERUSURFHVVRUVWLPHDQGSURYLGHVDKLJKHUGHJUHH RIDFFXUDF\$GGLWLRQDOO\LWGHFUHDVHVVXEMHFWLYLW\

,I JURZHUV KDYH DQ LQWHUHVW LQ VHHLQJ WKH RSWLFDO VL]HU DW ZRUN SOHDVH FRQWDFW\RXUFDQQHUILHOGUHSUHVHQWDWLYH,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXW2(56 RU ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ KRZ WR XVH WKH V\VWHP SOHDVH IHHO IUHH WR FRQWDFW RXU RIILFH 8VHU PDQXDOV IRU JURZHUV FDQ DOVR EH IRXQG DW FDOROLYHRUJ ZLWKLQ WKH LQGXVWU\VHFWLRQXQGHULQVSHFWLRQ

,QWKH&2&UHFHLYHGQHZVIURP86'$·V6WDQGDUGVDQG7HFKQRORJ\ GHSDUWPHQWUHJDUGLQJWKHDSSURYDORIWKH0XOWLVFDQ,IRUWKHVL]HJUDGLQJRI ULSH ROLYHV 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW WKH 0XOWLVFDQ WR EH KLJKO\ UHSHDWDEOH KDV OHVV YDULDWLRQDQGLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHFXUUHQWJUDGLQJPHWKRG WKHLQVSHFWRUV 7KH IROORZLQJ UHSRUW RXWOLQHV 6 7·V ILQGLQJV LQ PRUH GHWDLO )RU PRUH XSGDWHV DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKLV GRFXPHQW SOHDVH IHHO IUHH WR FRQWDFW WKH &RPPLWWHH RIILFH

17 18 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages

1. Overview 3 – 4

2. Background of the California Olive Industry 4 – 5

3. Strategic Planning Meeting 5 – 6

4. Challenges Identified 6

5. The Mission (Focus) of the California Olive Industry 7

6. Opportunities Identified 7 – 8

7. Focuses Identified 8

8. Knowing the Differences Between State, Federal, and Trade Associations 8 – 10

9. Expectations 10 – 11

10. California Olive Committee Proposed Strategic Action Plan 12 a. Approved Focuses for Committee 12 – 13 b. Organization of Focuses 13 – 14

11. California Olive Committee Strategic Action Plan Recommendations 15

12. APPENDIX

a. COC Strategic Plan Final – Power Point Presentation

1 19 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE

STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING

June 23, 2014

Doubletree Hotel Modesto, CA

Overview:

On May 6, 2014, the California Olive Committee’s Strategic Planning Committee, coupled with representatives from the California Olive Council, The California Olive Growers Association and representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Agriculture met to review the issues that are directly impacting the California olive industry. This was the first time in which all California table olive entities sat down and reviewed all the issues and discussed how each entity may assist in advancing several key issues to assist in the growth of the California olive industry.

Several of the outcomes during the meeting included:

x A situation analysis that outlined the issues impacting the olive industry; x The roles of each individual table olive organization; x A survey of the industry that outlined the challenges and opportunities within the industry; x A mission statement for the industry; x Dividing the issues into the appropriate organizations that will be responsible for the identified areas; x Focuses for each specific organization; and x A plan that will assist the industry in streamlining communication and action items.

After the approval of the areas of focus, the Committee directed Committee management to prepare an action plan for the Committee that would address how the Committee plans to implement the strategic focus. It was agreed that the next Committee meeting would be appropriate for the Committee to approve the strategic plan and review, discuss and approve an action plan.

The meeting was held for one day with 15 participants. Participants included:

Industry Members:

Edwardo CURIEL - Grower Felix MUSCO - Musco

2 20 Dennis BURRESON - Musco Pat RICCHIUTI - Grower Doug REIFSTECK - Bell Carter Mark HENDRIXON - Grower Tim CARTER - Bell Carter James THOMAS - Bell Carter Michael SILVERIA - Grower

Staff:

Alexander J. OTT - Management of COC Todd SANDERS - Management of COC Liza RAMON - COC staff

Guests:

Jerry SIMMONS - USDA Martin ENGELER - USDA Joe MONSON - CDFA

Background of the California Olive Industry:

The California Olive Committee was formed in 1965. Acreage totaled 27,693 acres and producing 50,000 tons. In 1978 -1979, the industry produced 126,000 tons on its peak acreage of 37,213. By 1992-1993, there was record 163,024 tons on 34,597 acres. By 2010, the industry produced another record crop of 164,985 tons on only 27,000 acres. Today, the olive industry has 22,956 acres and producing an average of 78,000 tons. It should be noted that in its nearly 50 year history, table olive acreage is 4,000 acres less than where it started, yet producing 28,000 tons more on average.

Additionally, the industry has seen a dramatic decrease in handlers. With only two canners left in the U.S. industry, the California olive industry must be cautious when discussing issues due to anti-trust laws. Specifically, issues involving price are not allowed to be discussed at meetings. With these challenges, it makes it difficult to address issues without having the necessary firewalls and procedures in place to ensure that no anti-trust or propriety information is exposed.

In 2013, the industry agreed to have all the different California table olive organizations get together and outline the challenges and opportunities that are directly affecting the California olive industry. Management of the Committee sent a survey out to the industry asking several in depth questions about the industry. Several of the issues identified in the survey included:1

1 California Olive Committee, California Olive Committee Survey, (Survey Monkey, California Olive Committee, Fresno, CA 2014)

3 21 1. Labor - 36.2% 2. Lack of Water - 15.4% 3. $ & Return to Grower - 12.0% 4. Imports - 12.0% 5. Competition - 10.7% 6. Pests & Disease Issues - 5.3% 7. Government Regulations - 4.0% 8. Not enough Advertising/Marketing - 3.3% 9. Energy - 1%

In May 2014, the California Olive Committee held a strategic planning session to review the results of the survey and begin outlining a plan that would assist the industry in addressing the several issues that the industry identified and how the multiple organizations can work together.

Strategic Planning Meeting 2014:

The California Olive’s Sub-Committee met in Modesto on May 6, 2014. Representatives from the California Olive Growers Council and the California Olive Growers Association also participated in the planning session. Additionally, the Committee approved Alexander Ott as its Strategic Planning Meeting Moderator. The full day meeting provided an opportunity for the industry to focus on several of the challenges that the California Olive industry faces.

To begin, the Strategic Sub-Committee was asked to outline their expectations of the meeting that lied ahead. Several of the responses included:

Next, the Sub-Committee was split into three groups and asked to identify the challenges that the industry faced. The groups identified the following challenges:

Group 1:

x Grower Processor Returns and Profits; x Lower Costs of Production including: labor, regulatory, ect…; x Taking a more offensive/proactive approach to regulations; x Level playing field needed between imports and U.S.; and x Marketing, Education to consumer on California Ripe Olive.

Group 2:

x Profitability of Industry – many issues that impact this area include: R Labor R Retail Pressures R Pricing R Commodization

4 22 x Imports; x Consumer Perception: R Can/BPA R Fresh R Health Perception x CA Black Ripe Olives – Domestic Market (Not accepted globally).

Group 3:

x Alternate bearing; x Foreign competition/subsidies; R Quality, R Regulatory x Harvest costs; R Availability and Cost of Labor x Grower & Canner Profits; x Flat consumption (no new markets) x Excess Capacity in CA/Duplicate Capacity; x Water; x Current long supply in CA; x Improving Competitiveness R Mechanical Harvesting R Exert Influence for greater labor availability @ lower cost; R Providing labors camps/housing for labor R SC Consolidation x Hojiblanca R Global Table Olive Supply

After the Strategic Sub-Committee reviewed all three groups’ comments the groups reviewed the results from the industry survey2 and discussed and agreed on the following challenges including a working mission statement or focus for the California Olive industry.

Challenges Identified:

x Improve Grower & Canner Profitability R Reduce labor costs, research of mechanical harvesting, reduce imports. x New Markets for both Domestic and International x Regulatory Concerns x Quality & Standards x Sharing Resources x Sustainable Acres x Improve Competition and Competitiveness

2 Ibid

5 23 1. Labor - 36.2% 2. Lack of Water - 15.4% 3. $ & Return to Grower - 12.0% 4. Imports - 12.0% 5. Competition - 10.7% 6. Pests & Disease Issues - 5.3% 7. Government Regulations - 4.0% 8. Not enough Advertising/Marketing - 3.3% 9. Energy - 1%

Strategic Planning Meeting 2014:

To begin, the Strategic Sub-Committee was asked to outline their expectations of the meeting that lied ahead. Several of the responses included:

Next, the Sub-Committee was split into three groups and asked to identify the challenges that the industry faced. The groups identified the following challenges:

Group 1:

Group 2:

x Profitability of Industry – many issues that impact this area include: R Labor R Retail Pressures R Pricing R Commodization

4 24 x Imports; x Consumer Perception: R Can/BPA R Fresh R Health Perception x CA Black Ripe Olives – Domestic Market (Not accepted globally).

Group 3:

Challenges Identified:

2 Ibid

5 25 x Working together with other groups

The Mission (Focus) of the California Olive Industry:

The Mission of the California Olive Industry is:

“Provide and maintain a viable and profitable table olive industry.”

Opportunities Identified:

After reviewing and adopting the working mission statement of the California olive industry, the Strategic Sub-Committee, turned to the opportunities of the industry. The groups then discussed and decided on the following opportunities:

Group 1

x California Grown; x Expand Markets – Export more; develop Black Ripe and Green to rest of the world; x Communicate with other commodity groups; and R Olive Association and other Trade Associations x Social Media; R Use this to provide education to our industry

Group 2

x Market Expansion; R New Varieties R Leverage Quality x Concept of shared resources x Increased Political Activity x Improved Competitiveness R Labor Situation R Negotiating w/ Labor Contractor x Markets R Domestic (Alt. Channels – Schools ect…) R International

Group 3

x CA Quality – exceptional x New Varieties R Kalamata, Hojiblanca, ect… x Partner with CA Olive Oil Industry x Mechanical Harvesting x Labor Availability and Costs

6 26 x Government Funds for Export Marketing x Supply Chain Consolidation x Government Aid for Incenting Modern Plantings x Influence Current Legislation for Water Diversion x Industry – Sponsored Labor Camps x Updated Quality Standard in Federal Marketing Order to limit oil levels x Broaden Federal Market order for CA Table Olives

The groups then reviewed the industry survey on perceived opportunities. They included:3

Quality - 48.5% Grown Local - 14.7% Pesticides/Safe - 11.7% Freight & Shipping - 8.8% No Advantage - 8.8% Labor - 4.4% Water - 2.9%

Focuses Identified:

The groups then identified several issues or focuses for the table olive industry. These included:

x Regulatory x Expand Markets R Domestic and International x Communication x Sharing of Resources x Increased Political Activity x Leverage Quality x Improve Harvesting Costs x Government Funds x Research x Review and Amend Federal Marketing Order Standards and Varieties x Continue to Push Back on Self-Inspection

The Strategic Sub-Committee then discussed other points of the survey before going to a break.4

Knowing the Differences Between State, Federal and Trade Associations:

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

7 27 After the break, OTT and representatives from USDA and CDFA reviewed with the group the strengths and weaknesses of the different government organizations. These organizations included: state marketing orders and agreements, state commissions, federal marketing orders and trade association. After answering the groups’ questions, the industry then took some time to assigned issues to each of the existing groups, outlining a leading group for each issue. The following issues will be addressed by the following organizations:

California Olive Committee

x Regulatory compliance, concerns and issues; x Communication; x Leverage Quality (marketing); x Research; R Improving Harvest Costs; R Modernization; x Federal Marketing Order, Grades, Standards (varieties & styles) x Grants, MAP, TASC, EMP dollars x Quality standards; and x Enforcement of Standards (Section 8e).

California Olive Growers Association

x Regulatory Issues; x Sharing of Resources; x Policy and Enforcement of COC Standards (Lobbying) x Legal Interaction; x Communication with politicos; and x Harvesting Cost and the Labor Issue.

California Olive Growers Council

x Sharing Resources – Grower Impact x Pushing Back on self-certification x Regulatory x Controlling Harvest Costs

The industry also discussed the possibility of creating a state organization. However, after much discussion, it was decided to let the other three organizations handle the issues and reserve the right to revisit the commission idea, should the industry have challenges in addressing some of the issues. The following issues will be designated to a Commission should one ever be needed.

California Olive Commission

8 28 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE

PROPOSED STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN

Prepared by

California Olive Committee Management & Staff

July 31, 2014

On May 6, 2014 the California Olive Committee’s Strategic Planning Sub-Committee Committee approved nine strategic focuses. As requested by the Sub-Committee, management has outlined necessary items and objectives needed in order to implement the Strategic Focus of the Sub-Committee’s Strategic Plan. The Proposed Strategic Action Plan (SAP) outlines: focus, specific items for each focus, timeline and budget in order to fund these activities. This document specifically outlines issues relating to each of the nine focuses and provides a roadmap to implement these items. These items are specific to the Committee’s responsibilities and do not factor the necessary budgets for the trade associations to do their assigned activities. Although other issues may rise to the Committee’s attention, the focuses provide management and staff guidance on what is important to the California olive industry while allowing for flexibility for the management and staff to address issues not necessarily identified in this paper.

This document is intended to be a tool for the Committee’s Board of Directors, membership, management, and staff when approaching challenges to the California Olive industry. Additionally, this action plan should be monitored, updated and reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure that the Committee is staying the course.

APPROVED FOCUSES FOR COMMITTEE5

According to the Strategic Action Plan, eight focuses were approved. These included:

x Maintain and address Regulatory compliance, concerns, and issues;

x Effective Communication for the industry and its components;

x Leverage Quality (marketing);

x Conduct Research; R Improving Harvest Costs; R Modernization;

5 Dan Block, “California Olive Committee: Where do we go from here? 2006” (D.W. Block Associates, 2003) 6-7.

11 29 x Maintain, address and implement Federal Marketing Order, Grades, Standards (varieties & styles)

x Apply, receive and implement Grants, MAP, TASC, EMP dollars

x Review and implement Quality standards; and

x Enforce Standards (Section 8e).

ORGANIZATION OF FOCUSES

These eight focuses can be organized into five areas. Each area should have a Committee specifically to address the given areas, thus in turn assisting in implementing the focuses.

x Standards & Enforcement R Enforce Standards (Section 8e). R Review and implement Quality standards R Maintain, address and implement Federal Marketing Order, Grades, Standards (varieties & styles) R Maintain and address Regulatory compliance, concerns, and issues; x Research R Conduct Research; Improving Harvest Costs; Modernization; x Exports R Apply, receive and implement Grants, MAP, TASC, EMP dollars x Marketing, & Education R Leverage Quality (marketing); x Industry Relations R Effective Communication for the industry and its components

The following provides specific items for these areas. Each item contains specific issues that fall within the focus of the Committee. Several of these items are short-term goals while others will continue to be ongoing and will need staff to continually monitor the issue(s). It should be noted that these are items that are of current focus – meaning that as other challenges arise, the Committee should see how these challenges fit into the eight focuses of the Committee and then adopt an action plan for that specific issue(s).

1) STANDARDS & ENFORCEMENT

x Review of Federal Marketing Order and US Grading Standards; x Research different varieties and potential standards for varieties; x Review and research dollars and enforcement measures for rejected product; x Implement electronic reporting; and x Maintain communication with necessary government officials to enforce standards and enforcement.

12 30 2) RESEARCH

x Improving harvest costs; x Modernization; x Economic and Import analysis for table olives; and x Pest and disease research

3) EXPORTS

x MAP & TASC applications x Grants to assist in export markets

4) MARKETING & EDUCATION

x Quality; x Buy California; x Educating about availability; and x Education on benefits of olive industry

5) INDUSTRY RELATIONS

x Outreach to industry on issues impacting industry; and x Social media updating public on table olive industry

13 31

CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE

STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

Prepared by Staff

July 31, 2014

The following recommendations have been suggested in order to implement the Committee’s strategic plan as proposed by the Strategic Planning. Specifics of the plan are outlined within the comprehensive Strategic Action Plan Document.

Recommendations:

x Have Executive Committee provide guidance and parameters for all Sub- Committees.

x Add to the Executive Sub-Committee to identify export markets and be the lead on Market Access Program (MAP) and Technical Assistance of Specialty Crop (TASC) dollars.

x Fund the Export portion of the Sub-Committee to bring in the necessary experts for grant creation.

x Have the Executive Sub-Committee review table olive grades and standards and make a recommendation to the standards and enforcement Sub-Committees.

x As part of the Executive Sub-Committee, prepare a trip or two to D.C. to maintain relationships with the necessary government officials in order to communicate concerns or changes to standards and enforcement.

x Have a meeting with representatives of the other table olive entities to ensure that communication and issues are streamlined and shared.

x Continue to have Sub-Committees review their yearly objectives to achieve the Committee’s strategic plan focuses.

x In order to ensure that the Committee is carrying out its goals, a review of the Strategic Plan should be held yearly by the Executive Sub-Committee.

14 32 Inspection

33 34 Inspections Summary

The COC inspection programs continue to evolve, progress, and provide more value to the industry. TKe 2014 prRgram year was the inaugural year for the Olive Electronic Reporting 6\VWHP 2(56 ,Q WKH V\VWHP ZDV UHILQHG7KH &2& DGGHG PRUH IHDWXUHV WR KHOS ZLWK congestion at the scale house including: bin tag print outs, a new entry application, and improvements for the users of the system. OERS has a login and account feature for every grower. Growers now receive real time data and speak of its ability to create greater returns. Using the data, growers have better access for crop decision making. For example, growers may use this system to assist in timing of SLFNLQJLGHQWLI\DFFHOHUDWHGULSHQLQJRUUHYLHZFURS´WUDVKµUHSRUWVDWWKHUHFHLYLQJVWDWLRQ This technology, at the click of button, provides growers with the tools and opportunity to PDQDJHWKHLURUFKDUGVDQGUHYLHZFHUWLÀFDWHVZLWKPD[LPXPHIÀFLHQF\ The industry continues to capitalize on technology in advancement of our process to provide real value. Currently, the industry started transitioning from using cable graders to optical sizers on all varieties except Sevillano. The optical sizer cuts down on labor, processors time, and provides a higher degree of accuracy. Additionally, it decreases subjectivity.

If growers have an interest in seeing the optical sizer at work, please contact your FDQQHUÀHOGUHSUHVHQWDWLYH,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXW2(56RUZRXOGOLNHWRNQRZKRZ WRXVHWKHV\VWHPSOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWRXURIÀFH8VHUPDQXDOVIRUJURZHUVFDQDOVREH found at calolive.org, within the industry section, under inspection.

35 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE INCOMING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 20162015-2016 - 2017

U.S Standards & Acceptable Count Ranges and Mid-Points Marketing Order Sizes (Per Pound) Size Average Variety Group 1 Variety Group 2 Designation Count Sevillano Ascolano** Obliza Mission/Manzanillo* Ranger Per Pound Acceptable Mid Acceptable Mid Acceptable Mid Acceptable Mid Count Point Count Point Count Point Count Point Range Range Range Range Undersize 226-up Undersize Undersize Undersize Undersize 206 - up 106 - Up 181 - UP 181 - Up Sub-Petite 181-225 181-205 193 Petite 141-180 158-174 166 158-174 166 158-174 166 Small 128-140 132-138 135 136-140 138 132-138 135 Medium 106-127 110-122 116 110-122 116 110-122 116 Large 91-105 91-105 98 91-105 98 95-101 98 91-105 98 Extra-Large Sev "L" 76-9082-90 86 ------Extra-Large 65-90 -- -- 67-85 72-80 65-88 72-80 65-88 72-80 Extra-Large Sev "C" 65-75 67-73 70 ------Jumbo 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 Colossal 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 Super Colossal 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less

* Manzanillo includes Haas ** Ascolano includes St. Agostino and Barouni Undersize Limited Sizes

36 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE OUTGOING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 20162015-2016 - 2017

Size Requirements and Percentage Tolerances Size SEVILLANO ASCOLANO* OBLIZA MISSION/ MANZANILLO** Designation Undersize Undersize Undersize Undersize Undersize Sub-Petite 35% less than 1/205lb. Petite 35% less than 1/180lb. 35% less than 1/180lb. Small 128-140 Medium 106-127 106-127 All Sizes 5 % less than Large 35% Less than 1/105lb. 91-105 91-105 All sizes 5 % 91-105 1/ 140 lb. less than Extra Large 65-90 All sizes 5 % 65-90 65-90 1/ 127 lb. less than Extra Large 65-75 1/ 105 lb. Jumbo 47-60 All sizes 5% 47-60 47-60 47-60 33-46 less than 33-46 33-46 33-46 Colossal 1/ 75 lb. Super Colossal 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less Tolerance (by count) Tolerance (by count) Tolerance (by count) Tolerance (by count) 35% under 1/ 75 35% under 1/ 105 35% under 1/ 127 35% under 1/ 140 but not more than but not more than but not more than but not more than 10% under 1/ 86 10% under 1/ 113 7% under 1/ 138 7% under 1/ 166

* Ascolano includes St. Agostino and Barouni ** Includes Haas variety LIMITED USE SIZE and PERCENTAGE TOLERANCES Tolerances apply to MINIMUM WHOLE OR PITTED CANNING SIZE: Sevillano- Extra Large “C”; Ascolano- Large; Obliza- Medium; Mission/Manzanillo- Small

37 38 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH

$JULFXOWXUDO 0DUNHWLQJ6HUYLFH '$7( $SULO 6FLHQFH 7HFKQRORJ\ 3URJUDP 72 (ULQ0RUULV$FWLQJ'HSXW\$GPLQLVWUDWRU /DERUDWRU\$SSURYDO 7HVWLQJ'LYLVLRQ 6SHFLDOW\&URSV3URJUDP

/DERUDWRU\ $SSURYDO6HUYLFH )520 .HUU\6PLWK'LUHFWRU 6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\3URJUDP/DERUDWRU\$SSURYDO6HUYLFH ,QGHSHQGHQFH$YH6: 5RRP6 :DVKLQJWRQ'& 0LFKDHO)HLO&KLHI6WDWLVWLFLDQ $JULFXOWXUDO$QDO\WLFV'LYLVLRQ 7 ) 5( 'HPRQVWUDWLRQRI5HSHDWDELOLW\DQG$JUHHPHQW (TXLYDOHQFH 0XOWLVFDQ,2OLYH6L]LQJ,QVWUXPHQW

7KH6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\3URJUDP 6 7 DORQJZLWK0LFKDHO)HLO$06¶&KLHI6WDWLVWLFLDQ DQDO\]HGDQGUHYLHZHGWKHGDWDIURPWKH3KDVH,DQG3KDVH,,WULDOVRIWKH0XOWLVFDQ, LQVWUXPHQW 06,

%HORZLVDVXPPDU\RIRXUILQGLQJVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVEDVHGRQWKHDQDO\VLVRIWKHUHVXOWV

%$&.*5281'

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nstrument Systems for Size Grading of Ripe Olives DQLQVWUXPHQWPXVWEHWHVWHGDQGPXVWPHHWWKHSHUIRUPDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVWRJDLQDXWKRUL]DWLRQ IRUXVHIURPWKH6&,'

7KHULSHROLYHLQGXVWU\WKURXJKWKH&DOLIRUQLD2OLYH&RPPLWWHHVRXJKWDSSURYDORIWKH 0XOWLVFDQ,LQVWUXPHQW 06, IRUXVHLQLQWKHVL]HJUDGLQJRILQFRPLQJROLYHV7KH06,LV DYLVLRQEDVHGDXWRPDWLFLQVWUXPHQWIRUWKHVL]LQJDQGVRUWLQJRIROLYHV

3DJHRI “The Power of Science with Quality Service”

39 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH

75,$/6

7KH06,LVXVHGE\WZRKDQGOHUV%HOO&DUWHUDQG0XVFR7KH06,ZDVWHVWHGDWERWK ORFDWLRQVIRUERWKSKDVHV ,DQG,, RIWKHWULDO3KDVH, UHSHDWDELOLW\ ZDVFRQGXFWHGRQ2FWREHU 3KDVH,, DFFXUDF\SUHFLVLRQDQGDJUHHPHQW ZDVFRQGXFWHGZLWKWKUHHWULDOVWR UHSUHVHQWWKHEHJLQQLQJPLGGOHDQGHQGRIWKHVHDVRQDVIROORZV

Table 1. Trial Dates

7ULDO 6HDVRQ6HJPHQW 7LPHIUDPH (DUO\ 'D\ ± 0LGGOH 'D\ ± /DWH 'D\ ± 6SHFLILFVDPSOLQJGDWHVLQWULDOUHFRUGV

$WWKHFRQFOXVLRQRIWKHWULDOVWKHGDWDZDVVXEPLWWHGWRWKH6 7DQG$06¶&KLHI6WDWLVWLFLDQ IRUDQDO\VLVDQGUHYLHZ

),1',1*6

Phase I

$YDULDQFHFRPSRQHQWVDSSURDFKZDVXVHGWRHYDOXDWHWKHUHSHDWDELOLW\RIWKH06,UDWKHUWKDQ WKHPHWKRGRIGHPRQVWUDWLRQLQWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVGRFXPHQW7KHUDWLRQDOHZDVWKDWWKHRULJLQDO GDWDVKRZILYHFDWHJRULHVIRUFHUWLILHGYHULILFDWLRQROLYHV &92 ZKHUHDVWKHFRXQWVDFWXDOO\UXQ WKURXJKWKH06,DUHIRUVL[FDWHJRULHVDQGWKHVXPRI&92IRUHDFKUXQGRQRWHTXDO )RU0XVFRWKHPHDQFRXQWSHUUXQLVDQGWKHPHDQGLIIHUHQFHSHUUXQLV)RU%HOO &DUWHUWKHVDPHYDOXHVDUHDQGUHVSHFWLYHO\

Phase II

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

Summary of Analysis

3KDVH,7KHUHSHDWDELOLW\FRHIILFLHQWIRUWKH0XOWLVFDQLVRUSHUFHQW

3DJHRI “The Power of Science with Quality Service”

40 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH

3KDVH,,

7KHPHDQUHVLGXDOLVQRW]HUR,WLV 7KHVORSHRIWKHUHJUHVVLRQPRGHOLVVWDWLVWLFDOO\GLIIHUHQWIURPWKHVORSHRI

6XSSOHPHQWDOWR3KDVH,,

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

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Olive Size by Size Grading Method

6L]H*UDGLQJ0HWKRG ,QVSHFWRU 0XOWLVFDQ, 2OLYH6L]H 6WDQGDUG &RHIILFLHQW 6WDQGDUG &RHIILFLHQW 0HDQ 0HDQ 'HYLDWLRQ RI9DULDWLRQ 'HYLDWLRQ RI9DULDWLRQ 6XE3HWLWH 6XE3HWLWH 3HWLWH 6PDOO 0HGLXP /DUJH ([WUD/DUJH

3DJHRI “The Power of Science with Quality Service”

41 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH Table 3. 95 % Confidence Limits for Olive Size according to Size Grading Method and Equivalence Test Results 6L]H*UDGLQJ &RQILGHQFH/LPLWV 2OLYH6L]H (TXLYDOHQW 0HWKRG /RZHU 8SSHU ,QVSHFWRU 6XE3HWLWH

3DJHRI “The Power of Science with Quality Service” 42 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH $''(1'80 Table 4. Summary of the Statistical Analysis Comparing the Size Grading Methods of Inspectors and MS I5 3KDVH,,3HUIRUPDQFH 0HWKRG&RPSDULVRQ$QDO\VLVSYDOXHV 5HTXLUHPHQWV 2OLYH6L]H $YHUDJH 6ORSHRI 3DLUHG :LOFR[RQ /LQHDU (TXLYDOHQFH 6LJQHGUDQN &RUUHODWLRQ 6ORSH 5HVLGXDO WWHVW 5HODWLRQVKLS 7HVW 7HVW /HVVWKDQ6XE 1R 1R 3HWLWH

43 6XE3HWLWH 1R 1R 3HWLWH 1R 1R 6PDOO 1R 1R 0HGLXP 1R 1R /DUJH 1R 1R ([WUD/DUJH 1R 1R %R[3ORWV±DUHRQSDJHV±RIWKLVUHSRUW7KHUHLVDER[SORWIRUHDFKROLYHVL]HFODVV%R[SORWVDUHDJUDSKLFDOZD\WRGHSLFW VWDWLVWLFDOGDWD,WLVDVWDQGDUGL]HGZD\WRGLVSOD\WKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIGDWD,WVKRZVWKHPHGLDQZKLOHWKHZKLVNHUVDERYHDQGEHORZ WKHER[GLVSOD\WKHPLQLPXPDQGPD[LPXPSUHVHQWLQJWKHIXOOUDQJHRIYDULDWLRQ

3DJHRI “The Power of Science with Quality Service” Box Plot for Smaller than Sub-Petite Olives

400

300

44 200 Count per Pound

100

0 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 6 of 12 Box Plot for Sub-Petite Olives

250

200

45 150 Count per Pound

100

50 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 7 of 12 Box Plot for Petite Olives

250

200

46 150 Count per Pound

100

50 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 8 of 12 Box Plot for Small Olives

250

200

150 47

Count per Pound 100

0 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 9 of 12 Box Plot for Medium Olives

175

150

125 48

Count per Pound 100

50 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 10 of 12 Box Plot for Large Olives

200

175

150 49

Count per Pound 125

100

75 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 11 of 12 Box Plot for Extra-Large Olives

175

150

125 50

Count per Pound 100

50 Inspector Multiscan

Size Grading Method Page 12 of 12 $JULFXOWXUDO0DUNHWLQJ ,QVWUXPHQW6\VWHPVIRU6L]H*UDGLQJRI5LSH2OLYHV 6HUYLFH 3HUIRUPDQFH5HTXLUHPHQWVIRU,QVWUXPHQW9DOLGDWLRQ 6SHFLDOW\&URSV 'HPRQVWUDWLRQRI5HSHDWDELOLW\$FFXUDF\3UHFLVLRQDQG$JUHHPHQW 3URJUDP (TXLYDOHQFH

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“SCI moving &RPPLWWHH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI)RRGDQG$JULFXOWXUH &')$ &DOLIRUQLD forward in ROLYHKDQGOHUVDQGWHFKQRORJ\SURYLGHUV the 21st Century using technology, 3XUSRVH innovation, 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVGRFXPHQWLVWRSURYLGHDSHUIRUPDQFHVWDQGDUGWRGHWHUPLQH and old fashioned LILQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPVFDQREMHFWLYHO\PHDVXUHFRXQWSHUSRXQGDFFXUDWHO\DQG hard work” SUHFLVHO\IRUXVHLQWKHJUDGLQJDQGFHUWLILFDWLRQRIROLYHORWVSHU6&,'JUDGH VWDQGDUGVDQGLQVSHFWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWV8OWLPDWHO\WKHLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPPXVW GHPRQVWUDWHDJUHHPHQW RUHTXLYDOHQFH WRWKHLQVSHFWRUGHULYHGVL]HJUDGLQJ $QLQVWUXPHQWPXVWEHWHVWHGDQGPXVWPHHWWKHIROORZLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVWRJDLQ DXWKRUL]DWLRQIRUXVHIURPWKH6&,'

7KHDSSURYDOSURFHVVFRQVLVWVRIWZRSKDVHV

3KDVH,'HPRQVWUDWLRQRIWKHUHSHDWDELOLW\RIVL]HJUDGLQJRQFHUWLILHG YHULILFDWLRQROLYHV &92 DQG

3KDVH,,'HPRQVWUDWLRQRIWKHDFFXUDF\SUHFLVLRQDQGDJUHHPHQW RU HTXLYDOHQFH EHWZHHQWKHLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPDQGWKHLQVSHFWRULQVL]HJUDGLQJRI LQFRPLQJORWVRIROLYHV

7ULDO0HWKRGRORJ\ 3KDVH,3URWRFRO $PLQLPXPRI&92VKDOOEHVL]HGWKUHHWLPHV UXQV SHULQVWUXPHQWIRUWKH HYDOXDWLRQRIUHSHDWDELOLW\7KH&92DUHUHSOLFDVRIDFWXDOROLYHVPDGHRXWRI KLJKLPSDFWFDOFLXPFDUERQDWHUHLQIRUFHGSRO\SURS\OHQH2QHVHWRI&92 FRQVLVWRIDVIROORZV

2ULJLQDO'DWH 5HYLVHG'DWH 3DJHRI

86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\SURYLGHUHPSOR\HUDQGOHQGHU

51 7DEOH Corresponding Size Width* Length* Designation in. / mm in. / mm # Per CVO set Sub-Petite Petite Medium Large Extra Large Total *Width and length measured with a caliper in inches and then converted to millimeters

,QVWUXPHQWV\VWHPVFDQEHHYDOXDWHGIRUUHSHDWDELOLW\DWDQ\SRLQWGXULQJWKHWULDO VHH 3KDVH,,3URWRFROIRUDQH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHWULDOVHJPHQWV &92ZLOOEHSURFHVVHG WKURXJKWKHLQVWUXPHQWDFFRUGLQJWRWKHPDQXIDFWXUHULQVWUXFWLRQV

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

7DEOH Trial Segment # of samples 1 (DUO\ 'D\ 2 0LGGOH 'D\ 3 /DWH 'D\ Total

Sample Selection $6&,'LQVSHFWRURU6&,'OLFHQVHG&')$LQVSHFWRUZLOOUDQGRPO\VHOHFWWKHORWVWKDW ZLOOEHLQFOXGHGLQWKHWULDO6DPSOHVZLOOEHGUDZQDFFRUGLQJWR6&,'LQVWUXFWLRQV$ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHWHVWVDPSOHFRQVLVWVRIPLQLPXPRISRXQGVRIROLYHVIURPWKHUDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHGORW

Instrument Evaluation 6DPSOHVRIROLYHVIRUHDFKORWPXVWEHSUHVHQWHGIRULPDJHFDSWXUHDQGDQDO\VLVSHU PDQXIDFWXUHULQVWUXFWLRQV(DFKVDPSOHZLOOEHLPDJHGDQGDQDO\]HGLQWKUHHUXQV WKURXJKWKHLQVWUXPHQWDVIROORZV

2ULJLQDO'DWH 5HYLVHG'DWH 3DJHRI

86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\SURYLGHUHPSOR\HUDQGOHQGHU

52 5XQ²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³FXUWDLQV´WKDWGHILQHWKHORZDQGKLJKJUDP ZHLJKWVIRUHDFKVL]H7KHDYHUDJHFRXQWSHUSRXQGZLOOEHFDOFXODWHGDQGHYDOXDWHG DFFRUGLQJWRWKHDFFHSWDEOHFRXQWUDQJHV,IWKHFRXQWIRUDVL]HGHVLJQDWLRQLVQRWZLWKLQ WKHDFFHSWDEOHFRXQWUDQJHWKH³FXUWDLQV´PD\EHDGMXVWHGWREULQJWKHFRXQWIRUHDFK VL]HGHVLJQDWLRQLQWRFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHDFFHSWDEOHUDQJH

5XQ²'HQVLW\9DOXH7RFDOLEUDWHIRUGHQVLW\DQGVWRUHWKHGHQVLW\YDOXHDVD GHIDXOWIRUSURFHHGLQJVDPSOHVDUDQGRPO\VHOHFWHG DSSUR[ IRXU SRXQGVXEVHWPXVW EHSUHVHQWHGIRULPDJHFDSWXUHDQGDQDO\VLV7KHVXEVHWPXVWEHIHGIRULPDJHFDSWXUHDW DVORZHUUDWHWKDQQRUPDORSHUDWLRQ$WWKHFRPSOHWLRQRILPDJHFDSWXUHDQGDQDO\VLV WKHQHZO\FRPSXWHGGHQVLW\YDOXHPXVWEHVDYHGIRUWKHQH[WUXQ

5XQ²(MHFWLRQDQG)LQDO&RXQW3HU3RXQG:LWKWKHQHZO\FRPSXWHGGHQVLW\ YDOXHWKHHQWLUHVDPSOHPXVWEHSUHVHQWHGIRULPDJHFDSWXUHDQGDQDO\VLVDWDFRQWLQXRXV QRUPDORSHUDWLQJEHOWVSHHG$WWKHFRPSOHWLRQRILPDJHFDSWXUHDQGDQDO\VLVHDFK LQGLYLGXDOROLYHZLOOEHHMHFWHGLQWRLWVUHVSHFWLYHVL]HGHVLJQDWLRQEXFNHWVDVGHWHUPLQHG E\WKH³FXUWDLQ´VHWWLQJVDQGWKHFRXQWSHUSRXQGIRUHDFKVL]HZLOOEHUHSRUWHG

Establishing the Actual Size Classification and Count Per Pound )ROORZLQJWKHHYDOXDWLRQE\WKHLQVWUXPHQWD6&,'LQVSHFWRURU6&,'OLFHQVHG&')$ LQVSHFWRUVKDOOGHWHUPLQHWKHDFWXDOFRXQWSHUSRXQGIRUHDFKVDPSOHXVLQJDSSOLFDEOH LQVSHFWLRQVL]LQJWUD\V7KHVL]HGHWHUPLQDWLRQVKDOOEHPDGHE\SODFLQJWKHROLYHVLQWKH DSSOLFDEOHWUD\IRUWKHVL]HGHVLJQDWLRQWRFKHFNIRUDFFXUDWHVL]LQJDQGXQLIRUPLW\7KHQ SHUVL]HGHVLJQDWLRQWKHROLYHVZLOOEHFRXQWHGDQGZHLJKHGDQGWKHGDWDUHFRUGHG

Submission of Count Per Pound 7KHKDQGOHUZLOOVXEPLWWKHFRXQWSHUSRXQGIRUHDFKVDPSOHYLD6&,'VWDQGDUGL]HG HOHFWURQLFH[FHOVSUHDGVKHHWIRUFRPSDULVRQZLWKWKHLQVSHFWRUGHULYHGDFWXDOFRXQWSHU SRXQG$06ZLOOWKHQFRPSXWHWKHQHFHVVDU\VWDWLVWLFVWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKHLQVWUXPHQW V\VWHPPHHWVWKHSHUIRUPDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVEHORZ7KHKDQGOHUPXVWDOVRVXEPLW HOHFWURQLFDOO\RUKDUGFRS\WKHSURFHVVHGGLVSOD\VFUHHQLPDJHRUWKXPEQDLODQGWKH VDPSOHWLFNHWIRUHDFKVDPSOHLQWKHWULDOWRYDOLGDWHWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFROOHFWHG

Exclusion of Samples and Data Collected (DFKVDPSOHLQFOXGHGLQWKHWULDOPXVWEHHYDOXDWHGIRUFRXQWSHUSRXQGE\WKH LQVWUXPHQWDQGLQVSHFWRUZLWKLQPLQXWHV PLQXWHV ,QRUGHUIRUWKHWULDOWR

2ULJLQDO'DWH 5HYLVHG'DWH 3DJHRI

86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\SURYLGHUHPSOR\HUDQGOHQGHU

53 SURYLGHWKHEHVWSRVVLEOHUHVXOWV$06ZLOOUHYLHZDOOGDWDWRGHWHUPLQHLILWZDV DFFXUDWHO\REWDLQHG

3HUIRUPDQFH5HTXLUHPHQWV Scope $SSURYDOZLOOEHJUDQWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHIROORZLQJSHUIRUPDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVWR DQLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPWKDWDFFXUDWHO\DQGSUHFLVHO\GHWHUPLQHVFRXQWSHUSRXQGSHU LQFRPLQJLQVSHFWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQGHU0DUNHWLQJ2UGHU7KHVFRSHRIDQ LQVWUXPHQWV\VWHP¶VDSSURYDOLVEDVHGRQLWVLQWHQGHGXVHDQGZLOOEHPDGHFOHDUE\ 6&,'LQWKHILQDODSSURYDO

7KHGDWDIURPWKHWULDOUHVXOWVDUHWREHH[DPLQHGXVLQJDPL[RISDUDPHWULFDQG QRQSDUDPHWULFSURFHGXUHV7KHSDUDPHWULFSURFHGXUHVLQFOXGHWKHSDLUHGWWHVW FRUUHODWLRQDQDO\VLVOLQHDUUHJUHVVLRQDQGVWDWLVWLFDOHTXLYDOHQFH7KHQRQSDUDPHWULF SURFHGXUHVDUHER[SORWVDQGWKH:LOFR[RQVLJQHGUDQNVXPWHVW7KHOHYHORIVWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFHLVVHWDWĮ RUFRQILGHQFHOHYHO

Phase I: Demonstration of the repeatability of size grading on certified verification olives (CVO): x 1LQHW\ILYHSHUFHQWDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQWKHLQVWUXPHQWFRXQWSHUSRXQGDQGWKH DFWXDONQRZQ&92FRXQWSHUSRXQG Phase II: Demonstration of the accuracy, precision, and agreement (or equivalence) between the instrument system and the inspector in size grading of incoming lots of olives: x 7KHDYHUDJHUHVLGXDOLVVWDWLVWLFDOO\]HURZKHUHWKHUHVLGXDOLVWKHGLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQWKHLQVWUXPHQWGHULYHGFRXQWSHUSRXQGDQGWKHLQVSHFWRUGHULYHGFRXQW SHUSRXQG x 6ORSHRIXVLQJWKHUHVLGXDOIURPWKHLQVSHFWRUGHULYHGFRXQWSHU SRXQGDVWKHGHSHQGHQWYDULDEOH \D[LV DQGWKHDYHUDJHRIWKHLQVWUXPHQW GHULYHGFRXQWSHUSRXQGDQGWKHLQVSHFWRUGHULYHGDVWKHLQGHSHQGHQWYDULDEOH [ D[LV x 7KHSDLUHGWWHVWLVXVHGVLQFHWKHVDPSOHVIRUWKHLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPDQGLQVSHFWRU DUHIURPWKHVDPHORWRIROLYHV,WDVVHVVHVZKHWKHURUQRWWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQ WKHWZRVHWVRIWULDOGDWDLVVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQW x &RUUHODWLRQDQDO\VLVLVXVHGWRH[DPLQHWKHOHYHORIDVVRFLDWLRQEHWZHHQWKH LQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPDQG6&,'LQVSHFWRUV,WLQGLFDWHVWKHVWUHQJWKDQGGLUHFWLRQRI DOLQHDUUHODWLRQVKLS x /LQHDUUHJUHVVLRQLVXVHGWRGHVFULEHWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHLQVWUXPHQW V\VWHPDQG6&,'LQVSHFWRUV x 6WDWLVWLFDOHTXLYDOHQFHLVXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKHLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPDQG6&,' LQVSHFWRUVJHQHUDWHGWULDOUHVXOWVDUHFORVHHQRXJKWREHFRQVLGHUHGHTXLYDOHQW x %R[SORWVDUHXVHGWRGLVSOD\GLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQWKHLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPDQG 6&,'LQVSHFWRUVZLWKRXWPDNLQJDQ\DVVXPSWLRQVRIWKHXQGHUO\LQJVWDWLVWLFDO

2ULJLQDO'DWH 5HYLVHG'DWH 3DJHRI

86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\SURYLGHUHPSOR\HUDQGOHQGHU

54 GLVWULEXWLRQDQGE\FRPSDULQJWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIWKHUHVXOWVIURPWKHWZRPHWKRGV VLGHE\VLGH,WSURYLGHVDQRYHUDOODVVHVVPHQWRIWKHWULDOUHVXOWV x 7KH:LOFR[RQVLJQHGUDQNWHVWLVXVHGDVDQDOWHUQDWLYHWRWKHSDLUHGW±WHVWIRU H[DPLQLQJWKHHIIHFWRIUHOD[LQJWKHDVVXPSWLRQVDERXWWKHQDWXUHRIWKH XQGHUO\LQJGLVWULEXWLRQDQGWRDVVHVVWKHDPRXQWRIFRQVLVWHQF\EHWZHHQWKH UHVXOWVRIWKHVWDWLVWLFDOWHVW

9HULILFDWLRQDQG,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ$SSURYDO3URFHVV 7KHYHULILFDWLRQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGRSHUDWLRQRIDQLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPZLOOEHDSSURYHG RQDKDQGOHUE\KDQGOHUEDVLVRQFHWKHLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPKDVEHHQYDOLGDWHGSHUWKH SHUIRUPDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVDERYH7KHPLQLPXPFULWHULDWKDWPXVWEHDGGUHVVHGIRU RSHUDWLRQDODSSURYDOLVFRQWDLQHGLQWKH6&,'GRFXPHQWWLWOHGInstrument Systems for Size Grading of Ripe Olives, Requirements for Instrument Verification, Implementation, and Operation.

5HTXHVWVIRU$SSURYDO +DQGOHUVVHHNLQJDSSURYDORIDQLQVWUXPHQWV\VWHPPXVWVXEPLWUHTXHVWVWR

$VVRFLDWH'LUHFWRU6&,',QVSHFWLRQ2SHUDWLRQV 86'$$066&3 ,QGHSHQGHQFH$YHQXH6: 5RRP6RXWK%XLOGLQJ 6723 :DVKLQJWRQ'& 3KRQH )DFVLPLOH

2ULJLQDO'DWH 5HYLVHG'DWH 3DJHRI

86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\SURYLGHUHPSOR\HUDQGOHQGHU

55 56 food safety modernization act

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is still moving forwardDW full speed. Under the law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is focused on prevention and risk based food safety standards. Several of the key components in the mandate include: • Mandatory preventative controls for food facilities; • Mandatory produce safety standards; • Authority to prevent intentional contamination; • Mandated inspection frequency; • Record access; • Testing by accredited laboratories ; • Greater response and enforcement;

,PSRUWHUDFFRXQWDELOLW\²LQFOXGLQJWKLUGSDUW\FHUWLÀFDWLRQDQG • Enhanced Partnerships though state, local and foreign capacity building. Currently, the Preventative Controls Rule is for handlers, packers, and shippers. It is drafted and is already expected to be implemented by the industry. The Produce rule, designed for growers, has one of three guidance documents drafted. However, it is still expected that the industry should have these mandates in place by January 1, 2018. Growers are encouraged WRDWWHQGDQDFFHSWDEOHFHUWLÀFDWLRQFRXUVHDVUHTXLUHGXQGHUWKHODZWRHQVXUHWKH\DUH trained for the new requirements. Lastly, those that import fruit into the U.S. will have to comply with the new import rule. Although draft guidance has not been issued, brokers, handlers, or importers should have a Food Safety Import program to satisfy the FSMA requirement. FDA has stated that they are taking into account the industry’s comments on all draft guidance documents. Growers who wish to comment should do so as a grower or work with one of the two olive associations that represent California table olives.

57 58 Research

59 60 2016-2017 Research summary 2016-2017 COC Research Projects Investigating Anti-Oxidants to Decrease the Leaf Abscission with Ethephon Applications-Dr. Louise Ferguson and Dr. Elizabeth Fitchner Investigation of Chemican and Biological Formation of Styrene in Black Ripe Table Olives-Dr. Selina Wang Comprehensive Nutrition Analysis of California Green and Black Ripe Olives-Dr. Selina Wang

3URSDJDWLQJ'ZDU¿QJ2OLYH5RRWVWRFNVDQG(VWDEOLVKLQJD/RQJ7HUP2UFKDUG'U5LFKDUG3UHHFHDQG'U Louise Ferguson Epidemiology and Management of Olive Knot Caused by Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. Savastanoi-Dr. J.E. Adaskaveg

Managing Alternate BeaULQJ in Olives with PGRs and Pruning-Dr. Carol Lovatt and Dr. Elizabeth Fitchner Canopy Management, Tree Hedging, and Topping to Optimize Yield-Dr. Rich Rosecrance Preliminary Field Study to Identify New Olive Fly Control Materials-Dr. Dani Lightle Northern Sacramento Valley Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring Project-Dr. Ernie Simpson San Joaquin Valley Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring Project-Dr. Jim Stewart

61 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT: 2017 SEASON

Workgroup/Department: Olive / Plant Sciences, UC Davis

Project Year 2017 Anticipated Duration of Project: 1 year

Project Title: Investigating Anti-Oxidant Amendments to Decrease the Leaf Abscission with Ethephon Applications:

Project Leaders: Dr. Louise Ferguson: Extension Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, 2037 Wickson Hall, Mail Stop II, UC Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis CA 95616, (530) 752-0507 [Office], (559) 737-3061 [Cell], [email protected].

Dr. Elizabeth J. Ficthner: Farm Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, 4437 South Laspina Street, Tulare CA 93274. (559) 684-3310 (Office), (559) 684-2057 (Cell). [email protected].

Cooperators: Dr. Richard Rosecrance: Professor, Chico State University Mr. William H. Krueger: Farm Advisor Emeritus Mr. Erick Nielsen: ENE Inc., pruning and harvesting designer, fabricator and contractor.

Commodity: Olive Relevant AES/CE Project No.

Year Initiated: 2017 Current Funding Request: $39,996.00

Problems and Significance: Multiple studies, including our most recent California study (Burns et. al. 2008) have demonstrated that the higher concentrations of Ethephon required to decrease olive fruit removal force to make mechanical harvesting with trunk shakers more efficient also result in unacceptable levels of leaf abscission.

On October 11th 2016 a presentation at the International Society for Horticultural Science 8th International Olive Symposium in Split, Croatia a research group from Israel presented their results examining the anatomical and molecular differences between fruit and leaf abscission in table olives. The following is from their abstract discussion:

“We found that the the typical anatomical characteristics of the abscission zones such as small cells with less pectin compared to the neighboring cells, exist in the leaf but not the fruit abscission zone. Screening the response of the cultivars in our olive germplasm collection reveals differences in the response of the abscission zones of the leaves and fruits as expressed in their anatomical characteristics. Transcriptomic analysis of the of the various abscission zones

62 2017 Final Abscission Project Report Ferguson et. al. reveals induction of several hormones as well as cell wall degradation enzymes in the leaf and fruit abscission zones in response to exogenous ethylene. However, cellulase activation was found only in the leaf abscission zone. In addition, we found that reactive oxygen species mediated abscission in response to exogenous ethylene applications only in leaves. Thus, adding an antioxidant such as ascorbic or butyric acid to the abscission compound enhanced abscission of fruit but not leaves. Our findings suggest that advising growers to use an abscission agent exclusively tailored to induce the abscission of fruit would greatly promote the mechanized harvest of table olives”. (Goldental-Cohen et. al. 2016)

The major table cultivar in Israel is Manzanilla so they have tested their theory on our major cultivar. The specific treatment they suggested was 0.3% ascorbic acid or 100 mM butyric acid added to the standard Ethephon treatment. As our cooperators Rosecrance and Krueger are currently conducting a mechanical pruning and harvesting experiment in California we arranged to have a preliminary trial done this October 15th 2016. Hopefully we will have the results for proposal review in 2016.

In fall of 2017 we proposed to evaluate the ability of both 0.3% ascorbic acid in combination with ethephon to enhance fruit removal efficiency without producing unacceptable leaf abscission when using trunk shaking mechanical to harvest Manzanillo olives. Drs. Louise Ferguson, Elizabeth Fichtner and Richard Rosecrance and Farm Advisor Emeritus William H. Krueger MSc will be the cooperators.

Progress through 10/15/2016: A preliminary application of 0.3 ascorbic acid was applied by Dr. Richard Rosecrance and William H. Krueger, Farm Advisor Emeritus in the Nickles Estate moderate density olive block October 15th 2016. Effect on fruit pull force was evaluated on October 25th; there was no significant drop in fruit pull force.

2017 Objective: (April 1st – December 31st 2017) Evaluate the ability of the best suggested treatment: a. 0.3% ascorbic acid to decrease fruit removal force and increase harvest efficiency of a trunk shaking harvester without producing more than 25% leaf loss.

2017 Experimental Procedures Completed: Orchards pruned for trunk shaker harvesting was secured: 1. Nickles moderate density orchard (203 trees/acre) in Colusa County

Experimental design was be a randomized complete block: within 9 rows of each treatment was assigned once: 4 treatments x 3 trees x 10 replications (rows) = 120 treated trees: See Att. I

Sept. 29th 2017 9 randomly selected sets of 3 trees/treatment were sprayed to drip with the following treatments at the 100 GPA rate: 1. 2000 PPM Ethephon and 0.25% surfactant 2. 2000 PPM Ethephon and 0.25% surfactant + 0.3% ascorbic acid

2 63 2017 Final Abscission Project Report Ferguson et. al.

3. 0.3% ascorbic acid and 0.25% surfactant 4. a water control and 0.25% surfactant

Before Harvest: Fruit detachment force was taken from the middle tree of each 3 tree set on 10 shoots per tree with at least 5 olives per shoot before application and at 7 day intervals until harvest.

At Harvest: At harvest the middle tree of the three was be harvested by trunk shaker, then hand gleaned.

Both sets of fruit were be weighed and samples submitted to Musco Olive for sample grades and value.

We did not to submit this set of fruit samples for canning, sensory and consumer evaluation unless the COC Research Subcommittee wants these tests done. We prefer to determine if the technique works before investigating effects on processed fruit quality. Also, Ethephon is unregistered.

After Harvest: The middle tree of the treated tree sets will be evaluated monthly for leaf drop at harvest through the beginning of shoot growth the following spring: 1. The trees were visually rated for leaf drop on a 1-3 scale: 1= none, 2 = visible, 3 = severe. 2. Ten shoots per tree will be counted for % leaf drop: > 25% will be considered unacceptable.

Data was analyzed using ANOVA with an LSD means separation.

Desired Result: The 2000 ppm ethephon treatment will decrease fruit removal force, increase harvesting efficiency to at least 90% without producing leaf loss over 25%.

First Analyzed Results: Att. II As the attached results show when sprayed with the water control treatment and water control treatment + 3% ascorbic acid ~ 72% of the olives were removed by the trunk shaker. Adding Ethephon® to the spray increased fruit removal by ~ 6-8%, to 78-80%. However, neither Ethephon® treatment significantly decreased the pull force.

And, as the attached results show the Ethephon® alone and with 0.3% ascorbic acid significantly increased leaf loss as of harvest October 23rd. On a scale of 0-3, with three being the highest; the Ethephon® treated trees were rated at 1.5 (Ethephon® alone) and 2.5 (Ethephon® + 0.3% ascorbic acid); both significant levels of leaf loss versus the water control.

The final report will follow leaf loss through March 2018. However, the analyzed data demonstrates that while Ethephon® produced a modest 6-8 % increase in fruit harvest efficiency, and a modest decrease in pull force, from 0.5 kg for the control treatment to 0.4 kg for the Ethephon® treated trees, the leaf loss for Ethephon® treated trees at harvest was significant. On a

3 64 2017 Final Abscission Project Report Ferguson et. al. scale of 1-3, with 3 being the most severe leaf loss, the water control treatments, with and without 0.3% ascorbic acid, had leaf drop ratings below 0.5 while Ethephon® treated trees, with and without 0.3% ascorbic acid had leaf drop ratings of 1.5 and 2.2 respectively. These results demonstrate adding 0.3% ascorbic acid to Ethephon® did not significantly decrease fruit pull force, harvest efficiency or leaf loss

References: Burns, J.K., L. Ferguson, K. Glozer, W.H. Krueger, and R.C., Rosecrance. 2008. Screening fruit loosening agents for black ripe processed table olives. HortScience 43(5):1449-1453.

Goldental-Cohen, S, I.B.Y. Mani, B. Avidan, S. Lavee, G. Ben-Ari. 2016. Anatomical and molecular differences between the olive fruit and leaf abscission zone enable development of a selective abscission compound. Abstract: Int. Soc. Of Hort. Sci.: 8th Int. Olive Symp. Oct. 10th – 14th 2016 Split, Croatia. P. 42.

4 65 Investigating the formation of styrene in California-style ripe table olives

Objective The goal of this project is to understand the mechanism of styrene contamination and/or formation in the black ripe olive production process. Specific objectives include: 1. Compare levels of styrene in domestic and imported California-style black and green ripe olives. 2. Isolate and identify microbiota from these olives to determine species that are abundant in high-styrene olives. 3. Investigate the formation of styrene in vitro by incubating these isolated microbes with precursor compounds. 4. Inoculate olives with metabolically active microbes and quantify styrene formation under various storage conditions

Materials Samples: Forty samples of California-style olives were provided by the producers or purchased from online retailers or grocery stores. Reagents: Styrene and styrene d8 were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).

Methods Analysis of styrene in California-style olives. Thirty grams of olive was blended with 50 mL nanopure water. An additional 100 mL water was used to rinse the blender and 54 g baked sodium chloride was added to olive slurry. An aliquot of the mixture (60 mL) was transferred to a small amber bottle sealed with a septum cap. The SPME fiber (DVB/CAR/PDMS) was inserted into the headspace of the bottle for 30 min to extract styrene. The fiber was then manually injected into the GC-MS for analysis. Analyses were conducted in triplicate.

Results x Domestic samples contained significantly less styrene than imported samples (Table 1). x Seven out of twelve imported black ripe samples had higher than 0.3 μg/g styrene (Figure 1). Styrene has an odor threshold of 0.32 μg/g, meaning that sensory defects may be detectable in these samples. x With the exception of one sample (0.2 μg/g), all other domestic olives had less than 0.055 μg/g styrene (Figure 1).

Styrene concentration (μg/g) Black (n=20) 0.021 ± 0.044 Domestic Green (n=6) nd* Black (n=12) 1.37 ± 1.83 Imported Green (n=2) 0.051 ± 0.044 Table 1. Average styrene concentration of domestic and imported black and green ripe olives *nd = below detection limit

66 ϱ

ϰ͘ϱ

ϯ͘ϱ

ϯ ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐŐƌĞĞŶ Ϯ͘ϱ ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐďůĂĐŬ Ϯ /ŵƉŽƌƚĞĚŐƌĞĞŶ ϭ͘ϱ ŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ƵŐͬŐͿ /ŵƉŽƌƚĞĚďůĂĐŬ ϭ

Ϭ͘ϱ

Ϭ Ϭ ϱ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϮϬ Ϯϱ ϯϬ ϯϱ ϰϬ ϰϱ ^ĂŵƉůĞŶƵŵďĞƌ

Ϭ͘ϲ

Ϭ͘ϱ

Ϭ͘ϰ ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐŐƌĞĞŶ Ϭ͘ϯ ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐďůĂĐŬ Ϭ͘Ϯ /ŵƉŽƌƚĞĚŐƌĞĞŶ ŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ƵŐͬŐͿ /ŵƉŽƌƚĞĚďůĂĐŬ Ϭ͘ϭ

Ϭ Ϭ ϭϬϮϬϯϬϰϬϱϬ

^ĂŵƉůĞŶƵŵďĞƌ

Figure 1. Styrene concentration in domestic and imported California-style olives

x Domestic green ripe olives did not have any detectable styrene and imported green ripe olives had significantly less styrene than imported black ripe samples. x Samples 2, 30 and 32 were domestic samples processed without ferrous gluconate. There was no clear difference between these olives and traditional black ripe olives, which suggests that styrene content is not influenced by ferrous gluconate treatment. x All domestic green ripe olives were processed fresh, whereas all domestic black ripe samples in this study were stored before processing. These results support the hypothesis that microbial growth during olive storage is causing production of styrene. x No identifiable trend exists between olive style (whole, sliced, chopped), fruit size or cultivar and styrene content.

67 Future work Isolate and identify of microbiota from high-styrene olives Oct-Nov. 2017 Olive tissue will be macerated in PBS and frozen at -20°C. DNA will be extracted using MoBio PowerFood microbial kit. PCR amplification will be performed on the V4 region of 16s rRNA genes for bacteria and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region for yeasts. DNA will be analyzed using Illumina sequencing at the UC Davis Genome Center. A FASTQ file containing reads will be subjected to bioinformatics analysis.

Assess styrene production by isolated microbes in vitro Dec-Jan. 2017 Microorganisms identified in high-styrene olives will be obtained from the UC Davis Phaff Yeast Culture and/or other commercial producers. Microbes will be individually inoculated into buffered peptone water fortified with cinnamic, p-coumaric, caffeic and ferulic acid (phenolic precursors to styrene and styrene derivatives). Following 3 days of incubation, the concentration of phenolic compounds and styrene/derivatives will be measured. Microorganisms that demonstrate the ability to convert phenolic precursors into styrene will be considered metabolically active.

Inoculate olives with metabolically active microbes to assess styrene production in vivo Jan-Feb. 2017 Fresh olives with negligible styrene content will be placed into brine. These olives will receive four different treatments in triplicate: (1) inoculation with metabolically active microorganisms only; (2) inoculation with all abundant microorganisms from the high-styrene olives; (3) no inoculation; (4) no inoculation + nisin/natamycin (to inhibit bacterial/yeast growth). The olives will be incubated and the phenolic/volatile profile will be measured every 3 days for 2 weeks, and then every 7 days for an additional 2 weeks. The microbiota of olives from each treatment will be analyzed.

68 Appendix Table S1: Characteristics and styrene concentrations of California-style olive samples Sample # Color Style Size Cultivar* Origin Styrene (μg/g) 1 Black Sliced Manzanilla Domestic 0.0022 ± 0.0005 2 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0016 ± 0.0005 3 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 4 Black Whole Extra large Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 5 Black Whole Jumbo Gordal Imported 0.0430 ± 0.014 6 Black Whole Large Imported 0.0251 ± 0.0020 7 Black Whole Large Imported 2.43 ± 0.072 8 Black Whole Large Imported 0.0546 ± 0.0074 9 Green Whole Large Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 10 Black Whole Jumbo Sevillano Domestic 0.0141 ± 0.0036 11 Black Whole Collosal Sevillano Domestic 0.0099 ± 0.0024 12 Black Whole Large Manzanilla Domestic 0.0181 ± 0.0059 13 Black Chopped Manzanilla Domestic 0.0100 ± 0.0019 14 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0331 ± 0.0017 15 Black Whole Small Manzanilla Domestic 0.0081 ± 0.0008 16 Black Whole Extra large Manzanilla Domestic 0.0070 ± 0.0037 17 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 18 Black Sliced Mission Domestic 0.1994 ± 0.013 19 Black Whole Jumbo Barouni Domestic 0.0067 ± 0.0025 20 Black Chopped Domestic 0.0063 ± 0.0002 21 Black Whole Large Imported 0.0296 ± 0.003 22 Black Whole Extra large Imported 0.0122 ± 0.0007 23 Black Broken Sevillano Domestic 0.0070 ± 0.0013 24 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 25 Black Whole Large Imported 0.3351 ± 0.026 26 Black Sliced Domestic 0.0531 ± 0.034 27 Black Whole Large Imported 0.3862 ± 0.036 28 Black Sliced Domestic 0.0035 ± 0.0029 29 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 30 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0072 ± 0.0017 31 Black Whole Large Domestic 0.0069 ± 0.001 32 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0026 ± 0.0007 33 Black Whole Medium Imported 3.8528 ± 0.42 34 Black Whole Jumbo Barouni Domestic 0.0211 ± 0.0099 35 Green Whole Manzanilla Imported 0.0821 ± 0.0032 36 Black Whole Extra large Imported 4.5124 ± 0.60 37 Black Whole Medium Imported 4.2105 ± 0.70 38 Black Whole Medium Imported 0.5684 ± 0.056 39 Green Whole Manzanilla Imported 0.0200 ± 0.0032 40 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 0.0000 *Cultivars were unknown for many imported samples and samples purchased at the grocery store

69 Nutritional analysis of California-style black and green ripe table olives Selina C. Wang and Lauren Crawford UC Davis

Objective The goal of this project was to comprehensively measure the nutritional profile of domestic and imported black and green ripe olives in order to a) identify any potential health benefits or risks in table olives and b) to determine effects of processing method, sample origin, olive style and cultivar on chemical composition.

Materials Samples: Twelve samples were provided by Bell Carter. Ten samples were provided by Musco. The remaining eighteen samples were purchased from local grocery stores (Davis, CA) or online from Walmart. Sample characteristics are summarized Table S1 (appendix).

Reagents. HPLC grade methanol, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetic acid and hexane were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Fairlawn, NJ). Hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, benzoic acid, acrylamide and alpha-tocopherol standards were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).

Methods Ninety grams of olives were removed from the can, dried with a paper towel and homogenized in a food processor. A summary of analyses using this pulp is displayed in Figure 1.

Individual phenolics: Olive pulp (2 g) was vortexed with 10 mL dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) for 1 min and centrifuged (9000 rpm, 5 min). The extract was filtered (0.45 μm, nylon) and 0.25 mL was diluted with 0.25 mL methanol and 0.5 mL water. Samples were stored at -20°C until analysis using ultra performance liquid chromatography coupled to a diode array detector (UPLC-DAD). Total phenols: DMSO extract (0.1 mL) from the individual phenolics assay was diluted with 1.9 mL water. Folin Ciocalteau reagent (0.1 mL) was added and the sample was briefly vortexed. One mL sodium carbonate (200 g/L) was added and the sample was vortexed again and placed in the dark for 45 min. Absorbance was measured at 725 nm using a spectrophotometer. Acrylamide: Olive pulp (30 g) was sonicated with 60 mL water for 10 min, followed by stirring for 5 min. The sample was centrifuged (10,000 rpm, 5 min) and 10 mL of the aqueous supernatant was shaken with 10 mL hexane for 30 s to remove lipid interferences. The sample was centrifuged again (3000 rpm, 2 min) and the hexane layer was removed. The extract was filtered (0.45 μm, nylon) and analyzed using UPLC- DAD. Benzoic acid: Olive pulp (2 g) was vortexed with 10 mL methanol for 1 min and centrifuged (8000 rpm, 5 min). Extract was filtered (0.45 μm, nylon), diluted 1 to 2 with water and stored at -20°C until analysis with UPLC-DAD.

70 Oil extraction: Olive pulp (5 g) was shaken with 25 mL hexane for 2 min. The mixture was centrifuged (5000 rpm, 5 min) and the hexane layer was evaporated in order to isolate the extracted oil.

Tocopherols: Oil (40 μl) was dissolved in 160 μL of hexane. Ethanol (200 μL) and methanol (600 μL) were added to the sample, which was vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged (5000 rpm, 5 min). Samples were stored at -20°C to allow oil to fully separate from the organic phase. The extract was filtered (0.45 μm, nylon) and analyzed using UPLC-DAD. Fatty acid profile: Oil (10 μL) was dissolved in 4 mL toluene. The sample was mixed with 3 mL methanol plus 0.6 mL methanol/HCl (80:20, v/v) and heated at 80°C for 1 hour. Hexane (1.5 mL) and nanopure water (1 mL) were added to the extract, which was briefly vortexed. The sample sat for 5 minutes to allow separation of phases and the upper phase containing fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) was passed over anhydrous sodium sulfate to remove any additional water. Solutions were analyzed using gas chromatography flame ionization detection (GC-FID). Ferrous gluconate: Ferrous gluconate was measured as a function of iron content. Olive pulp was frozen at -80°C and submitted to the UC Davis Analytical Lab for analysis. Nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide microwave digestion was used, followed by quantitation with inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES).

71 Figure 1. Summary of extraction and analytical methods Results Table S2 in the appendix contains data for individual samples.

Beneficial compounds (phenolics/tocopherols): x Imported green ripe olives had significantly higher phenolics than the three other categories of olives (Figure 2). However, only two imported green ripe samples (both from the same brand) were analyzed. x On average, domestic green ripe olives had higher amounts of hydorxytyrosol, caffeic acid, p- coumaric acid and ܤ-tocopherol than black ripe olives, although the difference was not significant (Figure 2). R The variability in phenolics is very high when all domestic olives are considered together. However, separating the data by processor and cultivar greatly reduced variability. In the case of one processor, the difference between green ripe and black ripe olive phenolics was significant (see individual reports). x The results suggest that green ripe olives are subjected to less oxidation during processing and may retain higher amounts of antioxidant compounds.

72 x Figure 3 shows that individual phenolic profile is somewhat cultivar-dependent, although principal component analysis did not yield well-separated clusters for all cultivars (Figure S1). x ȕ-tocophHURODQGȖ-tocopherol were not identified in any sample.

350 90 12 5 80 300 10 4 70 250 60 8 3 200 50 6 150 40 2 30 4 100 1 20 2 Concentration Concentration (mg/kg) 50 Concentration (mg/kg) 10 Concentration (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg) 0 0 0 0 Caffeic acid p-coumaric acid Hydroxytyrosol -10 Tyrosol -2 -1

500 7000 450 6000 400 Domestic black ripe olives 350 5000 (n=20) 300 4000 Domestic green ripe olives 250 (n=6) 3000 200 Imported black ripe olives 150 2000 (n=12) Imported green ripe olives 100 1000 Concentration Concentration (mg/kg) Concentration Concentration (mg/kg) (n=2) 50 0 0 Total phenols alpha-tocopherol -1000 Figure 2. Phenolic compound and ܤ-tocopherol content of domestic and imported black and green ripe olives.

73 140

120

100 Barouni (n=2) 80 Gordal (n=1) 60 Manzanilla (n=10) 40 Mission (n=1) Concentration Concentration (mg/kg) Sevillano (n=3) 20

0 Hydroxytyrosol Tyrosol Caffeic acid p-coumaric acid Compound

Figure 3. Phenolic composition of black ripe olives separated by cultivar.

Figure 4. Fatty acid profile of black and green ripe olives separated by cultivar.

Figure 4. Principal component analysis of fatty acid profile data. Samples are labeled according to cultivar: 1-Domestic Black Manzanilla; 2- Domestic Green Manzanilla; 3- Imported Green Manzanilla; 4- Gordal; 5- Barouni; 6- Sevillano; 7- Mission. The duplicate measurements from each sample were used in the model to improve computation.

74 16:0 16:1 17:1 18:0 18:1 18:2 18:3 Domestic Black 16.6 ± 1.4 1.32 ± 0.3 0.23 ± 0.08 2.59 ± 0.4 70.9 ± 2.1 6.21 ± 2.1 1.07 ± 0.2 (n=20) Green 16.9 ± 0.5 1.41 ±0.09 0.25 ± 0.03 2.80 ± 0.2 72.1 ± 0.7 4.53 ± 1.0 0.94 ± 0.09 (n=6) Imported Black 15.2 ± 1.4 0.96 ± 0.3 0.23 ± 0.06 2.37 ± 0.4 72.4 ± 2.0 6.81 ± 0.9 1.04 ± 0.2 (n=12) Green 15.6 ± 0.4 1.20 ± 0.04 0.08 ± 0.007 1.80 ± 0.003 77.1 ± 0.5 2.47 ± 0.04 0.91 ± 0.03 (n=2) Table 1. Comparison of fatty acid profile based on sample origin and processing method. *Fatty acids 17:0, 20:0, 22:0 and 24:0 are not displayed because percentages were very low

Fatty acid profile (FAP): x As expected, oleic acid (18:1 n9) was the most abundant fatty acid in all olive samples (Table 1). x ANOVA was performed on the data and there was no significant difference in FAP between domestic black and green ripe olives, even when controlling for cultivar (Table 1). x Figure 4 shows a principal component analysis using FAP data. Samples formed clusters according to cultivar, which demonstrates the possibility using FAP for cultivar identification if a sufficient number of samples are analyzed. x Both black and green domestic Manzanilla occupied the same cluster which, along with the ANOVA results, demonstrates that processing does not significantly impact FAP. R This result disprove our initial hypothesis that eliminating air treatment would decrease oxidation and increase the content of oleic acid and polyunsaturated fatty acids, 18:2 and 18:3. x The Sevillano and Gordal samples occupied the same cluster as well, which suggests that these cultivars are the same or closely related.

Processing residues: Benzoic acid- x As expected, domestic green ripe olives contained less benzoic acid than domestic black ripe olives (Table 2). R For domestic green ripe olives, the variability in benzoic acid decreases when processors are considered separately (see individual reports). For black ripe olives, processor does not appear to influence benzoic acid concentrations. x Interestingly, the three samples with the highest benzoic acid concentrations were all “jumbo” sized olives (two Barouni, one Gordal). However, there was otherwise no identifiable trend between cultivar or fruit size and benzoic acid. x FDA regulations (CFR 21) set a maximum level of 0.1% in foods, or 1000 mg/kg. All samples were far below this limit. x Sorbic acid was not identified in any samples. Benzoic acid Ferrous gluconate (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Black 19.7 ± 17.3 92.4 ± 24.1 Domestic Black no Fe 11.1 ± 18.2 3.67 ± 0.99 Green 2.04 ± 2.45 3.37 ± 0.47 Black 6.83 ± 12.4 103.9 ± 38.8 Imported Green 8.78 ± 0.019 2.90 ± 1.51 Table 2. Benzoic acid and iron concentrations in domestic and imported olives

75 Ferrous gluconate- x As expected, the green ripe and black ripe samples processed without ferrous gluconate had very low amounts of iron. These concentrations can be considered the natural range of iron in Manzanilla olive fruit (Table 2). x Imported olives had a slightly higher average iron concentration than domestic olives (Table 2). Both averages were below the IOC Trade Standard of 150 mg/kg. x One imported sample exceeded the Trade standard (#36, 156 mg/kg). Two other samples were close to the limit: domestic sample #31 (147 mg/kg) and imported sample #7 (141 mg/kg).

Acrylamide: x On average, domestic green ripe olives have lower levels of acrylamide compared with domestic black ripe olives, although the variability is high. The same trend was not observed with imported olives, where green ripe olives had a high amount of acrylamide (Table 3). x Considering only domestic black ripe olives (Figure 5): R All Barouni, Mission and Sevillano cultivar samples had low levels of acrylamide. This is potentially caused by the limited sampling of these cultivars compared with Manzanilla, although future study may be necessary to confirm this conclusion. R Olive style (sliced, chopped, etc.) and supplier did not have a clear effect on acrylamide content. x Previous research has shown that phenolic additives can prevent acrylamide formation. However, this work found no correlation between acrylamide content and phenolic compounds like hydroxytyrosol and caffeic acid, or total phenolics in the fruit (R2 values of 0.06, 0.13 and 0.05, respectively). x Sample #31 had significantly higher amounts of acrylamide (2371 μg/kg) than the rest of the samples. This product is packaged in a plastic cup rather than a can. Further study is necessary to determine if this alternative processing method has an effect on acrylamide formation.

Acrylamide (μg/kg) Black (n=18)* 333 ± 273 Domestic Green (n=6) 105 ± 132 Black (n=6) 391 ± 216 Imported Green (n=2) 577 ± 48 Table 3. Acrylamide concentrations in domestic and imported olives *Sample 31 was removed as an extreme outlier.

76 1400 1400 1600 1200 1200 1400 Barouni Chopped 1200 1000 (n=2) 1000 (n=2) 1000 800 Manzanilla Sliced Supplier 1 800 800 (n=13) 600 (n=3) (n=11) 600 600 Mission 400 Broken Supplier 2 400 400 (n=1) (n=1) (n=8) 200 200 Acrlamide (ug/kg) Acrlamide 200 Sevillano 0 Whole (n=3) (n=12) 0 0 -200 -200 -200 -400 -400

Figure 5. Acrylamide concentration in domestic black ripe olives separated by cultivar, olive style and supplier. Sample 31 was removed as an outlier, due to differences in processing method. The “broken” sample was Barouni cultivar.

Conclusions Antioxidant compounds:

x Green ripe olives contained higher phenolics and ܤ-toocpherol than black ripe olives in some cases, possibly due to elimination of air bubbling and reduced oxidation during processing. x Although phenolic content is somewhat cultivar-dependent, there is too much variability (likely caused by processing method) and the differences are not sufficient for cultivar identification. Fatty acid profile:

x Fatty acid profile was not affected processing method, as black and green ripe Manzanilla olives showed no difference in FAP. x Samples clustered according to cultivar in the principal component analysis, suggesting that FAP could be an effective method for identifying the cultivar of an unknown olive. Processing residues and acrylamide:

x Domestic green ripe olives contained minimal amounts of benzoic acid compared with black ripe olives. All samples were well below FDA regulations. x Green ripe and black ripe olives processed without ferrous gluconate had very low levels of iron. All samples were below the 150 mg/kg trade standard with the exception of one imported black ripe sample. One domestic sample (#31) was very close to the limit. x Domestic green ripe olives had a lower average acrylamide concentration compared with domestic black ripe olives. However, no clear correlation was identified between acrylamide content and olive producer, olive style, cultivar or phenolic content.

77 Appendix Table S1: Characteristics of California-style olive samples Sample # Color Style Size Cultivar* Origin 1 Black Sliced Manzanilla Domestic 2 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 3 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 4 Black Whole Extra large Manzanilla Domestic 5 Black Whole Jumbo Gordal Imported 6 Black Whole Large Imported 7 Black Whole Large Imported 8 Black Whole Large Imported 9 Green Whole Large Manzanilla Domestic 10 Black Whole Jumbo Sevillano Domestic 11 Black Whole Collosal Sevillano Domestic 12 Black Whole Large Manzanilla Domestic 13 Black Chopped Manzanilla Domestic 14 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 15 Black Whole Small Manzanilla Domestic 16 Black Whole Extra large Manzanilla Domestic 17 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 18 Black Sliced Mission Domestic 19 Black Whole Jumbo Barouni Domestic 20 Black Chopped Domestic 21 Black Whole Large Imported 22 Black Whole Extra large Imported 23 Black Broken Sevillano Domestic 24 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 25 Black Whole Large Imported 26 Black Sliced Domestic 27 Black Whole Large Imported 28 Black Sliced Domestic 29 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 30 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 31 Black Whole Large Domestic 32 Black Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic 33 Black Whole Medium Imported 34 Black Whole Jumbo Barouni Domestic 35 Green Whole Manzanilla Imported 36 Black Whole Extra large Imported 37 Black Whole Medium Imported 38 Black Whole Medium Imported 39 Green Whole Manzanilla Imported 40 Green Whole Medium Manzanilla Domestic

78 Table S2: Phenolic, benzoic acid, acrylamide and ferrous gluconate content of forty samples (mg/kg) Sample # Hydroxytyrosol Tyrosol Caffeic acid p-coumaric acid Total phenols ܤ-tocopherola Benzoic acid Acrylamideb Ferrous gluconateb 1 68.2 ± 0.9 9.5 ± 1.3 0.2 ± 0.01 0.6 ± 0.01 358 ± 36.4 262 ± 19 18.6 ± 0.24 551 ± 7.2 75.8 ± 6.6 2 66.1 ± 3.0 7.7 ± 1.7 1.0 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.10 342 ± 17.6 225 ± 7.7 0.0 336 ± 77 3.7 ± 0.52 3 112.4 ± 19.5 16.9 ± 2.5 3.4 ± 0.7 4.6 ± 0.83 669 ± 55.4 316 ± 36 5.2 ± 0.52 301 ± 80 3.4 ± 0.31 4 56.2 ± 3.3 11.7 ± 1.6 0.3 ± 0.04 1.6 ± 0.12 270 ± 19.1 219 ± 55 16.3 ± 0.04 195 69.4 ± 2.1 5 41.1 ± 1.2 13.3 ± 0.4 0.3 ± 0.03 2.8 ± 0.14 234 ± 8.0 43.4 ± 0.10 226 ± 70 68.7 ± 3.1 6 36.7 ± 1.5 15.0 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 0.04 0.0 395 ± 24.9 314 ± 27 0.8 ± 0.30 502 ± 14 68.3 ± 3.4 7 71.9 ± 4.7 16.4 ± 1.1 1.2 ± 0.1 1.6 ± 0.11 409 ± 52.4 278 ± 17 2.9 ± 0.11 403 ± 38.5 141 ± 5.4 8 26.9 ± 1.0 9.7 ± 1.0 0.4 ± 0.03 1.1 ± 0.06 223 ± 2.4 265 ± 54 0.0 ± 0.00 630 ± 16 42.6 ± 2.5 9 23.1 ± 0.7 2.4 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.03 139 ± 25.4 212 ± 35 1.0 ± 0.04 nd 3.1 ± 0.44 10 9.6 ± 0.9 4.4 ± 0.2 0.0 0.5 ± 0.01 125 ± 13.8 155 ± 8.0 18.4 ± 0.01 275 ± 9.6 111 ± 8.1 11 7.2 ± 0.3 2.7 ± 0.2 0.0 0.1 ± 0.001 103 ± 0.7 161 ± 9.2 11.0 ± 0.96 118 ± 7.7 109 ± 19 12 29.4 ± 2.1 4.5 ± 1.2 0.2 ± 0.04 1.0 ± 0.09 221 ± 30.2 218 ± 21 17.2 ± 1.50 418 ± 6.3 71.2 ± 6.7 13 42.3 ± 2.0 9.2 ± 0.2 0.0 0.2 ± 0.001 244 ± 51.9 116 ± 6.0 1.6 ± 0.02 232 ± 1.0 107 ± 13 79 14 50.9 ± 1.3 9.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.01 1.3 ± 0.04 330 ± 3.3 297 ± 40 38.1 ± 0.58 442 ± 11.5 74.0 ± 3.9 15 9.1 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.1 0.0 0.4 ± 0.03 105 ± 6.4 226 ± 28 0.0 79.4 ± 0.5 13 ± 11 16 17.1 ± 2.6 6.2 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.11 203 ± 51.2 141 ± 12 7.6 ± 1.36 171 ± 18 88.4 ± 18 17 75.7 ± 2.2 8.9 ± 0.6 2.0 ± 0.04 2.5 ± 0.10 390 ± 21.9 260 ± 14 2.2 ± 0.04 18 20.7 ± 2.5 4.2 ± 1.0 0.0 0.0 130 ± 29.2 180 ± 1.2 1.8 ± 0.002 144 ± 2.4 88.6 ± 12 19 122.1 ± 4.1 59.3 ± 1.4 4.5 ± 0.2 2.8 ± 0.16 836 ± 144.1 485 ± 26 61.8 ± 0.16 nd 69.3 ± 14 20 83.8 ± 2.3 15.7 ± 0.3 0.2 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.05 412 ± 17.5 11.2 ± 0.26 1089 ± 16 84.4 ± 8.1 21 17.9 ± 1.4 3.1 ± 0.5 0.0 0.0 ± 224 ± 136.8 198 ± 13 0.9 ± 0.07 22 6.6 ± 0.1 4.5 ± 0.1 0.0 0.3 ± 0.02 63 ± 20.9 48.9 ± 11 16.6 ± 0.30 23 16.6 ± 0.7 7.8 ± 0.5 0.0 0.6 ± 0.07 102 ± 17.3 25.4 ± 22.9 ± 0.77 68.8 ± 4.8 117 ± 19 24 20.7 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.02 0.0 ± 108 ± 13.3 255 ± 5.7 0.0 25 64.7 ± 2.4 21.6 ± 0.6 0.7 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.07 493 ± 12.0 297 ± 17 1.8 ± 0.23 26 50.5 ± 0.8 15.8 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.03 1.0 ± 0.08 330 ± 3.3 398 ± 7.4 17.1 ± 0.01 656 ± 0.5 27 22.2 ± 1.0 5.8 ± 0.2 0.0 0.4 ± 0.04 162 ± 32.0 221 ± 32 9.0 ± 0.17 85.8 ± 2.8 28 66.0 ± 2.2 13.5 ± 1.4 0.4 ± 0.02 0.8 ± 0.02 326 ± 2.1 337 ± 30 15.0 ± 0.26 59.0 ± 11 29 143.6 ± 11.7 30.8 ± 2.3 4.0 ± 0.3 5.6 ± 0.34 693 ± 155.3 257 ± 36 4.8 ± 0.50 21.5 ± 0.5 5.1 ± 0.21 30 57.4 ± 0.3 12.1 ± 0.5 0.7 ± 0.02 1.4 ± 0.01 1389 ± 128.1 220 ± 19 1.2 ± 0.08 451 ± 1.0 3.6 ± 0.10 31 63.1 ± 1.2 23.5 ± 1.1 0.0 1.0 ± 0.08 1564 ± 41.5 225 ± 5.1 21.7 ± 1.12 2372 ± 4.8 147 ± 17 32 43.9 ± 1.5 19.2 ± 0.7 0.8 ± 0.04 3.1 ± 0.18 1518 ± 80.1 179 ± 10 32.1 ± 1.68 635 ± 9.1 2.8 ± 0.1 33 68.6 ± 2.1 19.0 ± 0.5 0.7 ± 0.03 0.8 ± 0.06 1862 ± 110.2 411 ± 21 2.1 ± 0.20 605 ± 37 122 ± 11 34 108.4 ± 0.8 50.9 ± 0.9 2.2 ± 0.01 2.4 ± 0.07 2329 ± 285.4 519 ± 28 55.4 ± 0.02 83.5 ± 12 84.1 ± 8.7 35 245.8 ± 35.8 57.1 ± 5.7 9.9 ± 1.4 3.1 ± 0.50 5433 ± 308.1 288 ± 16 8.8 ± 2.35 543 ± 45 1.8 ± 0.06 36 58.3 ± 1.3 19.3 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.1 1.4 ± 0.09 1516 ± 147.4 288 ± 3.3 0.6 ± 0.26 173 ± 0.5 153 ± 21 37 133.6 ± 1.2 30.6 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 0.1 3.6 ± 0.08 3486 ± 527.0 345 ± 2.1 2.1 ± 0.10 535 ± 41 115 ± 13 38 76.4 ± 6.1 24.3 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.07 1633 ± 15.4 282 ± 36 1.9 ± 0.10 nd 138 ± 13 39 279.1 ± 5.3 75.1 ± 1.4 10.0 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.04 6259 ± 369.3 333 ± 40 8.8 ± 0.47 611 ± 4.0 ± 0.15 40 32.9 ± 0.1 6.3 ± 0.9 0.8 ± 0.03 0.6 ± 0.02 694 ± 57.7 229 ± 32 0.0 46.7 ± 7.2 3.1 ± 0.34 aInsufficient oil was extracted from select samples, limiting ܤ-tocopherol analysis bSelect samples did not contain enough olives for acrylamide or ferrous gluconate analysis. 80 Figure S1: Principal component analysis of phenolic data Samples are labeled according to cultivar: 1-Domestic Black Manzanilla; 2- Domestic Green Manzanilla; 3- Imported Green Manzanilla; 4- Gordal; 5- Barouni; 6- Sevillano; 7- Mission. The triplicate measurements from each sample were used in the model to improve computation.

81 Table S3: Fatty acid profiles of the 40 California-style olive samples (expressed as %) Sample # 16:0 16:1 17:0 17:1 18:0 18:1 18:2 18:3 20:0 20:1 22:0 24:0 1 16.5 1.3 0.2 0.3 2.8 73.0 3.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 2 16.4 1.5 0.2 0.3 2.8 72.2 5.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 17.3 1.4 0.2 0.2 2.5 72.8 3.6 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 4 16.6 1.3 0.2 0.2 3.0 71.1 5.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 5 17.5 1.1 0.2 0.2 2.1 68.2 8.4 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 6 14.6 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.2 73.8 6.5 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 7 13.6 0.7 0.2 0.2 2.8 73.1 7.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 8 14.9 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.2 73.2 6.9 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 9 16.8 1.5 0.2 0.2 3.1 71.4 5.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 10 16.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 2.3 67.9 9.2 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 11 15.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 2.0 71.0 8.3 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 12 15.7 1.4 0.2 0.3 2.9 70.4 7.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 13 16.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 2.9 71.3 4.9 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 14 18.0 1.7 0.1 0.2 3.0 71.1 3.9 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 15 15.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 2.3 73.7 5.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 16 15.9 1.5 0.2 0.2 3.1 68.1 9.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 17 16.4 1.3 0.2 0.3 2.7 72.7 4.4 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 18 12.9 0.7 0 0.1 2.2 74.9 7.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 19 16.8 1.3 0 0.1 1.8 67.0 11.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 20 19.0 1.7 0.2 0.2 2.8 68.0 5.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 21 17.1 1.4 0.2 0.3 2.6 71.6 5.2 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 22 15.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 2.1 72.5 6.5 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 23 16.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 2.3 70.8 6.8 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 24 17.1 1.5 0.1 0.2 2.7 71.3 5.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 25 13.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.4 74.7 6.3 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 26 20.1 1.7 0.1 0.2 2.7 69.1 3.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 27 16.3 1.6 0.1 0.2 3.3 70.3 6.2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 28 16.4 1.3 0.1 0.3 2.9 73.0 4.0 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 29 17.6 1.4 0.2 0.2 3.0 72.6 3.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 30 16.8 1.3 0.2 0.3 3.0 72.6 3.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0 31 16.9 1.6 0.1 0.2 2.6 71.3 5.4 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 32 16.7 1.4 0.2 0.3 3.0 71.5 5.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 33 15.6 1.0 0.1 0.2 2.1 71.4 7.7 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 34 16.6 1.2 0 0.1 1.7 70.7 7.9 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 35 15.9 1.2 0 0.1 1.8 76.8 2.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 36 14.6 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.1 72.7 7.5 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 37 16.2 1.0 0.1 0.2 2.1 71.3 6.9 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 38 13.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 2.5 75.5 5.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 39 15.3 1.2 0 0.1 1.8 77.5 2.4 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 40 16.5 1.4 0.2 0.3 2.7 71.5 5.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1

82 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Workgroup/Department: Olive / Plant Sciences, UC Davis

Project Years: 2013-2017 Duration of Project: Four Years

Project Title:

Propagating Dwarfing Olive Rootstocks and Establishing a Long Term Orchard

Project Leaders: Dr. John Preece: Research Leader, USDA-ARS National Clonal Germplasm Repository, UC Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis CA 95616. [email protected], (530)-752-7009 Dr. Louise Ferguson: Extension Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, 2037 Wickson Hall, Mail Stop II, UC Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis CA 95616, (530) 752-0507 [Office], (559) 737-3061 [Celi], [email protected] Mr. Dan Flynn: University of California Olive Center, Davis CA [email protected]; (530)-752-5170

Project Summary: To facilitate mechanical harvesting the newest table olive orchards are planted in hedgerows and require regular mechanical pruning to keep the trees small. Our 12 X 18’ foot research planting established at Nickels Soils Laboratory in 2002 has demonstrated to us this will be difficult with the ‘Manzanillo’ olive cultivar. Such hedgerow ‘Manzanillo’ orchards designed for mechanical harvesting would be easier to maintain if they could be grafted on dwarfing rootstocks. Among those olives with promise for use as a dwarfing rootstocks are: Nikitskaya, Olea cuspidata, Verticillium Resistant Oblonga, Dwarf D and Little Ollie

In 2013 we proposed propagating these rootstocks and testing with grafted and non-grafted own rooted ‘Manzanillo’ controls for their dwarfing potential with 'Manzanillo' to produce a tree that is more amenable to mechanical harvesting. The own rooted ‘Manzanillos’ and ‘Manzanillo’ grafted to ‘Manzanillo’ in this orchard could also serve as the next generation hedgerow trained mechanically pruned orchard for mechanical harvesting with trunk and canopy contact shakers.

In 2013 year we were awarded funding to propagate the desired rootstocks and locate a suitable orchard site for establishment of the propagated trees. Due to difficulty of propagation with the dwarfing rootstocks the planting was in spring 2014. When the dwarfing rootstocks were large enough all the dwarfing rootstocks and the Manzanillo grafted controls were grafted with Manzanillo scions in late summer 2016. All the grafted trees were cut back spring 2017 to evaluate the ability to dwarf the Manzanillo scion.

83 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

As the results below demonstrate the two dwarfing rootstocks, Olea cuspidata and Dwarf D would not accept a graft; the successful grafting rate remained below 55%. Nitskaya and Verticillium Resistant Oblonga were successfully grafted and 92 and 77 %, respectively. However, after pruning back to the same size as the grafted Manzanillo control in early 2017 neither rootstock scion combination of Manzanillo on Nikitskaya, or Manzanillo on Verticillium Resistant Oblonga displayed any ability to dwarf, growing to 92% and 96% respectively of the size of the grafted Manzanillo on Manzanillo control trees. Observations of Little Ollie in other trials displayed little scion dwarfing of the Manzanillo scion either and was not grafted in this trial

Based on these these results, graft incompatibility of Olea cuspidata and Dwarf D and the inability of Nikitskaya, Verticillium Resistant Oblonga, and Little Ollie to dwarf a Manzanillo scion, there is no reason to continue this trial. Additionally, Olea cuspidata proved quite susceptible to Olive knot with over 93% of the trees demonstrating > 50% of young scaffolds with infection. The plot was removed December 20th 2017 and the irrigation system and stakes donated to the UC Olive Center orchards and healthy three year old trees to the UC Student Farm

Project Objectives and Experimental Design: This application for initial funding was for two purposes: I. Propagation and grafting of the rootstocks with ‘Manzanillo’ scions. a. Dr. John Preece supervised the development of specific propagation techniques for 112 each of the following olive cultivars used as dwarfing rootstocks; Nikitskaya, Olea cuspidata, Verticillium Resistant Oblonga and Dwarf D. Dwarf D and Olea cuspidata very difficult to root as cuttings so there were were in sufficient trees only for both spacings. At the wider spacing, Little Ollie, which roots easily was tested. II. Establishing the next generation olive hedgerow orchard for evaluation of mechanical harvesters. a. Field 3556, a four-acre block located in Plant Sciences Field Facility located on the UC Davis Campus and maintained by UC Davis Plant Sciences field personnel was chosen as the planting site. This site had the added advantage of being located adjacent to oil orchards being developed by the UC Olive Center. The trees were planted in 2014. Attachment I: Field Map: 3556. III. Experimental Field Design: a. Split plot design with the north half of the field at spaced at 10 X 16’ and the south at 10 X 8’. b. There are 4 Randomized Complete Blocks c. Four different dwarfing rootstocks grafted with ‘Manzanillo’ d. Own rooted ‘Manzanillo’ and ‘Manzanillo’ grafted to a ‘Manzanillo’ grafting controls. e. Sevillano pollinizers were planted as border rows around the perimeter of the orchard and in the middle, as a row between the wide and narrow spacing.

2 84 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

Project Methods Summary: 2014-2017 The trees planted in 2014 were staked and grown through the summer of 2015 to allow the trees to reach sufficient size for grafting. Because there were insufficient trees available in 2014 to complete the border rows in spring of 2015, the border rows of ‘Sevillano’ pollinizers were completed by planting the last 41 trees.

Some of the rows of dwarf olives were incomplete, therefore additional cuttings were rooted and trees produced at the National Clonal Germplasm Repository nursery in 2015. The exception is that ‘Dwarf D’ has proven to be extremely difficult to root to produce plants for the wider spacing portion of the study. Therefore, in addition, cuttings of ‘Little Ollie’ were rooted as this cultivar proved to be easy to propagate.

Sierra Gold Nursery and staff of the National Clonal Germplasm Repository bark or whip grafted two scions onto each rootstock from September 28 – Oct. 1, 2015. This cooler time of the year was better for the grafts to heal and take. Following grafting, the orchard was sprayed with Kocide to control olive knot. Based on experience gained in grafting, the final trees planted in 2015 were sufficiently large for grafting late summer, 2016. During 2016, the weaker of the two grafts were pruned off to a single scion per rootstock

The block was pruned May 15-18, 2016. The block was rated July 20th 2016 with the following results: of the grafts done in September 28th 23 (3%) failed, and 87 rootstocks (11%) remain too small to graft, and 48 (6%) of the trees are dead or missing: The 3% graft failures and 11% too small in fall 2015 were regrafted fall 2016. The 11% dead is due to squirrel damage to the irrigation lines flooding individual trees. The lines have been repaired and moved further away from the trees as they are now larger; in winter 2016 the drippers were being replaced with microsprinklers.

The dwarfing olive planting was pruned on May 25 and May 30, 2017. This pruning included the grafted trees and the border rows so that the trees in the guard rows will not overgrow the grafted trees. The grafted trees were pruned to a nurse limb and the graft scions and the ungrafted border trees were pruned in a similar manner. Following pruning, the trees were sprayed with copper. Data on final grafting success and scion growth as a percentage of growth relative to the Manzanillo grafted on Manzanillo control growth was collected on November 20th 2017. The results are summarized below. The goal was to be able to dwarf the olive trees by using one or more of these rootstocks. Therefore, data focused on first on grafting success and second canopy volume growth of the rootstock: scion combinations as % of the grafted Manzanillo on Manzanillo control.

As the results below demonstrate Dwarf D and O. cuspidata have little potential as a dwarfing rootstock for Manzanillo as they are proving incompatible and the latter is susceptible to olive knot. The Oblonga and Nitskaya rootstocks were successfully grafted but, have canopy volumes that are statistically equal to that of a Manzanillo Scion grafted on a Manzanillo rootstock; neither displays any potential to dwarf a Manzanillo scion. It appears spacing and pruning will be the primary method of keeping a Manzanillo tree small for mechanical or hand harvesting

3 85 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

Project Results:

Figure 1. Grafted olives pruned to one nurse limb: May 25th 2017. .

Figure 2. Border row of ‘Sevillano’ trees after pruning: May 25th 2017.

4 86 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

The grafting success was rated September 29th 2017. The Results are give in Table 1. below

Percentage of Grafting Success and Rootstock Survival: 2017 Rootstock Manz. Graft Oblonga Nitskaya O. cuspidata Dwarf D % Graft Success* 92 A 92 A 77 B 54 C 55 C % Rootstock Survival (NSD) 100 97 95 96 96 x Values within a row followed by different letters are significantly different @ P= >0.05

Table 1. Based on lack grafting success, O. cuspidata and Dwarf D are not suitable rootstocks for Manzanillo because they do not accept a graft.

As can be seen above in Table 1. when compared to a grafted Manzanillo rootstock only the Oblonga and possibly the Nitskaya rootstocks produced successful grafts. The O. Cuspidata and Dwarf D have had repeated graft failures. Also as can be seen in Figure 3., below O. cuspidata is extremely susceptible to olive knot. Based on this olive knot susceptibility of O. cuspidata and the the inability to successfully graft these rootstocks neither O. Cuspidata nor Dwarf D appear to have potential as a dwarfing rootstock for Manzanillo.

Fig. 3. O. cuspidata rootstock on November 28th, 2017 with olive knot infestation.

5 87 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

Potential for Dwarfing Success: 2017 Rootstock Manz. Oblonga Nitskaya O. cuspidata Dwarf D Graft %Dwarfing 100% 96% 92% N/A N/A (NSD)

Table 2. Using the grafted Manzanillo canopy volume as a 100% standard for calculated canopy volume (canopy height X canopy width) and translated to a % of standard grafted Manzanillo on Manzanillo (Fig. 5) it appears thus far neither Oblonga (Fig. 6) or Nitskaya (Fig 4.) have any potential as a dwarfing rootstock. The stakes in the three figures are ` 8 feet tall to allow a visual comparison.

6 88 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

Fig. 4 Manzanillo on Nitskaya as of November 28th 2017.

Fig. 5 Manzanillo grafted on Manzanillo control on November 28th 2017.

7 89 2017 Final Dwarfing Rootstock Report: 12/31/2018 Ferguson et. al.

Fig. 6. Manzanillo grafted on Oblonga on November 28th 2017.

Conclusions: Based on the results Dwarf D and O. cuspidata have little potential as a dwarfing rootstock for Manzanillo as they are proving incompatible and the latter is susceptible to olive knot. The Oblonga and Nitskaya rootstocks have been successfully grafted but, have canopy volumes that are statistically equal to that of a Manzanillo Scion grafted on a Manzanillo rootstock; neither displays any potential to dwarf a Manzanillo scion. It appears spacing and pruning will be the primary method of keeping a Manzanillo tree small for mechanical or hand harvesting.

The trial was removed December 20th 2017. The stakes and irrigation system were donated to the UC Olive Center for use in their orchards. The healthy three-year old Manzanillos, grafted and ungrafted, and the Sevillanos were offered to the UC Davis Student Farm.

We gratefully acknowledge the the four years of support from the California Olive Committee

8 90 Department of Plant Pathology Relevant AES/CE Project No.: 11103864 University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences ANNUAL RESEARCH PROGRESS REPORT California Olive Committee/California Olive Oil Commission Project Year: 2017 Project Leader: Dr. J. E. Adaskaveg, Professor Department of Plant Pathology University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92521 (O) 951-827-3880 FAX: 951-827-7577 (M) 951-288-9312 [email protected] Title: Epidemiology and management of olive knot caused by Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi (Psv)

Introduction Olive knot caused by the bacterium Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi (Psv) is a serious disease of olives (Olea europaea) worldwide (7). The pathogen enters through wounds causing outgrowths (knots, tumors, galls) on branches and twigs, and infrequently on leaves and fruit. Olive knot is one of the most economically important diseases of olives as infection may lead to tree defoliation, dieback, and reduced tree vigor, which ultimately lowers fruit yield and quality (5). Psv can survive epiphytically on olives, but the main sources of inoculum are bacteria living within knots (6). Large quantities of bacterial ooze can be exuded upon wetting knots. This exudate is disseminated by rain, wind, insects, birds, as well as human activity. The opportunistic pathogen takes advantage of wounds caused by natural leaf abscission (3), frost, hail, as well as cultural practices such as pruning and harvesting. These latter practices also lead to direct mechanical damage of the knots, exposing and spreading inoculum to healthy tissue. In California, infections occur mostly during the rainy season (late fall, winter, and spring) but knots do not develop until new growth starts in the spring. Infections can occur at low temperatures (-5°C) and thus, wetness is the main limiting factor for the disease. Historically, the most susceptible olive cultivars are Manzanillo, Sevillano, Ascolano, and Mission. None of the currently grown cultivars is resistant to the pathogen (4). Control of olive knot is difficult, and growers rely on applications of copper-based bactericides as the only effective foliar treatment. Reliance on a single active ingredient has led to our detection of copper resistance in Psv strains in two olive orchards. These strains were highly virulent when inoculated to Arbequina and Manzanillo olive wounds, and application of copper provided reduced control as compared to inoculation with a sensitive strain. Still, the incidence of copper resistance is very low, however, the occurrence of resistance necessitates the development of alternatives. We have been instrumental in the development of the new agricultural antibiotic kasugamycin (commercial name Kasumin) for several bacterial diseases of agronomic crops in the United States. Kasugamycin has high activity against Erwinia and Pseudomonas (2) and moderate activity against Xanthomonas species and other plant pathogenic bacteria. We found it to be the most promising new treatment for preventing olive knot in our extensive field studies. Registration of kasugamycin through the IR-4 project is expected in 2020. Kasugamycin would greatly complement current copper sprays and could be used in rotation or mixtures with copper. New antibiotic registrations, however, find little acceptance with regulatory agencies, and we are currently in discussion with EPA to develop a science-based approach on the use of antibiotics in plant agriculture. In addition to developing conventional chemical compounds, research on alternative materials such as SDH, biopesticides, and food additives may provide new modes of action for managing olive knot. Salicylidene benzoylhydrazone (SBH) was recently discovered to display synergism when combined with copper. We performed preliminary tests with a derivative of this molecule with very promising results using several genera of phytopathogenic bacteria including Psv. Low concentrations of metallic copper combined with SBH were highly inhibitory in vitro against a copper-resistant Psv strain, while copper or SBH by

91 themselves at the same concentrations were not effective. Field trials will be necessary to support these initial in vitro findings. Biopesticides such as Serenade and several food additives that are ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS) have antimicrobial properties. They are often naturally produced molecules of gram-positive Streptomyces species. Although these compounds are typically applied to food products as preservatives, they may have potential for controlling plant diseases when applied as a foliar treatment. Integration of these alternative materials with conventional treatments may improve disease control, reduce the risk of resistance development, and provide olive growers with more resources for managing olive knot. Therefore, we evaluated nisin, epsilon-poly-L-lysine, and lactic acid.

Objectives 1) Develop novel chemicals to improve performance of copper-based bactericides against Psv a) In-vitro sensitivity of Psv to copper in the presence of SBH (and potential derivatives) using selected copper/SBH ratios. b) Efficacy of copper-SBH mixtures for the management of olive knot caused by copper-sensitive and -resistant strains of Psv in field studies. i) Evaluate selected copper/SBH ratios with the goal to minimize the amount of copper applied while maintaining good disease control.

2) Evaluate a biopesticide and several food additives for the control of olive knot a) Determine the efficacy of the bio-pesticide Serenade (Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713) in field studies for the management of olive knot. b) Determine the efficacy of the GRAS food additives nisin, epsilon-poly-L-lysine, and lactic acid in field studies for the management of olive knot. Materials and methods 1) Develop novel chemicals to improve performance of copper-based bactericides against Psv. 1a. To evaluate the toxicity of copper-SBH mixtures against Psv, a dilution plate method was combined with the spiral gradient endpoint (SGE) method. Agar media were amended with fixed concentrations of copper. Subsequently, SBH was spiraled onto the copper-amended plates producing a SBH concentration gradient in combination with a fixed copper concentration. Suspensions of Psv strains were streaked onto the amended media. This allowed the determination of minimal inhibitory values for Psv at different ratios of copper and SBH. These data were used to calculate appropriate field rates. 1b. Copper-SBH mixtures were tested in the field on Arbequina and Manzanillo olives at UC Davis. Plants were wounded with lateral and leaf scar wounds. Lateral wounds on 1-2-year-old twigs were made using a scalpel by removing the bark and exposing cambial tissue. Leaf scars were made by pulling leaves off the same twigs. Additionally, a natural leaf scar study was done in the spring when leaves naturally fall. Copper and copper-SBH treatments were sprayed onto wounds before inoculation with a suspension of copper- sensitive or -resistant Psv strains. The efficacy of treatments was assessed as the incidence of knots forming on treated, inoculated wounds as compared to wounds that were treated with water and inoculated (i.e., control). SBH was applied using rates based on the laboratory tests and also at the equivalent rate of mancozeb (1.8 lb a.i./A or 2.4 lb/A Manzate Prostick). Copper was also used at different rates.

1c. Similar in vitro and efficacy studies for zinc thiadiazole as copper-SBH evaluations in 1a and 1b.

2) Evaluate a biopesticide and several food additives for the control of olive knot 2a and b. Field tests were conducted on Arbequina and Manzanillo olives to evaluate the efficacy of Serenade, nisin, epsilon-poly-L-lysine, and lactic acid against Psv. The same wounding, treatment, and inoculation procedures were used as described above.

3) Continue to support the registration of the antibiotics kasugamycin and oxytetracycline (newly added) - UV-blockers and stabilizers are being evaluated to improve the performance of antibiotics and

92 copper. For this, Raynox Plus (Valent USA) at a rate of 5% and similar products that prevent sun damage by blocking UV light are being used with both antibiotics. Oxytetracycline is especially vulnerable to UV- degradation and new adjuvants (e.g., Tactic) are being tested. Additionally, an inter-commodity and industry group is working with the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance to recommend an EPA policy change towards the use of antibiotics in plant agriculture. Specifically, a new internal EPA Guidance Document (GD) for use of antibiotics in plant agriculture needs to be developed based on science. Historically, EPA GD 152 for registration of antibiotics in animal husbandry is used for all requests in agriculture.

Results and Discussion 1a. In-vitro sensitivity of Psv to copper in the presence of SBH (and potential derivatives). Eight Cu- sensitive (growing at PJ/0&( RU-resistant (growing at PJ/0&( Psv strains were exposed to a SBH concentration gradient from 0.3 to 31 mg/L in absence of presence of 10, 25, or 50 mg/L metallic copper equivalent (MCE). SBH by itself was not inhibitory at <31 mg/L to any of the strains. When the SBH gradient was combined with 10 mg/L MCE, inhibition was observed for all strains. The range of minimal inhibitory concentrations FRQFHQWUDWLRQWKDWUHGXFHVEDFWHULDOJURZWKE\ for SBH against Psv was between 1.4 and 4.7 mg/L in the presence of 10 mg/L MCE. Using 25 mg/L or 50 mg/L MCE in combination with SBH, no growth was observed for all copper-sensitive and moderately-resistant strains. Inhibition against highly copper-resistant strains, however, was not greatly improved as compared to using 10 mg/L MCE.

1b. Efficacy of copper-SBH mixtures for the management of olive knot caused by copper-sensitive and -resistant strains of Psv in field studies. Field studies were initiated in the spring of 2017 on two olive cultivars in experimental or commercial plantings, and treatments are shown in Tables 1 and 2. DAS 1 and DAS 2 are SBH derivatives. DAS 2 is pre-formulated and includes copper. ZTD is a derivative of amino- thiadiazole (ATD) containing zinc that we previously tested in-vitro and that enhanced the efficacy of copper. On leaf scars, results indicate that copper-ZTD mixtures reduced disease incidence caused by a copper-sensitive strain from that of the control and copper alone. On lateral wounds, however, this treatment performed similarly to copper in reducing olive knot. In the second trial in a commercial orchard, kasugamycin and kasugamycin-copper mixtures resulted in the lowest disease on lateral and leaf scar wounds with a >90% reduction in incidence. The mixtures of copper with ZTD or DAS-1 did not improve the performance of copper alone. Although registered in China, ZTD was rejected by the EPA as a biopesticide, and EPA indicated to the registrant that full toxicological and environmental persistence evaluations would need to be done. The registrant stated that this makes registration in the United States economically prohibitive. In contrast, the registrant of DAS-1 and -2 (the SBH products) is willing to test additional derivatives in the coming year. In additional trials using natural leaf scars, copper and kasugamycin were highly effective reducing disease incidence by >95% when using a copper sensitive strain for inoculation (Table 3). The natural leaf scar as opposed to removing leaves by hand most likely had a natural abscission zone that helped to prevent bacterial ingress. 2a. Determine the efficacy of the bio-pesticide Serenade (Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713) in field studies. Serenade and Serenade-copper mixtures were not effective at the rates evaluated in reducing olive knot as compared to the non-treated control (Table 1). 2b. Determine the efficacy of the GRAS food additives nisin, epsilon-poly-L-lysine, and lactic acid in field studies. On leaf scars, lactic acid reduced disease incidence caused by a copper-sensitive strain from that of the control and copper alone. On lateral wounds, however, this treatment was less effective but was statistically similar to copper in reducing olive knot. Using a copper-resistant strain, lysine, nisin, and lactic acid had the lowest disease incidence on leaf scars. On lateral wounds, these treatments were similar in their performance to copper.

93 3) Continue to support the registration of the antibiotics kasugamycin and oxytetracycline (newly added) - UV-blockers/stabilizers and registrant-recommended adjuvants (e.g., Tactic) are currently being evaluated to improve the performance of antibiotics and copper. This research is ongoing.

Table 1. Evaluation of potential new bactericides for management of olive knot in a UC Davis experimental orchard Incidence of knot formation (%) Product cv. Manzanillo inocul. with Cu-sensitive strain cv. Arbequina inocul. with Cu-resistant strain Treatment Rate/A Lateral wounds LSD Leaf scars LSD Lateral wounds LSD Leaf scars LSD Untreated --- 82.5 abc 92.5 abc 90 ab 85 abc DAS 2 128 fl oz 97.5 a 92.5 ab 100.0 a 92.5 ab ChampION+ DAS 1 2 lb + 64 fl oz 62.9 cde 85.7 abcd 100.0 a 90.0 abc ChampION + SBH* 2 lb + 24 oz 72.5 bcd 67.5 defg 97.5 a 87.5 abc Serenade Opti 20 oz 95.0 a 97.5 a 95.0 a 100.0 a ChampION + SBH* 3.5 lb + 24 oz 35.0 efg 47.5 fghi 92.5 ab 92.5 ab Serenade Opti + ChampION 20 oz + 3.5 lb 95.0 a 97.5 a 90.0 ab 95.0 ab ChampION+ DAS 1 3.5 lb + 64 fl oz 11.3 h 45.0 ghi 92.5 ab 92.5 ab ChampION + ZTD 2 lb + 500 ppm 45.0 def 57.5 efgh 90.0 ab 85.0 abc DAS 2 64 fl oz 97.5 a 77.5 bcde 87.5 ab 82.5 abc ChampION + Manzate 2 lb + 2.4 lb 22.5 gh 57.5 efgh 87.5 ab 97.5 ab Nisin 1% 95.0 ab 75.0 def 87.5 ab 70.0 cde ChampION 2 lb 60.0 cd 75.0 cdef 77.5 bc 82.5 abc ChampION + Manzate 3.5 lb + 2.4 lb 12.5 gh 35.0 ij 75.0 bc 80.0 bcd Lactic Acid 1% 30.0 fgh 27.5 ij 75.0 bcd 65.0 de ChampION + ZTD 3.5 lb + 500 ppm 10.0 h 20.0 j 67.5 cd 82.5 bcd Lysine 1% 77.5 abc 75.0 bcde 56.7 cd 56.7 e ChampION 3.5 lb 10.0 h 37.5 hij 55.0 d 87.5 abc 1- Treatments were applied to leaf scar and lateral wounds of using a hand-held sprayer until runoff, allowed to dry, and wounds were inoculated with a copper-sensitive or -resistant Psv strain at 107 CFU/ml. A total of 50 leaf scar wounds and 50 lateral wounds were used for each treatment. The field study was done as a randomized complete block design and included an untreated-inoculated control.

Table 2. Evaluation of potential new bactericides for management of olive knot in a commercial olive orchard in Yuba City Product % Incidence of knots on treated wounds Treatment Rate (/A) Lateral wounds LSD Leaf Scars LSD Untreated --- 74 a 62 a DAS 2 64 oz 76 a 56 a ChampION+ DAS 1 high 3.5 lbs + 128 oz 30 b 26 b ChampION + ZTD 3.5 lbs + 500 ppm 20 b 10 c ChampION + DAS 1 low 3.5 lbs + 64 oz 18 bc 10 c ChampION 3.5 lbs 18 bc 6 c Kasumin 200 ppm 2 cd 6 c ChampION + Kasumin 3.5 lbs + 200 ppm 0 d 0 c

1-Treatments were applied to leaf scar and lateral wounds of Arbequina olive using a hand-held sprayer until runoff, allowed to dry, and wounds were inoculated with a copper-sensitive Psv strain at 107 CFU/ml. A total of 50 leaf scar wounds and 50 lateral wounds were used for each treatment. The field study was done as a randomized complete block design and included an untreated-inoculated control.

94 Table 3. Management of olive knot on natural leaf scars using new bactericides

% Incidence of knots on Location Treatment Product Rate/A natural leaf scar wounds* LSD UC Davis Untreated --- 39.4 a ChampION 3.5 lbs 0.0 b Kasumin 200 ppm 3.8 b ChampION + Kasumin 3.5 lbs + 200 ppm 0.0 b Commercial Untreated --- 31.1 a orchard ChampION 3.5 lbs 3.0 b Kasumin 200 ppm 0.0 b ChampION + Kasumin 3.5 lbs + 200 ppm 0.0 b *- Incidence of knots occurring on natural leaf scar wounds made by removing yellow-dying leaves and inoculating the leaf scar after treatment. Experiments done during natural leaf drop in the spring.

A new suggested EPA Guidance Document (GD) for use of antibiotics in plant agriculture was submitted to the EPA through MCFA. Historically, EPA GD 152 for registration of antibiotics in animal husbandry is used for all requests in agriculture. USDA and EPA officials are addressing all uses of antibiotics currently under a CODEX workgroup. Goals including classifying plant agricultural uses as low potential sources of non-target human bacterial pathogen resistance as opposed to animal and human uses.

Benefits to the industry For management of olive knot, in addition to cultural and sanitation practices, copper materials are currently the only effective treatments. With the detection of low levels of copper resistance in olive knot pathogen populations in California, alternatives are needed for a sustainable and effective management program. We initiated the registration of the new agricultural antibiotic kasugamycin and oxytetracycline for olive knot management through the IR-4 program. Still, new bactericidal products are being evaluated including SBH and other antibacterial food preservatives that potentially can be registered. The registration of several materials will allow the implementation of anti-resistance strategies and will prevent over-use of any single mode of action bactericide. Still, integrated practices will be critical for the successful management of the disease. Supplemental efforts in 2017. 1) We published one Plant Disease article on sanitizing field equipment using quaternary ammonium (1). 2) We published a second manuscript in Plant Disease on the efficacy of copper and new bactericides for managing olive knot in California (2). 3) A third manuscript on the epidemiology of olive knot has been submitted to Plant Disease. References 1. Nguyen, K. A., Förster, H., and Adaskaveg, J. E. 2017. Quaternary ammonium compounds as new sanitizers for reducing the spread of the olive knot pathogen on orchard equipment. Plant Dis. 101: 1188-1193. 2. Nguyen, K. A., Förster, H., and Adaskaveg, J. E. 2018. Efficacy of copper and new bactericides for managing olive knot in California. Plant Dis. 102: In Press. 3. Hewitt, W. B. 1939. Leaf scar infection in relation to the olive knot disease. Hilgardia 12:41-66. 4. Penyalver, R., García, A., Ferrer, A., Bertolini, E., Quesada, J.M., Salcedo, C.I., Piquer, J., Pérez-Panadés, J., Carbonell, E.A., del Río, C., Caballero, J.M., López, M.M. 2006. Factors affecting Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi plant inoculations and their use for evaluation of olive cultivar susceptibility. Phytopathology 96:313– 319. 5. Schroth, M.N., 1973. Quantitative assessment of the effect of the olive knot disease on olive yield and quality. Phytopathology 63:1064. 6. Wilson, E. E. 1935. The olive knot disease: Its inception, development, and control. Hilgardia 9:233-264. 7. Young, J.M. 2004. Olive knot and its pathogens. Australasian Plant Pathology 33:33–39.

95 Contains confidential information for the COC. Please do not post online. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences Relevant AES/CE Project No.: 4556

University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences

PROJECT PLAN/RESEARCH GRANT PROPOSAL PROGRESS REPORT

Project Year: 2017 Anticipated Duration of Project: New 2-year proposal to determine the efficacy of PGR and pruning treatments to manage alternate bearing; this requires yield data for 2 consecutive years.

Project Leaders: Carol Lovatt, Ph.D. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences-072 University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0124 (O) 951-827-4663 FAX: 951-827-4437 (M) 951-660-6730 [email protected]

Elizabeth Fichtner, Ph.D. University of California Cooperative Extension 4437 S. Laspina St. Tulare, CA 93274 (O) 559-684-3310 FAX: 559-685-3319 (M) 559-684-2057 [email protected]

Project Title: Managing Alternate Bearing in Olive with PGRs and Pruning

Cooperators: Lindcove REC ‘Manzanillo’ table olive orchard, Lindcove

Proposal Goal, Objective and Research Plan: This project is based on our discovery of the four mechanisms by which the ON-crop of olive fruit reduces return bloom the following year and perpetuates alternate bearing in ‘Manzanillo’ olive trees. The ON-crop causes: (1) inhibition of summer vegetative shoot growth; (2) inhibition of spring bud break; (3) abscission of floral buds; and (4) inhibition of floral development. Whereas, these mechanisms are typically discussed based on the effects of the ON crop, keep in mind the OFF crop has the opposite effect for each mechanism. Taken together, the four negative effects of the ON-crop on return bloom, especially the abscission of more than 70% of the floral buds for next year’s bloom and the inhibition of floral development caused by the ON crop of fruit, made it abundantly clear that early fruit thinning (before pit hardening) would be necessary to mitigate alternate bearing in ‘Manzanillo’ olive. Moreover, fruit thinning would improve the efficacy of PGR treatments that increase summer vegetative shoot growth and spring bud break to increase floral intensity following the production of the ON crop. This project also utilizes what we have learned about the timing and efficacy of PGR treatments that we have tested as branch injections and whole tree sprays. Further, current year treatments were modified based on the results obtained in Year 1 of this research.

96 The PGRs included in the current year’s experiment are: (i) 6-benzyladenine applied pre-bud break in February (6-BA, Maxcel®, Valent BioSciencesTM), a cytokinin, to increase spring bud break and inflorescence number of olive trees going into an OFF bloom and an OFF-crop year, i.e., these olive trees were ON-crop trees last year and, in the summer of the ON-crop year were treated with 6-BA to increase summer vegetative shoot growth and the number of nodes that can bear inflorescences at spring bloom; (ii) aminoethoxyvinylglycine applied at 10% open flowers

(AVG, ReTain®, Valent BioSciencesTM), an ethylene biosynthesis inhibitor, to reduce flower and fruit drop to increase fruit set by the OFF bloom and increase yield of the putative OFF-crop year, these trees were ON-crop trees last year; (iii) 1-naphthaleneacetic acid applied at full bloom to the east side of each tree (NAA, ALCO® Olive Stop, AMVAC Chemical Corporation), a fruit thinning agent, to reduce fruit set by olive trees going into an ON bloom and to reduce yield of the putative ON crop year in order to increase fruit size during the ON-crop year and increase yield the following year (these trees were OFF-crop trees last year), which will be left unpruned to determine if the crop gets switched from the west side of the tree this year to the east side next year in order to even out alternate bearing; (iv) NAA applied at full bloom to the east side of the tree followed by pruning of the east side of the tree to shift the bloom from the west side of the tree this year to the east side of the tree next year (the efficacy of treatments iii and iv will be compared to determine if NAA alone is sufficient to reduce crop load and also stimulate summer vegetative shoot growth to increase flowering the following year); (v) OFF-crop control trees; and (vi) ON-crop control trees. All treatments were applied to a single tree in each block of uniform yielding trees. There were 14 blocks and 6 treatments (i.e., 14 individual trees per treatment in a randomized complete block design). In addition, we also tested a new proprietary product for fruit thinning being developed by Valent BioSciences on a separate set of ON-bloom ‘Manzanillo’ trees in a different block (Treatment vii). The thinning effect of this new material should be less sensitive to temperature and give more uniform results from year to year than NAA. The PGR treatments were applied to ‘Manzanillo’ olive trees in a block, which included ‘Barouni’ olive trees as the pollenizer planted at a ratio of one to ten, at the Lindcove REC in Exeter, CA; the trees had been lightly hand-pruned to maintain space and sunlight within rows and between rows in Year 1 (no light, no flowers).

The goal of our research is to develop a flexible management practice that can be adapted to ON- and OFF-bloom trees to even out alternate bearing in ‘Manzanillo’ olive orchards, so that growers do not experience the dismally low yields of an OFF-crop year. The approach will shift yield from one side of the tree to the other every other year, using chemical thinning and/ or pruning +/- PGR treatments so that yield each year will be greater annually than the average of the ON- and OFF-crop years and fruit size each year giving maximum yield of commercially valuable size fruit, i.e., solving the problem of small fruit size of the ON-crop year.

2017 Progress to Date: ON- and OFF-crop ‘Manzanillo’ olive trees in the orchard at the Lindcove REC were selected in Year 1 of this research based on the yield history for the past 2 years and the experiment was blocked in relation to the yield history of the trees for the past 2 years. All Year 2 PGR treatments have been applied. Trees in treatments that include pruning will be pruned just before pit hardening (endocarp sclerification) at the end of June or early July. Harvest will be in October 2017, at which time we will determine the total kg of fruit per tree and collect a subsample of 100 fruit per tree, for which we will determine the weigh of individual fruit and measure the length and diameter of each individual fruit to determine the pack out (fruit size distribution) and to estimate the total number of fruit per tree for each treatment.

97 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Canopy management, tree hedging and topping to optimize yield

Introduction and scope

Mechanical hedging and topping can be important tool in improving harvest efficiencies by affecting return bloom, helping to maintain trees in their allotted space and reducing hand pruning and harvest costs. Typically, hedging and topping result in smaller and more compact trees. Smaller trees will facilitate hand harvest by obviating the need for tall, cumbersome ladders and likely increasing the number of bins harvested per person-hour. Picking crews have repeatedly commented that they prefer to harvest from mechanically hedged and topped trees than from traditionally pruned trees (Louise Ferguson, personal communication). In oil olive orchards, mechanical hedging has resulted in increased harvest efficiency and reduced alternate bearing (Connor et al., 2014). However, timing of mechanical hedging is critical for optimal yields. Hedging too late in the season may not provide enough time for new shoots to grow and flower buds to initiate. Earlier work that we conducted on ‘Arbequina’ oil olives indicated that shoot growth that occurred after early July did not produce flowers the following year. Whether ‘Manzanillo’ olives will behave the same is unknown. Hedging too early in the season may cause extensive vegetative growth at the expense of fruit growth. Thus, finding ‘the sweet spot’ for the timing of mechanical hedging is important to maximize and help regulate yields.

Materials, methods and results

Nickels Trial Topping Trial

We initiated the trial in late April 2016 (Figure 1) at the Nickels Soils Lab in Arbuckle California on a mature north south hedgerow planting with a spacing of 12 feet in the row and 18 feet between the rows. The experimental design was a randomized block design with three treatments and four replicates. The treatments were: a) topped at 10 feet, b) topped at 13 feet and c) control – untopped. Hedging was performed on all the trees in the spring by passing down every other row with a double boomed hedger cutting 5 feet from the trunk on the east side of one row and the west side of the other. This was followed by hand pruning. The topping treatments were repeated in 2017 on the same trees and hedging was applied to the row middle that was not hedged in 2016 (Figure 2). In 2016, we measured the time it took for 7 professional pruners to prune all the trees in each replicate of each treatment. In 2017, we measured the time required to prune the 10 trees in the center row of each plot (40 trees for each treatment). This information was used to estimate the pruning costs for each of the treatments. Trees were harvested on October 13, 2017 and samples were taken to Musco Olive to evaluate fruit size and value of the crop.

Trees topped at 10 feet had lower cumulative yields, lower pruning costs, smaller canopy diameters and larger fruit than trees topped at 13 feet and the non-topped control (Table 1). Hand pruning costs were less for all treatments in 2017 compared to 2016 because the trees had not been pruned in 2015 and more pruning was necessary to get them back in the desired condition. Trees that were topped at 10 feet could be pruned without the use of ladders, which

98 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee significantly reduced the time needed to prune. These trees were more compact and had smaller canopy diameters. Trees topped at 10 feet also produced larger fruit, and although not significant, there was a trend for a greater price per ton in the smaller trees (Table 1). This greater value, however, did not compensate for reduced yields.

Light levels were measured in the tree canopy throughout the season in 2017 (Figure 3 and 4). On a typical day, light levels measured at 1.5 meter from the ground (lower canopy) were significantly greater in trees that were topped at 10 feet than trees topped at 13 feet (Figure 5). The smaller trees caused less shading and likely increased fruit size lower in the canopy compared with trees topped at 13 feet.

Hedging Timing Trials

Orland Trial

A major goal of these trials is to determine the most effective timing of canopy hedging to ensure return bloom and minimize excessive vegetative growth. Another important goal is to evaluate hedging effects on alternate bearing. In oil olive, hedging reduces the severe yield swings in alternate bearing trees (Connor et al., 2014). The experiment was established as a randomized block design with four replicates in a 14-year-old east west hedgerow orchard with 9 feet by 18 foot spacing at Erik Nielsen’s farm. The hedging and collection of shoot growth and bloom and fruit set data was done on the south side of the row due to greater growth on that side. In 2017, monthly hedging began on March 1 and ended May 3 (Figure 6).

Hedging influenced fruiting intensity, fruit set, and yield in 2017 (Table 2). Severe hedging decreased fruiting intensity but increased fruit set. Severe hedging in 2016 decreased yields in 2017. These data indicate that severe hedging not only decreased yields in 2016 but also in 2017. These carryover yield effects were not found with moderate hedging. Trees that were moderately hedged in 2016 produced similar yields to the non-hedged control in 2017.

Timing of tree hedging influenced vegetative and reproductive growth (Table 2 and Figure 7). Trees that were hedged earlier in the season produced greater canopy diameters, greater shoot growth, and number of inflorescences than trees that were hedged later in the season. Trees that were hedged after mid-July produced no inflorescences the following year on the resulting regrowth. This indicates that early spring hedging increases shoot growth and return bloom the following year compared to hedging in summer.

Corning Trial

In Spring 2017, we initiated a new trial on 8-year old olive trees planted in a north-south hedgerow with a spacing of 12 by 18 feet at Heath Burrison’s orchard (Figure 8). The trial was set up as a factorial design with four hedging dates and two canopy sides (east or west) and replicated 5 times. The 10-tree plots were hedged on March 8, April 5, May 8, and June 8, 2017. Trees tend to grow slightly more on west-facing canopies and on canopies facing east. Therefore, in order to approximate the same degree of hedging, hedging on the east side of the row was generally a little closer to the trunk than hedging on the west side of the row.

99 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

No significant yield differences were found, however there was a trend for greater yields at the earlier hedging dates (Table 3). Trees hedged in March or April typically produced larger fruit and yielded 1 ton per acre more than trees hedged in May or June. Moreover, canopy regrowth from trees hedged in March was significantly greater than regrowth from trees hedged in May and June. It is interesting to note that although the canopy diameters were significantly smaller in the hedged compared to the non-hedged control, no differences in olive yield were found. This may indicate better light environments in the hedged trees. We are currently evaluating light environment in the hedged and control trees.

Additional Activities

‘Manzanillo’ olives have been collected from various olive orchards in 2016 and 2017 and analyzed for nutrient content (Table 4). These data will be used to develop a nutrient removal calculator for ‘Manzanillo’ olives.

Figure 1. Set up of Nickels trial. Yellow = 10 foot topping followed by hand pruning to thin canopy and remove stubs with thinning cuts; Blue = 13 foot topping followed by hand pruning to thin canopy and remove stubs; Green = Hand pruned to thin canopy. Upright branches were cut to outside lateral branches at approximately 13 feet to control tree height. Solid line represents where double boom hedger traveled in May 25, 2016 (5 feet from trunk). In 2017 the hedger traveled down the alternate row.

100 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Figure 2. Trees following 10 foot topping and hedging 5 feet from the trunk.

Figure 3. Measuring light levels using a point PAR sensor in the canopy (left) and using a quatum sensor (right) following hedging

101 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Figure 4. Students installing point PAR sensors in the canopy in June 2017.

1800 1600 10' Topped 1400

/sec) 13' Topped 2 1200 Full Sun 1000 800 600 400 Radiation (umol/m Photosynthetically Active Active Photosynthetically 200 0 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 Time

Figure 5. Light levels at full sun (green), in a 10’(blue) and a 13’ topped tree taken on the west-facing canopy at 1.5 meters from the grown (lower canopy) on September 9, 2017.

102 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Figure 6. Set up of Nielsen trial in Orland, California. Colors correspond to the following hedging dates: Black = 27-Apr -16 Blue = 15-Jul-16 Severe Blue Pokadot= 24-May-16 Severe Green = 24-May-16 Pink = 27-Apr-16 Severe Orange = 15-Jul-16 Red/White = 1-Mar-17 Purple = 29-Mar-17 Yellow = 3-May=17 White = Control unhedged

45 12 40 Shoot growth 10 35 Inforescence 30 8 25 6 20 15 4

SHOOT GROWTH (CM) GROWTH SHOOT 10 2

5 (#) PER SHOOT INFLORESCENCES 0 0 2/24 3/9 3/23 4/6 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/1 6/15 6/29 7/13 HEDGING DATE

Figure 7. Relationship between hedging date and shoot growth and number of inflorescences per shoot taken on May 12, 2017.

103 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Figure 8. Hedging timing trial located at Heath Burreson’s orchard, Orland, California. Trees hedged at the following times: Yellow = 8-Mar-17, Red = 5-Apr-17, Blue = 8-May-17, Orange = 8-Jun-17, and White = No Hedge Control. Experiment is set up as a factorial design with 5 hedging timings and 2 hedging positions (east and west) with 5 replicates.

Table 1. Relationship between topping height and canopy diameter, pruning costs, ‘Manzanillo’ olive yields, fruit value, and return at Nickels farm. dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ ĂŶŽƉǇ WƌƵŶŝŶŐ WƌƵŶŝŶŐ WƌƵŶŝŶŐ zŝĞůĚƐ zŝĞůĚƐ zŝĞůĚƐ >ĂƌŐĞ sĂůƵĞ ŝĂŵĞƚ ŽƐƚƐ ŽƐƚƐ ŽƐƚ ;ƚͬĂͿ ;ƚͬĂͿ ƵŵƵͲ &ƌƵŝƚ ;ΨͬƚͿ Ğƌ ϮϬϭϲΎΎ ϮϬϭϳ ƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ůĂƚŝǀĞ;ƚͬĂͿ ;йͿ ΎΎΎΎΎ ;ĨƚͿΎ ;ΨͬĂͿ ;ΨͬĂͿ ;ϮϬϭϲͲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϳͿ ΎΎΎΎ Topped at 10.8 a 500 a*** 237 a 737 a 2.01 3.78 5.79 a 92 a 1352 10' Topped at 12.2 b 885 b 317 b 1202 b 3.57 5.27 8.64 b 82 ab 1330 13' Control 13.1 b 930 b 304 b 1234 b 4.65 4.37 8.63 b 79 b 1334 P value 0.045 0.026 0.017 0.091 0.241 0.016 0.15 *canopy measurement taken on 5/21/17 **pruning costs based on time needed to prune the trees multiplied by $11/hr. ***different letters in the same column indicate significance p < 0.05. **** calculated from grade sheets (Musco Olive) percentages are the sum of extra-large, large, and medium fruit ***** calculated from grade sheets (Musco Olive)

104 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Table 2. Effects of hedging date and severity of hedging on ‘Manzanillo’ olive yields and flowering on a east-west oriented planting at Erik Nielsen’s farm.

Hedging Severity Flowering Fruit Set Yield Canopy Date of Intensity** per 20 Ranking Diameter Hedge* Inflores- 2017*** (ft)**** cence No Hedge NA 2.6 a 6.1 7.0 ab 14.7 a 24-May-16 Moderate 2.3 a 6.8 7.4 a 14.9 a 27-Apr-16 Moderate 2.3 a 6.8 7.1 ab 14.5 ab 15-Jul-16 Severe 2.2 a 7.4 5.3 bc 14.3 ab 15-Jul-16 Moderate 2.2 a 5.9 6.3 ab 13.6 ab 27-Apr-16 Severe 0.81 b 7.5 6.7 ab 13.3 ab 1-Mar-17 Moderate 6.2 5.1 bc 12.6 b 29-Mar-17 Moderate 4.3 c 12.5 b 3-May-17 Moderate 5.1 bc 12.1 b P value 0.0043 0.09 0.0001 0.002 * Moderate = approximately 8.5 feet from trunk; Severe = approximately 6.5 feet from trunk ** Rating - 5 = very heavy flowering, all branch have flowers present over the full length of the canopy; 0 = no flowers present *** Ranking – 10 = excellent, 5 = average, 1 = poor **** Measurements taken December 15, 2017

Table 3. Effects of hedging date and severity of hedging on ‘Manzanillo’ olive yields, fruit size, and canopy diameter at the Corning Ranch.

Hedging Yield Large Fruit Canopy Date 2017 (%)* Diameter (t/a) (ft)** No Hedge 9.4 33.8 b 6.1 a 8-Mar-17 8.9 40.4 a 4.7 b 5-Apr-17 9.1 45.1 a 4.0 bc 8-May-17 7.9 27.9 b 3.68 c 8-Jun-17 7.8 28.8 b 3.03 c P value 0.16 0.0001 0.0004 * calculated from grade sheets (Musco Olive) percentages are the sum of extra-large, large, and medium fruit ** Measurements taken December 15, 2017

105 Rosecrance et al., Report, California Olive Committee

Table 4. Nutrient removed in the fruit per ton of crop of Manzanillo table olives from 5 locations in the Sacramento Valley in 2016 and 2017.

Nutrient Removal (pounds per ton or ounces per ton)

Year N P2O5 K2O Na Ca Mg Fe Cu Mn Zn B Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Sodium Calcium Magnesium Iron Copper Manganese. Zinc Boron (lbs./ton) (lbs./ton) (lbs./ton) (lbs./ton) (lbs./ton) (lbs./ton) (oz./ton) (oz./ton) (oz./ton) (oz./ton) (oz/ton) 2016 18.2 5.6 31.5 0.08 2.0 0.9 1.54 0.63 0.29 0.57 2017 19.8 6.3 37.1 0.03 6.8 1.5 2.36 1.13 0.28 0.41 1.29

Literature Cited

Connor, D. J., Gómez-del-Campo, M., Rousseaux, M. C., and Searles, P. S. (2014). Structure, management and productivity of hedgerow olive orchards. A review. 6FL+RUWLF. 169, 71–93.

106 Evaluation of New Materials for Olive Fly Control

Cooperators: Dani Lightle, UC Cooperative Extension, Glenn County PO Box 697, Orland, CA 95963 R.A. Van Steenwyk, UC Berkeley Dept. of E.S.P.M., 130 Mulford Hall – 3114, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114 Emily Symmes, UC Cooperative Extension, Butte County 2279 Del Oro Ave #B, Oroville, CA 95965

Problem and its Significance:

Olive fruit fly (Bactrocerca olaea) is the most damaging direct fruit pest of table olive production. For years, the primary material utilized for olive fly control has been GF-120 (spinosad), applied by ground as a large droplet treatment by ATV. Because of the continued repeated use of GF-120 with little or no material rotation, many growers have been reporting decreased efficacy of GF-120. A second material, Danitol (fenpropathrin) was registered in 2012. While Danitol is highly efficacious, it can also cause outbreaks of black scale due to disruption to biological control agents of scale. Additionally, it has not received very wide adoption by growers, in part because many growers prefer the convenience of low volume treatments applied by ATV over a full cover treatment.

Methods:

Full Cover: A Sevillano orchard was selected in the Woodson Bridge area, Corning, CA (Tehama County). Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized, complete block design. Each replicate was nine trees arranged in a 3x3 tree square. Data were collected from the center tree. Treatments are shown below:

Rate Treatmenta form/ac No. Applications Assail 30SGa 8.0 oz 2 Sivanto 200 SLa 14.0 fl. oz 2 Venerate XCa 128.0 fl. oz 2 Danitol 2.4ECa 16.0 fl. oz 2 Untreated controla 2 aAll treatments included molasses at 5.0% v/v

Foliar sprays were applied with a handgun orchard sprayer operating at 250psi with a finished spray volume of 150 gal/ac. Treatments were applied after monitoring traps showed an increase in olive fly pressure. The first treatment was applied 1 week after pit hardening, June 28-29, and the second was applied when olive fly populations increased, August 23-24, approximately 1.5 months before harvest.

Adult olive flies were monitored with McPhail traps baited with Torula yeast tablets from June 5 to September 12. Traps were placed in the center tree of each replicate, and were checked and bait was changed weekly. At harvest, a minimum of 20lbs of olives (up to 1500 fruit/ treatment) were evaluated for olive fly damage (stings). All fruit showing damage were dissected and larvae or pupae noted, if

107 present. Data were analyzed using ANOVA with mean separation using Fisher’s Protected LSD at p < 0.05.

Low Volume: A Sevillano orchard was selected in the Woodson Bridge area, Corning, CA (Tehama County). Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized, complete block design. Each replicate was nine trees arranged in a 3x3 tree square. Data were collected from the center tree. Treatments are shown below:

Rate Treatmenta form/ac No. Applications Grandevo WDGa 48.0 oz 5 Venerate XCa 128.0 fl. oz 5 Danitol 2.4ECa 7.1 fl. oz 5 GF-120 NFa 20.0 fl. oz 5 Untreated controla 5 aAll treatments included molasses at 5.0% v/v and ammonium acetate at 5.0% w/v

Foliar sprays were applied with a mini-air blast sprayer (Lil’ Squirt, PBM Supply & Mfg, Inc.) towed behind a quad running at 2 mph with a finished spray volume of 10 gal/acre at 40psi. Treatments were applied approximately every 16-19 days beginning in early June after monitoring traps showed the presence of olive flies. The first treatment was applied June 12, 2017 and continued until August 23, 2017. Application dates were: June 12; June 27, 29; July 17-18; August 3-4; & August 22-23.

Adult olive flies were monitored with McPhail traps baited with Torula yeast tablets from June 5 to September 12. Traps were placed in the center tree of each replicate, and were checked and bait was changed weekly. At harvest, up to 1500 fruit/ treatment were evaluated for olive fly damage (stings) [some trees had low crop set and 1500 fruit could not be collected from all trees]. All fruit showing damage were dissected and larvae or pupae noted, if present. Damage was analyzed with an ANOVA.

Results and Discussion:

2017 was a challenging year for olive fly research because of the sustained high heat (7 consecutive days over 105 degrees June 18-24; significant mortality for olive flies is experienced at 3 consecutive days above 100). Consequently, fly pressure was much lower in 2017 than in previous growing seasons.

Full Cover: Despite the temperatures, the site’s proximity to water (Sacramento River & Kopta Slough) appeared to sustain a minimal fly population. The number of flies increased in June and treatments were applied approximately one week after pit hardening. Fly populations were minimal throughout July and early August, increasing slightly near the end of August, when the second spray was applied (Fig 1). Because of the low populations, we did not apply more than two treatments. Fruit were harvested on September 28 and October 5. Consistent with the fly populations, fruit damage and infestation rates were low relative to recent seasons. The mean total percent olive fly infestation was 2.6% in the untreated check and there was significantly greater total percent infestation in the untreated check compared to Venerate XC (0.76%), Danitol 2.4EC (1.2%), and Sivanto 200 SL (1.2%). There was no significant difference between the untreated control and Assail 30SG (Table 1).

108 Low Volume: Fruit were harvested on October 12. Consistent with the fly populations, fruit damage and infestation rates were low relative to recent seasons. The mean total percent olive fly infestation was less than 1.0% in all treatments (Table 2). There were no significant differences between treatments.

Conclusions:

Full Cover: Venerate XC provided good control of olive fly and performed better than the untreated check and Assail 30SG. Sivanto 200 SL provided a similar level of control as Danitol 2.4EC. Assail 30SG did not control olive fly in this study. There was a possible phytotoxic reaction to the molasses feeding stimulant.

Low Volume: Damage was too low to detect any differences between treatments at this site. There was a possible phytotoxic reaction to the molasses feeding stimulant.

Acknowledgements:

Thank you to Cindy Montes for help with data collection; C. Montes and Christian Cabuslay for assistance with treatment applications; and to PBM Manufacturing and Supply, Inc., for kindly providing the mini-air blast sprayer for low volume applications.

109 Figure 1. Full cover study: Mean number of olive flies captured per trap per day. Arrows point to timings of treatment applications. Note that fly numbers decreased prior to the first application – this timing ĐŽŝŶĐŝĚĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǁĞĞŬŽĨхϭϬϱȚƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƐ͘

Table 1. Full cover study: Mean total percent olive fly infestation in Corning, CA in 2017.

Rate Treatmentb form/ac Mean Total Percent Olive Fly Infestation Assail 30SGa 8.0 oz 1.91 ab Sivanto 200 SLa 14.0 fl. oz 1.21 bc Venerate XCa 128.0 fl. oz 0.76 c Danitol 2.4ECa 16.0 fl. oz 1.19 bc Untreated controla 2.60 a aMeans followed by the same letter in a column were not significantly different (Fisher’s LSD at p < 0.05). bAll treatments included molasses at 5.0% v/v

110 Figure 2. Low Volume study: Mean number of olive flies captured per trap per day. High temperatures suppressed olive fly populations in 2017.

0.5 Danitol GF-120 0.375 Grandevo Molasses Venerate 0.25

0.125 Average Flies No. per Trap per Day

Table 2. Low volume study: Mean total percent olive fly infestation in Corning, CA in 2017.

Rate Treatmentb form/ac Mean Total Percent Olive Fly Infestation Grandevo WDGa 48.0 oz 0.72 a Venerate XCa 128.0 fl. oz 0.48 a Danitol 2.4ECa 7.1 fl. oz 0.62 a GF-120 NFa 20.0 fl. oz 0.32 a Untreated controla 0.68 a aMeans followed by the same letter in a column were not significantly different (p > 0.05). bAll treatments included molasses at 5.0% v/v

111 UCCE Glenn County - Olive Fruit Fly Populations for Glenn and Tehama County

3-Apr 10-Apr 17-Apr 24-Apr 1-May 9-May 15-May 22-May 30-May 5-Jun 12-Jun 21-Jun 26-Jun TOT/YR MFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMF M F M F MF Orland 1 Glenn County Fairgrounds 940101246301819152112401041347 5 113357 Orland 2 Road 200 & Road E 111100755425673728172315935713173410212132 Orland 3 SE Orland N & 16 432685011784922312222119231243 8300176106 Orland 4 NE Orland Rd 12 & N 0000000000011100000012 030027 Orland 5 Rd 21 & M 0012000014210000000084108 2 1 2420 Orland 6 Hwy 99W & Rd 18 492299302861671050000010106 108412461 Corning 1 Northbound I-5 Reststop 2297001341961971421373096281534141 016470 Corning 2 Fig Lane & Houghton 00112041811495022003216763292 712059 Corning 3 Barham & Sampson 0000000100000000000092 3500128 Corning 4 Sac River - Kopta Rd 0000001121001000000097 45001714 Corning 5 Viola Ave & Orchard Ave 0001000000000000000094 2001116 Corning 6 Dora Ave & Marguerite Ave 0000002114313033200000 12101611 Total 104 55 29 27 5 2 96 33 180 88 165 98 56 23 53 38 20 7 19 18 101 68 163 80 20 14 1011 551

5-Jul 11-Jul 18-Jul 24-Jul 31-Jul 7-Aug 14-Aug 21-Aug 28-Aug 6-Sep 12-Sep 18-Sep 26-Sep TOT/YR MFMFMFMF 0FMFMFMFMFMFMF M F M F MF Orland 1 Glenn County Fairgrounds 4000110000010000000000 000013859 Orland 2 Road 200 & Road E 2000000000000000000000 0000214132 Orland 3 SE Orland N & 16 1010000000000000000000 0000178106 Orland 4 NE Orland Rd 12 & N 0100000000000000000000 000028 Orland 5 Rd 21 & M 0000000000000000000000 00002420 Orland 6 Hwy 99W & Rd 18 0011010000000000001000 000012663 Corning 1 Northbound I-5 Reststop 0100001100000010020000 001016774 Corning 2 Fig Lane & Houghton 002931201011340001010002000 0010189103 Corning 3 Barham & Sampson 1000000000000000000000 0000138 Corning 4 Sac River - Kopta Rd 0000000000000000000000 00001714 Corning 5 Viola Ave & Orchard Ave 0000000000000000000000 0000116 Corning 6 Dora Ave & Marguerite Ave 1000001000000000000000 00001811 Total 923132211213440011020023000 00201097604

4-Oct 10-Oct 16-Oct 24-Oct 30-Oct 6-Nov 13-Nov TOT/YR MFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMF M F M F MF Orland 1 Glenn County Fairgrounds 00000000020000 138 61 Orland 2 Road 200 & Road E 00000031210100 219 135 Orland 3 SE Orland N & 16 00000010020000 179 108 Orland 4 NE Orland Rd 12 & N 00000000100000 38 Orland 5 Rd 21 & M 00000000200000 26 20 Orland 6 Hwy 99W & Rd 18 000011625120100 138 79 Corning 1 Northbound I-5 Reststop 00000000120000 168 76 Corning 2 Fig Lane & Houghton 00000110200000 192 104 Corning 3 Barham & Sampson 00000000000000 13 8 Corning 4 Sac River - Kopta Rd 00000000000000 17 14 Corning 5 Viola Ave & Orchard Ave 00000000000000 11 6 Corning 6 Dora Ave & Marguerite Ave 00000000010000 18 12

112 Southern Region Olive Fruit Fly Project Sponsored by: California Olive Committee, Leffingwell Ag Sales & Ag IPM Consultants

2017 Total OLFF for the Week Ending Mar.31 Apr. 07 Apr.14 Apr. 21 Apr.28May. 05 May.12 May. 19 May.26 Jun. 02 Jun.09Jun. 16 Jun.23 Jun. 30 TOT/YR Block M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M FMF M F M FMFMF M F MF Woodlake set set 142 317202413356161 1 2 203 0 2 51085041 0 101 111 Ivanhoe set set 1 0 163106 3 4 0 5 1 1 4 304 1 1 4 25802 2 0 47 39 Exeter set set 4 1 9 4 6 7 8 9 3 8 0 1 3 101 0 1 0 06320 3 1 44 37 South Exeter set set 1 1 3 0 3 3 3 8 1 0 0 1 1 000 0 0 3 52501 0 0 17 24 Tonyville set set 6 3194 5 81765 0 5210230212210330116 98 37 W. Lindsay set set 19 5 44 6 53 9 14 5 7 4 8 2 5 3 5 6 1 0 6 2 10 4 3 0 1 0 176 46 Strathmore set set 112 7 038177 1 9 1 4 116341 1 11017351133 132 35 Porterville set set 1 0 5 1176 5 1 5 1 1 0 5 181 1 1 3 09400 2 0 62 16 Terra Bella set set 7 0100 7 01112 0 42725131511340010 75 12 Total 64 14 144 25 159 80 81 70 38 35 24 11 53 17 25 17 9 8 38 23 70 39 13 8 34 10 752 357 City of Visalia set set 13 1 5 0 10 1 10 4 1 5 2 0 2 8 4 1 5 5 27 14 16 9 8 7 0 0 108 55 Jul. 07 Jul. 14 Jul. 21 Jul. 28 Aug. 04 Aug. 11 Aug. 18 Aug. 25 Sep. 01 Sep. 08 Sep. 15 Sep. 22 Sep. 29 Oct. 06 TOT/YR Block M F M F M F M F M FM F M F M FMF M F M FMFMF M F M F Woodlake 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3000 0 00010000307210 2 0 114 118 Ivanhoe 4 2 0 0 0 1 4 2011 0 21100010323061 3 1 75 50

113 Exeter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00100000402020 1 0 54 37 South Exeter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00000000000000 0 0 17 24 Tonyville 4 2 1 0 2 0 1 0251 3 42101110001000 2 1 119 51 W. Lindsay 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1310 0 10101000002020 0 0 191 48 Strathmore 113 2 1 2 1 3 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 3 010 1 0 0 03110 2 1 166 43 Porterville 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 0101 0 00000000101000 1 0 71 18 Terra Bella 1 120 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 000 0 0 0 02221 2 1 85 29 Total 22 22 6 1 5 2 12 6 10 8 5 4 7 3 8 1 31 3 0 11 2 21 5 14 2 13 4 892 418 City of Visalia 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00000000000020 00 11058 Oct. 13 Oct. 20 Oct. 27 Nov. 03 Nov. 10 Nov. 17 Nov. 24 TOT/YR Block M F M F MFM FMFM F MF MF Woodlake 00001000235211 1 133 124 Ivanhoe 000031104619516 2 119 63 Exeter 00000086612630 73 50 South Exeter 00000000000000 17 24 Tonyville 10001010215527513 3 186 66 W. Lindsay 00000010305010 201 48 Strathmore 2110202212422273 214 55 Porterville 00100040542012 2 95 24 Terra Bella 203 1 1 0 19 6 32 11 24 5 19 4 185 56 Total 5 1 5 1 8 1 54 20 81 29 96 25 82 15 1223 510 City of Visalia 0110301103827 3 130 68

THIS IS THE LAST REPORT FOR THIS YEAR. THE REPORTS WILL START AGAIN NEXT APRIL. BEST WISHES FOR THE NEW YEAR. Southern Region Olive Fruit Fly Project 2017

Date 1 2 SUBTOT Check Block M F Nov 22 Woodlake 6 1 5 0 11 1

Nov 22 Ivanhoe 6 1 10 1 16 2

Nov 22 Exeter 2 0 1 0 3 0

Nov 22 South Exeter 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nov 22 Tonyville 5 1 8 2 13 3

Nov 22 W. Lindsay 1 0 0 0 1 0

Nov 22 Strathmore 0 1 7 2 7 3

Nov 22 Porterville 10 2 2 0 12 2

Nov 22 Terra Bella 8 1 11 3 19 4

TOTAL 82 15

Nov 22 City of Visalia 0 1 7 2 7 3

114 marketing

115 116 ca grown partnership California Grown (also known as the Buy California Marketing Agreement, BCMA) is a joint effort of agricultural industry groups representing the products of &DOLIRUQLD·V IDUPV UDQFKHV IRUHVWV DQG ILVKHULHV ZRUNLQJ as an advisory board to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. BCMA brings together industry and government resources to increase the awareness, consumption, and value of California agricultural products, helping the state’s consumers enjoy the best of the California lifestylH &DOLIRUQLD Grown is funded through public and private contributions by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and California agricultural organizations. The COC participates as an active member of the California Grown partnership by attending regular board meetings and joining internal committees. Through this partnership, the COC is able to promote California olives at various events including California Agriculture Day at the Capitol, the Produce Marketing Association’s Fresh Summit Exposition, and many more.

$W 30$ WKH &2& KRVWHG D ´&DOLIRUQLD 0DU\µ DQG ´)UHGD·V 0DUWLQLµ EDU ZLWKLQ the California Grown booth space. This, along with our grower highlight videos, which were GLVSOD\HG RQ WKH ERRWK·V ÁDW VFUHHQ WHOHYLVLRQV VHUYHG DV D JUHDW WRRO WR VKDUH WKH VWRU\ of California Ripe Olives to industry members from across the globe. In addition, through a collaboration with the California Blueberry Commission (who is also a member of CA Grown), WKH&2&GHYHORSHG´2OLYH

117 118 2017 Program Review

The follwing pages present a highlight summary of the FleishmanHillard facilitated marketing plan that was enacted in 2017 on behalf of the COC.

119 120 2017 Program Review In 2017, the California Olive Committee gave the marketing campaign a fresh, updated look while still featuring California ripe olives growers as the heart and soul of this year’s marketing strategy. The 2017 program included a mix of marketing tactics and activities and generated more than 550 million impressions, up from last year’s 300 million impressions. This year’s program included a new and best-of-the-best national media partner “Simply 5HFLSHVµQHZDVVHWGHYHORSPHQWGLJLWDODQGVRFLDOPHGLDLQÁXHQFHUDFWLYDWLRQH[WHQVLYH media coverage, and an expanded retail advertising outreach. After this year’s efforts, the 2017 marketing campaign received positive feedback from the industry and demonstrated success in sharing the California ripe olive story across many platforms. Asset Development The updated logo and campaign graphics suite was the main portion of this year’s asset development. One important aspect of the logo to note is the incorporation of both black and green olivesDVRSSRVHGWRRXUSUHYLRXVORJRZKLFKRQO\IHDWXUHGEODFN ROLYHV Additionally, new grower families were selected to create new video montages that continue to capture their rich family history and continuous involvement in the California Ripe Olive industry. Not only are these videos a great way to increase grower involvement, but our grower-related content continues to be the number one performer in terms of engagement.

Since recipes are utilized in many of our promotional activities, the COC developed many new recipes, several of which were provided by our growers as their personal family recipes, to be featured on social media, the COC website, print ads, and much more. The recipes featured every food medium from appetizers to dinners, and even several desserts. Through collaborations in 2017, recipes for smoked, herbed, and even candied olives were also developed.

121 National Media Partner = SIMPLY AMAZING

The COC chose to work with Simply Recipes and California native founder, Elise Bauer, for a plethora of reasons. • #1 food site for women, ages 25-49 • Founded by food blog pioneer, Elise Bauer

• ,QIOXHQFHGE\KHUIDPLO\·VRZQNLWFKHQDQGJHQHUDWLRQVRIIDPLO\UHFLSHV:HIHHO KHUVWRU\LVDGLUHFWUHIOHFWLRQRIWKHPHVVDJHZHDUHSRUWUD\LQJLQRXUFDPSDLJQ • Based in Carmichael, CAWhis location is convenient and will aid us in creating a more personal relationship with the organization.

122 7KLVSDUWQHUVKLSWUXO\SDLGRIIIRUWKH&2&LQWKDW6LPSO\5HFLSHVZDVWKHGULYHURIVLWH WUDIILFto CalOlive.org in 2017!! Through this partnership, the COC gained 4 new recipes, 2 new videos, and the integration of 15 of our own recipes on the Simply Recipes Website.

The COC also hosted a Thanksgiving Eve site take-over that resulted in 9.2 million viewers in just a single day!

123 As a part of our partnership with Simply Recipes, we placed a strong emphasis on further LQWHJUDWLQJRXUPHVVDJHRI´5LSH2OLYHV*URZQLQ&DOLIRUQLD(QMR\HGE\)DPLOLHV(YHU\ZKHUHµ :HIHOWWKDW6LPSO\5HFLSHVIRXQGHU(OLVH%DXHUZDVDJUHDWÀWIRURXUSDUWQHUVKLSGXHWRKHU own unique story involving family. In 2003, Elise founded Simply Recipes as a way to track the recipes she was learning to cook from her parents’ home in Carmichael, CA. The company that she started in her own parents’ kitchen a few short years ago has grown to reach millions of site viewers every month! 7KH &2& KDV EHHQ DEOH WR EHQHILW IURP (OLVH·V YLHZVKLS DQG WKLV SDUWQHUVKLS KDV SURYHQWR EH WKH PDLQ GULYHU RI VLWH WUDIILFWR&DO2OLYHRUJ RYHU WKH SDVW \HDU 6SHFLILFDOO\ ZHKDYHaccomplished this by: 7DSSLQJLQWR(OLVH·VVRFLDOPHGLDLQÁXHQFHDQGWKHSRSXODULW\RIKHUVLWHV7KLVDVSHFW IHDWXUHVWKHQHZFRQWHQWFUHDWHGE\(OLVHLQFOXGLQJÀYHQHZUHFLSHVDQGWZRQHZYLGHRV • These new recipes/videos will be featured on the Simply Recipes website along with a round-up of existing California Ripe Olive recipes. • We will also have a social media promotion for new content that has contributed to the 39.5 total million impressions we received through the Simply Recipes platform in 2017.

124 We Maximized The Simply Recipes Partnership $PSOLÀHGWKH&DOLIRUQLD5LSH2OLYH6WRU\ 7KURXJK2XU&XVWRP,QÁXHQFHU(YHQW

In May, Simply Recipes’ founder, Elise Bauer, joined CA olive industry members on the road for a custom event at the Culinary Institute of America in St. Helena, CA. This event ZDV IRU VRFLDO PHGLD LQIOXHQFHUV IURP DFURVV WKH FRXQWU\ ZKR VKDUH D GLVWLQFW LQWHUHVW LQ &$agriculture, and to share the unique stories of where our food products came from. The event NLFNHGRIIZLWKD´IDPLO\µGLQQHUIHDWXULQJFXVWRPFUHDWHG&DOLIRUQLD5LSH 2OLYHUHFLSHVE\(OLVH 7KH IROORZLQJ GD\ DQRWKHU FXVWRP PHQX OXQFK ZDV VHUYHG DORQJ ZLWK D IODYRU H[SODQDWLRQ featuring candied, smoked, dried, crumbled olives, and a grower/canner Q&A panel. 7KHLQIOXHQFHUDWWHQGHHVZHUHHVSHFLDOO\LQWHUHVWHGLQOHDUQLQJ PRUHDERXWWKHLQGXVWU\IURPthe grower and canner representatives. The event wrapped up with a hands-on cooking exercise in which participants were asked to create their own unique dishes using California Ripe Olives. This event was a great opportunity to share the California Ripe Olive story with LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR KDYH D ODUJH VRFLDO UHDFK 7KHUH ZHUH LQIOXHQFHUVLQDWWHQGDQFHZKRLQtotal, made over 90 social media posts, reaching about 7.4 million impressions. In addition, HDFK LQIOXHQFHUFUHDWHG D XQLTXH &DOLIRUQLD 5LSH 2OLYH UHFLSHWKDWLVQRZIHDWXUHGRQWKH&DO2OLYHZHEVLWH

125 Digital and Social Media

For the digital media aspect of our 2017 program, the COC completed a design refresh of CalOlive.org. The website refresh was conducted in order to align the site with the COC’s new campaign theme, highlighting California Ripe Olive growers. In addition, the newly GHYHORSHG recipes were featured on the website along with old recipes which were updated and photographed. The CalOlive.org webpage is a great tool to share the COC’s message with the public and LW also serves as a valuable tool in providing information to industry members. Website Refresh

126 New website features: -Updated campaign logo -New CA Olive growers added -Updated and new recipes and photos -Industry section with access to research reports, agendas, meeting packets, and monthly and import reports. -CA GROWN Logo incorporated on the webpage

127 Social media efforts proved to be successful yet again, as over 1.3 million consumers were reached, including our 25,000 Facebook fans (up 68% in one year), through prompted FRQWHQW DQG IODVK JLYHDZD\V %\ XWLOL]LQJ SURPRWHG SRVWV FRVWLQJ MXVW RYHU RQH KXQGUHG GROODUVeach, the COC Facebook page was able to reach a substantially higher amount of viewers

25k Facebook Fans & 1.3 million Impressions Up 68% from 2016

Grower related content continues to be the top performer!

128 California Olives in the News

This year the COC utilized print, broadcast, and on-line integration and was featured in publications from across the nation, throughout 2017. The content we featured included UHFLSHV developed by Simply Recipes as well as grower recipes. As a result, we were able to obtain over 500 million impression! Some of the publications and broadcasts we were featured in are shown below. The image shown to the right is a copy RIRXU´%DFNWR6FKRROµ523 5XQRI3DSHU that was distributed through familyfeatures. com for broader media use. In conjunction with this ROP, we also developed a holiday food art video that served as an excellent complement to the recipes shown in the print version. The inspiration behind this video stemmed from the content of the ROP and featured six lunchbox friendly concepts centered around the Halloween, Thanksgiving , and Christmas holidays.

129 Blogger and Media Engagement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

130 Blogger and Media Engagement

St. Helena ,QÁXHQFHU(YHQW3DUWLFLSDQWV

131 Retail Trade Advertising

Aside from consumer focused activities, the COC also pXEOLVKHG FRQWHQW in various retail promotion activities. Our retail advertisements came in the form of print insertions into major retail publications such as: Progressive Grocer, Grocery Headquarters, and The Shelby Report. Combined, the COC placed 18 grower-focused campaign advertisement insertions utilizing the grower assets created earlier in the year. These print ads were successful in reaching around 1.2 million impressions (more than double last year’s amount). See an example below of a segment of ads run in Progressive Grocer in addition to a social media feature through Smart Brief, Inc.

132 Campaign Press Release

In June of 2017, an industry-facing press release highlighting the 2017 campaign was pitched individually to various trade publications such as Capital Press and The Packer.

133 Industry Communications To ensure that industry members are kept up to date on the COC’s activities, a monthly 2OLYH %UDQFK QHZVOHWWHU ZLWK ´$V ,W +DSSHQVµ QHZV LV GLVWULEXWHG YLD HPDLO 7KHVH QHZVOHWWHUVinclude information and updates regarding the progress of our marketing plan. In addition, the COC distributes a summer newsletter with a more in-depth summary of activities. It is truly important to ensure the industry is kept up-to-date on all marketing activities, and the COC strives to provide a complete and comprehensive update through these materials.

134 The Year in Numbers

Activity Impressions/Reach

Simply Recipes Partnership 46.2 million

,QÁXHQFHU$FWLYDWLRQ 7.4 million

Social Media 1.3 million

Trade Advertising 1 million

Media Engagement 501.6 million

Total 557.7 million impressions

135 136 2018 Program Outline

The following pages present an outline of the FleishmanHillard facilitated 2018 COC marketing plan. As the year progresses, some activities may be altered or replaced, but the following summary serves as a general overview of planned activities at this point in time.

137 138 2018 Program Outline Based on industry feedback, the 2018 marketing plan will build upon the message that was introduced in 2017. Our goal is to further establish the message of our industry’s focus on family values and traditions, and we have found that our grower content is highly successful in driving engagement. Based on industry feedback and our past successes, we believe there is strong potential for this campaign to succeed further into the 2018 year. Our partnership with Elise Bauer of Simply Recipes was a major success, and we feel that continuing this relationship into 2018 would be a great choice. Last year we focused mainly on digital and print media, KRZHYHUWKLV\HDUZHDOVRSODQWRH[SORUHWKHSRWHQWLDORIUDGLRLQWHJUDWLRQDVZHOOVSHFLÀFDOO\ iHeart Radio. The 2018 program will include seven main aspects as listed below: • National Media Partner Program

,QÁXHQFHU$FWLYDWLRQ • Media Engagement

$VVHW'HYHORSPHQW 'LJLWDO6RFLDO0HGLD,QWHJUDWLRQ 5HWDLO$GYHUWLVLQJ • Industry Communications In 2017, the new campaign logo was heavily utilized in website banners with our national media partner, the COC website, social media, previous and planned grower highlight videos, and retail trade ads. Our new look has been well received by the industry as well as our DGYHUWLVLQJSDUWQHUV$OOLQDOOWKHPDUNHWLQJSURJUDPZLOOVHUYHWRFRQWLQXHEXLOGLQJRQWKH work we have done in the past year, and look forward to the future successof our marketing Target Audience Online recipe content is the premier place where women ages 25-35 discover new recipes and is the number one driver for women to try new food products. We have found that this demographic visits #1 Pinterest and #2 Facebook for meal inspiration, and on these sites, recipes are the most heavily shared type of content (61%). In fact, 71% of women were inspired to try new food items because of a recipe that they searched for or found on social media, and 78% say they visited the food brand’s social pages for more recipes or WLSV,WLVEHFDXVHRIWKLVWKDWZHDUHFRQÀGHQWLQRXU ability to increase consumption of California Ripe Olives by making available recipes in which they are featured as a main ingredient.

139 National Media Partner

Over the past year, our #1 site driver to CalOlive.org has been Simply Recipes!

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION • #1 food site for women, ages 25-49 • Founded by food blog pioneer, Elise Bauer, who has expansive social media reach

,QÁXHQFHGE\KHURZQIDPLO\·VNLWFKHQDQGJHQHUDWLRQVRIIDPLO\UHFLSHVZHIHHO KHUVWRU\LVDGLUHFWUHÁHFWLRQRIWKHPHVVDJHZHDUHSRUWUD\LQJLQRXUFDPSDLJQ • Based in Carmichael, CA. This location is convenient and has aided us in creating a more personal relationship with the organization.

As a part of our partnership with Simply Recipes, we wish to further integrate our message RI ´5LSH 2OLYHV *URZQ LQ &DOLIRUQLD (QMR\HG E\ )DPLOLHV (YHU\ZKHUHµ :H IHHO FRQÀGHQW LQ doing this by:

7DSSLQJ LQWR(OLVH·V VRFLDO PHGLD LQÁXHQFHDQG WKHSRSXODULW\ RIKHUVLWHV 6KH ZLOO create new content, including three new recipes, and three custom recipe videos. • These new recipes/videos will be featured on the Simply Recipes website along with a round-up of existing California Ripe Olive recipes.

:HZLOOKDYHWKHÀUVWHYHU6LPSO\5HFLSHVDQG&$5LSH2OLYHVUHFLSHFRQWHVWWKDWZLOO be promoted via Instagram. The contest will serve to generate content for our social media platforms and for the launch of our own Instagram channel. • The COC will be hosting a Super Bowl site takeover of SimplyRecipes.com, similar to the Thanksgiving takeover in 2017. According to USDA, the Super Bowl is the 2nd leading food ´KROLGD\µLQWKH86DIWHU7KDQNVJLYLQJ • Finally, through this partnership, Elise Bauer will be making an event appearance RQ EHKDOI RI WKH &2& DW WKH ,$&3 FRQIHUHQFH LQ 1HZ

In addition to the IACP conference involvement, WKH &2& ZLOO DOVR EH ILOPLQJ D &HOHEULW\ 3DJH 79 segment featuring California Ripe Olives. Elise Bauer will introduce a few of the COC’s recipes in the 90 second video that will be aired in 200 markets for an anticipated 3 million impressions.

We will also be performing media GHVNVLGH deliveries with California Ripe Olive growers. The deskside visits will be to top media outlets such as: Real Simple, Good Housekeeping, Oprah.com, etc. At each visit, we will provide editors with delicious California Ripe Olive smoked, herbed and candied samples, as well as recipes and background information, to help keep California Ripe Olives at the top of the list for upcoming coverage opportunities. Editors will also have the opportunity to meet Jorge Inestroza to learn more about the California Ripe Olive industry straight from a grower. 141 Program Enhancement +DUYHVW7RXU,QWKH*URYHZLWK6RFLDO0HGLD,QÁXHQFHUV

6LPLODU WR WKH LQÁXHQFHU HYHQW ZH KRVWHG last year at the Culinary Institute of America in St. Helena, we plan to host a Harvest Tour in the Fall IRULQÁXHQFHUVIURPDFURVVWKHQDWLRQ$WWHQGHHV at last year’s event were very interested in learning more about the industry, and even vocalized their desire to visit the orchards. This year’s Harvest Tour will be a great way to engage WKHVHLQÁXHQFHUVYLDFXVWRPFRQWHQWJHQHUDWLRQ experiences featuring our growers. We plan to H[WHQG WKH LQYLWDWLRQ WR LQÁXHQFHUV ZKR ZLOO participate in a custom welcome dinner featuring CA olive recipes, a orchard tour led by a local CA olive grower, and a CA olive lunch followed by a grower/canner panel Q&A session. We also plan to extend the reach of this event via traditional media relations: farm-to-form ROP, video mat release, and an iHeartRadio audio news release.

142 Asset Development

Marking a Milestone with Freda’s Story 2018 marks the 120th anniversary of Freda Ehmann’s purFKDVe of her California olive property, and what better way to commemorate such an event than with a documentary tribute to her life and story behind California Ripe Olives. We will be creating a mini-documentary video, approximately 3-4 minutes in length, about Freda and hosted by Elise Bauer from Simply Recipes. We plan to visit Freda’s property in order to capture content from family members and growers to underscore the unique origin story of California Ripe Olives. The video will be promoted through our social media, media partnerships, and through retail trade advertising.

Expanding our California Ripe Olive Grower Stories Since grower-related content has consistently been our highest performing media FRQWHQWZHSODQWRFRQWLQXHEXLOGLQJRXUJURZHUDVVHWOLEUDU\:HZLOOEHÀOPLQJDQHZJURZHU highlight video, in addition to new photos and grower recipes. We will continually integrate our new and existing grower content into our harvest tour, IACP event, traditional media outreach, and COC website and social media properties.

143 Sharing California Ripe Olive Content Around the World

Due to the COC’s increased efforts in establishing export markets for California Ripe Olives, we plan to develop 10-15 new recipes, photos, and toolkits for use in international markets, including China, Japan, and India. We plan to work closely with our international market representatives for cultural appropriateness and translation support. Currently, some of our existing assets have already been translated for promotional use in Japan, and we hope to build upon the availability of usable assets for our international market promotions in 2018.

144 Continuing Social Media Engagement 2XUVRFLDOPHGLDSUHVHQFHJUHZVLJQLÀFDQWO\GXULQJWKHPDUNHWLQJ\HDUDQGZH hope to continue this momentum into 2018 as well. We found that investing into promoted posts had a very positive effect on the size of the audience we are able to reach. Our grower videos, in particular, were highly popular which is why we would like to continue featuring them in 2018. In 2018, we are going to ensure that each of our Facebook posts are promoted, due to our 2017 success. Through the use of promoted posts, we can also develop editorial calendars, perform community management, and amplify our messages. The following areas of content are where we will focus our attention in 2018. -Simply Recipes videos and recipes

-&RQWLQXHGLQWHJUDWLRQRIJURZHUFRQWHQWSURILOHVYLGHRVDQGUHFLSHV -Use existing CA Ripe Olives assets -California Ripe Olive origin story and Freda Ehman mini-documentary -Food art video series created around major holidays, events, and seasons -Website management and ongoing refresh

-Launch of new social media platform, Instagram

Why Instagram?

-700 million active users -58% of users are women -83% of users are 18-49 -Key platform for food and recipe sharing

145 Retail Outreach

,QZHUDPSHGXSRXUUHWDLOSURPRWLRQVVLJQLÀFDQWO\:HIRFXVHGRQXWLOL]LQJDG insertions in key retail outlets with refreshed advertising content highlighting CA origin/Freda’s story, CA Grown partnership and preference information, foodservice recipes, and grower content. We plan to include new retail outlet publications for advertisement, continue to highlight our partnership with CA Grown, and ensure that our message of a California quality product is clear and concise when presented. In 2018, we will continue advertising in ket retail outlets, but place a focus on a new digital format that we feel will have the ability to reach an even larger audience. We now have our new branding which couples well with the CA Grown logo, and we will continue to integrate our grower content in addition to our new Freda Ehmann mini-documentary.

146 Industry Communications

As our exciting marketing plans for 2018 come to fruition, we will keep the industry up to date through a mid-year newsletter and monthly grower e-newsletters. The newsletters will feature the COC’s most recent marketing efforts to ensure the industry is informed of all activities. In addition to the newsletters, we will also create an updated crisis communication plan. The crisis communication plan consists of media monitoring, crisis preparation, training, and PR assistance in the event that a crisis should occur for the industry. Since it has been several years since the plan has been updated, it will be refreshed this year, along with our grower message training.

147 Anticipated Results

Increase impressions from 557.7 million to 595 million (print, radio, digital, and social)

Expand Facebook presence by 20% achieving 30k+ fans

Create more than 100 new pieces of digital/social content

Launch new social media platform; achieve 2,000 year-one followers

Garner direct social media engagement with 25 national, social media influencers

Conduct briefings with up to 10 national media influencers via NYC media blitz; generate additional exposure among IACP attendees

Expand retail advertising reach from 1.2 million to 1.5 million impressions

148 exports

149 150 U.S Ag. export development council summary

In July of 2017, the COC attended the annual United States Agricultural Export Development Council (USAEDC) Attaché Seminar in Arlington, VA. At the conference, UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVIURPWKH&2&SDUWLFLSDWHGLQPHHWLQJVZLWK$JULFXOWXUDO7UDGH2IÀFH $72 representatives from Japan, India, Canada, Mexico, and China. These meetings were conducted in a speed consultation format which created the opportunity for many productive meetings to take place in a single location. In addition to the Attaché Seminar, the COC also attended the annual USAEDC conference in November in Baltimore, MD. This conference differs from the July event in that there are no speed consultations, however, there are presentations with a plethora of information regarding U.S. agricultural exports. It is crucial for the COC to remain an active participant in these USAEDC events as we continue to establish our reputation as a new cooperator.

151 !

" #$ "#% & ' ( ' )* +"# + ' & , ) '' (-% ' #$%)& % )) + % "#( " , ) )& $ . '&( " % % ) ) )& ( % % ) ) & ( % % & %& & / & &)& % (

0 ) &!!" , 1$2- % %3% . ' , ( % '% %" %% ) ), " , ( " 4 ' )' 5 4) ' (( ' (& ' ' (

6 ' % 7 ( ( & ( . 1( -% 8 % ' % % ' & , & , & ) ' & ' ' ( )) % 7' 9' ( 5 (( & % , % ) % ) , % ) & % ) ) , % ( & %% ', % , ' ) % % ( -' & %% , + ( ! "#$ % & " ' " '' ""

152 $ & ) ) )% % %% % ' ( ' , & & ' 4 : 9' ( $ ' ;" ' (

&() ""**) & )' + !, - )' #% & - )' + '

% 1 08 4 (( ' %1( 0 ((+ ) ) ' < 2) ) ) ' < 2)& )< 0 ' + < 5 4

5 4 % ' ' ) ' %'& ) 13 % (( ' % . %%5 4 & ) + ( 2) , & %# & ) % '( # )+ ") ( % + = ) = +'% # ( 5 4)+ 9' ) # 9 ' % ;"(5 & '# %% 5 4 ) # 9 ' ( '

' ":) 7 ' & % # ' ', & % 9'' , ( 5 % ') ' ' ' % ) , % ' %(( '( '

' % ) % ) )& ) ) %% ) ) )+ 9' ": , 9' , + &' , %% (( ' , ) ' ) % % , ( + 9' ' 9' , ) ''' &4 (

153 ' % > &? + & ' * %" ) ='& % ((

' " ** .+' %** )'/ '! &- )' '" 0 ! 1 . 5

5 '' %@ ) %) + ( , & ' % % @ % '( +%& % % +%% %) ) , ( , & 4 % , & ( ) (( 9' % 3 A &

8' % & 8& & , ' 9' & & 7 " ' ' , ' + (('% % +& + ' + ' , =% 9'& %) & &

# + +) '' , % 9 % & & ' %! : ,) ) & ( @ B3C % , ' 3B3C % % & ( $ & )

$ # % %1@D D % 9 + , ( 9' ' 9 , & % , ( %& 9' &D + % ) ' ' ( #112 #1 "** + )' 2/ . 3,!' )' 0& / - )' -$ 4

154 4 '' % ' ( ' ' ) 9' ') ') ( -% & , A D% ' ) +%' ') % , 4 ( % & /' & (E , & ) , ' , ) , ' ) ' + ' % % ( 4 , % & + ' '%% ( & ) ) 4 )A3D% A $ ''

# & ' %' , %' ) ( '' %% , ' ''( ' % 9 / - ) !D( &' % D% ' ' % ''%$ ''( ' ( '' + %) 1 D% '' ( 6

") %> @ ? 6)%% , ' C( 5 ' D%, % 5 9 ( )+ >E . ' F )?) ) ' ) 6 (") ' )& ) 6( % (( 6"%% '( & % 6 & % ' C 9 ( # 9

$ ; '', % ( # # 9 ) % ' ;" , %' ' & ) (( # 9 ( 8& % '' % '''''& '' ) (

' 45 677 # / 5 G % + % (( ' ) ( H % % & ' % + ( ' I )+ % ) (( )+ (9 ' % ' % + %((& % ) ' % & (

155 $ % (( ' ' ) ( % ' ) %% '( (( ) %% ' (

(8 59 9: # / + ) (( % ' ) ) ( % ' & + ( - : '' ) ' % & ) %(( ( ' 9 ' , &, ( 9 9' ( H % % ' J , A D %% '' + ( + '1 D%(( 9'- 9'%(( - , & , ( 2 & % , %' ' (

156 foreign agricultural service The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) helps expand and maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products by helping remove trade barriers and enforcing U.S. rights under existing trade agreements. The FAS works with foreign governments, LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG WKH 2IÀFH RI WKH 86 7UDGH Representative to establish international standards and rules to improve accountability and predictability for agricultural trade. Additionally, FAS partners up with cooperators like the U.S. Apple Export Council to help US exporters develop and maintain agricultural export markets. FAS distributes funding to these cooperators via the Farm Bill under programs such as the Market Access Program (MAP), Technical Assistance for Specialty Crop (TASC), and Emerging Market Programs (EMP). Each of these programs keep US products more competitive and counter subsidized foreign competition in the international market. map and emp funding

The Market Access Program (MAP), provides an opportunity for various organizations to pursue overseas marketing and promotional activities in order to build commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products and commodities. MAP funding is extremely helpful for groups, such as the COC, to perform these activities at a shared cost with FAS. MAP has the ability to reach many parts of the globe, and ultimately helps to build international markets for a wide variety of U.S. farm and food products. FAS provides cost-share assistance to eligible U.S. organization for various activities including: consumer advertising, public relations, point- of-sale demonstrations, participation in trade fairs and exhibits, market research, and technical assistance. The idea is that FAS wants to encourage U.S. organizations to pursue international markets by utilizing the funding they are willing to provide. The Emerging Market Program (EMP) helps U.S. organizations promote exports of U.S. agricultural products to countries that have, or are developing, market-oriented economies and that have the potential to be viable commercial markets. Through EMP, FAS provides cost- share funding for technical assistance activities such as: feasibility studies, market research, sectorial assessments, orientation visits, specialized training, and business workshops.

157 158 Export Summaries China

Bryant Christie Inc. (BCI) was retained by the California Olive Committee (COC) to conduct an assessment of the Chinese market for California ripe olives. The project sought to identify opportunities and assess the market potential for the introduction of California ripe olives in China, as well as to develop a deepened understanding of the Chinese retail markets including consumer trends, distribution, pricing, regulations, key importers, and target cities within China. Furthermore, BCI sought to identify activity recommendations for COC’s market development strategy through assessing importers’ business and product needs. Olive usage and awareness in China is presently limited. Olive oil is the more pervasive product on the market. Table olives from Europe have gained limited recognition but the product is not marketed and RXUcontactsZHUHXQDZDUHRIDQ\educational push to expand consumption. The California Olive Committee could therefore take a leadership position by SURDFWLYHO\ working to increase product awareness and broaden distribution. +RZHYHU the Committee will need to overcome a number of constraints LQ RUGHU WR DFFRPSOLVKWKLV California olives are more expensive than competing products on the market, primarily from Europe. European olives have an added advantage of being perceived as premium, native production. Additionally, olives are not a known food in China. They are grown locally in small quantities, but the local product is often consumed dried as a snack or in WKH form of D paste. Olives as a side dish or an ingredient are more of a western practice, and this can be seen in China WKURXJKRXWhigh-end hotel chains or western style restaurants. Chinese restaurateurs and FRQVXPHUVZLOOQHHGHGXFDWLRQDERXWWKHXVHVDQG EHQHILWVRIROLYHVDQGEHJLYHQRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsample the product. Fortunately, trends in China are likely to provide these opportunities. The foodservice sector is experiencing dynamic growth and western foods are increasingly popular. Pizza is reportedly the fastest growing foodservice cuisine, a development that has attracted renewed investment from Domino’s and other major chains. Italian and Mexican foods ERWK RI ZKLFK IHDWXUH ROLYHV are also showing VWHDG\ growth. Western establishments provide a channel to introduce and promote olives to a growing consumer base. The retail channel is also developing with competition from foreign-owned retail giants and Chinese e-commerce platforms. Many of the sector’s leading players emphasize imported products. Imported food is considered to be a higher value product and offers a food safety record unmatched by local food production. Imports also cater to the newfound wealth of Chinese consumers whose income gains over the past decade make their purchase possible. One retail chain in Beijing FXUUHQWO\ carrLHV California olives but others, for now, focus more exclusively on European product. This could change with marketing approaches that showcase and demonstrate the differences between the PHOORZ QXWW\ IODYRU RI D California oliveDQGWKHEROGHUPRUHDVWULQJHQWWDVWHRI(XURSHDQROLYHV In short, BCI determined that income growth, economic development, and ongoing demand for western products at retail and in the foodservice sector combine to create an opportunity for California olive exports. The full report from BCI on the Chinese market for California ripe olives isRQWKHIROORZLQJSDJHV

159 160 Prepared by Bryant Christie Inc. for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute Assessment of China as an Export Market for California Olives

Prepared for: California Olive Committee Date: April 3, 2018

161 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bryant Christie Inc. was asked to assess the market in China for California ripe olives. Our approach combined desk research and meetings with importers, distributors, retailers, foodservice contacts, and government officials. Our findings have been reported throughout this document. In short, BCI determined that income growth, economic development, and ongoing demand for western products at retail and in the foodservice sector combine to create an opportunity for California olive exports.

Olive usage and awareness in China is presently limited. Olive oil is the more pervasive product on the market. Table olives from Europe have gained limited recognition but the product is not marketed and contacts knew of no educational push to expand consumption. The California Olive Committee could therefore take a leadership position by proactively working to increase product awareness and broaden distribution. To do so the Committee will need to overcome a number of constraints.

California olives are more expensive than competing products on the market, primarily from Europe. European olives have an added advantage of being perceived as premium, native production. Additionally, olives are not a known food in China. They are grown locally in small quantities, but the local product is often consumed dried as a snack or in a form of paste. Olives as a side dish or an ingredient are more of a western practice, and this can be seen in China in high-end hotel chains or western style restaurants. Chinese restaurateurs and consumers will need education about olive uses and benefits and be given opportunities to sample the product.

Fortunately, trends in China are likely to provide these opportunities. The foodservice sector is experiencing dynamic growth and western foods are increasingly popular. Pizza is reportedly the fastest growing foodservice cuisine, a development that has attracted renewed investment from Domino’s and other major chains. Italian and Mexican foods are also showing growth. Western establishments provide a channel to introduce and promote olives to a growing consumer base.

The retail channel is also developing with competition from foreign-owned retail giants and Chinese e-commerce platforms. Many of the sector’s leading players emphasize imported products. Imported food is considered to be a higher value product and offers a food safety record unmatched by local food production. Imports also cater to the newfound wealth of Chinese consumers whose income gains over the past decade make their purchase possible. One retail chain in Beijing does carry California olives already but others, for now, focus more exclusively on European product. This could change with marketing approaches that showcase and demonstrate the differences between the California olive’s more mellow flavor and the bolder, more astringent taste of European olives.

The California Olive Committee would do well to initiate activities targeting the trade in top tier cities such as Shanghai and Beijing. It will be important to expand availability in those cities before consumer education is likely to provide a significant return on investment. Trade shows, technical seminars, chef training, educational materials, and partnerships with western chains should all be considered. In time, retail and foodservice promotions and media outreach will also make sense.

Compared to other U.S. food product exports, regulatory work is unlikely to be needed, which simplifies the export process. While California olives are treated with a food additive, ferrous gluconate, it is approved for use in China, and as a canned, preserved product there is no need for phytosanitary clearance.

162 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 1 of 15

INTRODUCTION Bryant Christie Inc. (BCI) was retained by the California Olive Committee (COC) to conduct an assessment of the Chinese market for California ripe olives. The project sought to identify opportunities and assess the market potential for the introduction of California ripe olives in China, as well as to develop a deepened understanding of the Chinese retail markets including consumer trends, distribution, pricing, regulations, key importers, and target cities within China. Furthermore, BCI sought to identify activity recommendations for COC’s market development strategy through assessing importers’ business and product needs.

Current awareness and usage of olives in China is limited. Table olives from Europe (Spain primarily) are most prevalent but olives are not a traditional food in Chinese cuisine and are onlygrown locally in very small quantities. They have gained attention for health benefits and, as a result, there has been growing usage of olives and olive oil in the Chinese foodservice sector and a growing retail presence; however, the market remains in its infancy. In recent years, Chinese olive imports (not including oil) have totaled, on average, about USD$2,500,000 annually and 1.3 million kilograms. Spain accounts for approximately 90% of these imports. Nevertheless, enduring Chinese economic growth has contributed to changes in food consumption and demand which favors an increase in olive consumption. Western foods have and are expected to continue to grow in popularity, including for many cuisines (American, Italian, Mexican, etc.) where olives are frequently incorporated. In light of this interest, China has seen a boom in online retailers that feature imported Western foods that are in demand for health, convenience, and food safety reasons. Select brick and mortar retail establishments in the country’s major cities also focus on these imported products to cater to upper income customers and expat clientele. Despite these developments, olive use and consumption is minimal, suggesting that opportunity exists for the commodity if there is a marketing push behind consumer education and trial.

This report summarizes these and other findings of BCI’s research into the Chinese olive market. The findings come from extensive desk research and personal meetings with Chinese importers, retailers, foodservice operators, and other contacts in Shanghai and Beijing. For more information about the findings in this report please contact Sarah Gelpi, Bryant Christie Inc. at (916) 492-7062 or by email at [email protected]. PROJECT APPROACH BCI staff initially conducted in-house desk research to examine Chinese olive, consumption, trade flows, trends, and other factors influencing the market. Sources for this effort included the Global Trade Atlas, USDA/FAS Attaché and GAIN Reports, the CIA World Factbook, and a variety of trade publications. A study commissioned by the International Olive Council provided a wealth of data and history of the market, though the study was completed in 2010 and so did not reflect the more recent trends and opportunities derived from economic growth over the past decade.

Following the desk research, BCI staff along with two representatives from the California Olive Committee visited China for meetings with the local trade. An in-market contractor was retained to assist with meeting arrangements and logistics. The group visited Shanghai and Beijing for meetings with United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service officials, and with

163 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 2 of 15

importers, trading companies, retailers, foodservice operators, chefs, and other contacts familiar with the market for olives or more generally for imported specialty foods. A list of contacts met during that trip has been provided in the Appendix.

Material collected from the desk research and field visits was insightful. Awareness and usage of olives in China is surprisingly low and it is clear that suppliers have not been actively marketing the commodity to generate attention and trial. It appears there is legitimate opportunity for the California Olive Committee (COC) to take on that role and to differentiate California ripe olives from European table olives and olive oils that have achieved a bit more market prominence. Trade meetings in China highlighted a number of tactics and approaches that the COC could consider if initiating and more robust market development plan there. These are offered throughout this report. MARKET OVERVIEW With a population nearing 1.4 billion, China accounts for 19% of the world’s people. The middle class alone is estimated to include over 770 million people. Within that number, about 1/7th earn between $50,000 and $500,000. The wealth created by China’s economic growth over the last two decades has been staggering and has transformed the country from a rural agrarian-based economy to a manufacturing, and technology powerhouse. This has lifted incomes for millions of consumers which has, in turn, brought about significant change in food consumption and demand.

As a direct result of this economic expansion, Chinese consumers are more connected than ever to international markets, foreign businesses and brands, and imported food products. In addition, healthy and high value food products have been a major focus for importers as Chinese consumers have largely adopted the health and nutrition trends seen elsewhere. China’s own agricultural production has also evolved to include high-value commodities from blueberries to red wine that are favored for their health benefits locally and in export markets around the world. Interest in these types of products has brought change to the country’s retail sector which now features big box hypermarkets competing against advanced e-commerce sites with both channels developing the logistics and infrastructure to handle imported products. It is expected that quick, inexpensive, and freshly pre-prepared foods will gain popularity as this trend continues to develop among the Chinese consumer population.

The developments in China have affected the global olive trade much as they have other commodities. China is now the largest import market for premium olive oil, despite the fact that olives are relatively unknown among consumers and olive oil is not a traditional part of the Chinese diet. Peanut oil has long been favored for home and foodservice usage, however olives and olive oil have been recognized by various groups, such as the China Vegetable Oil Association, as a top health food. This led to a surge in demand for olive oil in particular as upper income consumers looked to adopt more of a well- documented Mediterranean diet.

China’s increasing interest in the Mediterranean diet has also led to an increase in imported table olives. Currently, Spain dominates with over 90% of imports, with 1,306 metric tons in 2016 with a value of $2.1 million1. Spain’s massive market share is understandable based on their position as a leading producer and supplier of both table olives and olive oil. However, since oil is that country’s primary focus, this could leave a market window for California and other U.S. suppliers of canned product to

1 UN Comtrade International Trade Statistics Database. United Nations. December 2017.

164 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 3 of 15

the foodservice sector. With the Chinese economy continuing to perform well following nearly two decades of growth, the timing is good for more proactive olive marketing and sales.

ECONOMIC PROFILE Since the late 1970s, China has been transitioning from a closed, centrally-planned economy to a more market-oriented one. This shift has brought rapid economic growth to the country. Today China is a middle-income country, but it’s market reforms are incomplete and per capita income is still a fraction of that in advanced countries. Nevertheless, China has been the largest contributor to world economic growth since the global financial crisis of 2008.

China’s nominal 2016 GDP was US$11.2 trillion. That makes its economy the 2nd largest in the world (behind the United States with $18.6 trillion). China became the world's largest exporter in 2010, and the largest trading nation in 2013. When measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis that adjusts for price differences, China in 2016 actually surpassed the United States and stood as the largest economy in the world. CIA estimates that 2016 purchasing power of Chinese GDP was US$21.29 trillion. Using the PPP approach, China’s 2016 GDP per capita was US$15,400. Though the rate of growth has declined in recent years, China’s real GDP still grew by 6.7% in 2016 and 6.8% in 2017.far above the global average of 3.2%.

As an outcome of this period of strong economic performance, China’s middle class has grown tremendously. Per capita disposable incomes, even amidst slower growth in recent years, continue to increase at double-digit rates. During the period 2012 to 2020, according to Euromonitor, total disposable income will increase by a cumulative 69.2% in real terms – growing at an average annual rate of 6.8%.2 This has provided a significant boost in demand for imported agricultural, food, and beverage products. A variety of food safety scandals and infrastructural deficiencies in China have also played a role. The scandals have eroded Chinese confidence in domestic safety regulations and production practices while inadequate refrigeration and storage capacity along with poor road conditions and congested highways makes it difficult for local producers to deliver products efficiently and in good condition. In the country’s larger cities where imported food products are readily available, the quality differences are notable. Imported foods are therefore held in higher regard and are perceived to be superior quality and safer. U.S. agricultural suppliers have particularly benefitted. The United States is China’s number one supplier of agricultural products with U.S. agricultural sales there exceeding $21.4 billion in 2016.

China’s economic growth has also brought about a number of other important developments that will continue to shape the market for years to come. Rapid economic expansion has been concentrated in urban, coastal parts of the country which has resulted in mass migration to those areas. In fact, over the last fifty years, China’s urbanization has unfolded on a scale unprecedented in human history. In 1977 17.5% of the population lived in cities. By 2000 the urban share of the population had grown to 35.9%. In 2017 the urban share of the population grew to 56.8%.

At present, China has around 770 million urban residents. The income of urban households is, on average, almost three and a half times higher than that of rural households. China urbanizes roughly 20 million residents per year, immediately creating new consumers. By 2022, more than 75% of

2 Xian, Vivian, (Feb. 2015), China HRI Food Service Sector Annual Report, GAIN Report CH56006, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

165 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 4 of 15

China’s urban consumers will earn US$9,000-34,000 per year. Back in 2000, only 4% of urban consumers fell in that range. Middle class expansion is fueled by labor market and policy initiatives that push wages up, financial reforms that stimulate employment and income growth, and the rising role of private enterprise, which should encourage productivity gains and help more income accrue to households.

Within the burgeoning middle class, the upper middle class is poised to become the principal engine of consumer spending over the next decade. McKinsey defines upper middle class as earning US$16,000-34,000 per year, and “mass middle class” as US$9,000-16,000. In 2012, 14% of urban consumers were upper and 54% were mass. By 2022, 54% will be upper middle class and 22% will be mass middle class.

China’s urban working-age group, ages 15 to 59 years, currently totals 521 million, but has been projected to reach 628 million by 2030. This pool of high income consumers is the real target for suppliers to China. Generally, this group of consumers are more optimistic about their financial future and are more willing than previous generations to spend a greater share of their disposable income.

A rise in two income households in China has also driven the increase in spending. Workers in China’s urban areas simply have less time for food preparation or are removed from the family or community environment where that responsibility was held by others. As a result, demand for convenience foods has grown along with spending in the foodservice sector.

The economic transformation described above has touched coastal and eastern provinces of the country more than interior/western regions. Wealth generation has been particularly notable in Greater Beijing, Greater Shanghai, and Greater Guangzhou. All three areas (Beijing as the Capital and Shanghai and Guangzhou as major trading and business hubs) have large populations of North American and European expatriates and significant investment from leading western businesses and multinational corporations. As a result, exposure to and demand for western foods in those areas has risen dramatically. These areas alone present a major target for imported foods, but other parts of the country should not be overlooked. From 2012-2022, according to a report by McKinsey, China’s middle class growth rate will be highest in smaller cities in northern and western China, outside the Tier One group.3

OLIVE SUPPLY The International Olive Council commissioned a study of China’s olive market and local production in 2010. That study titled “Study on the Promotion of Consumption of Olive Oil and Table Olives in China” remains among the leading sources on the history and development of China’s olive industry.

According to that study, the first olive trees were planted in China from European rootstock in the 1960s. Olive trees perform best in tropical and sub-tropical regions and so the Chinese production has largely been concentrated in southern Gansu Province, in Shaanxi Province, and in Sichuan

3 Barton, Dominic, Yougang Chen, and Amy Jin, (June 2013), “Mapping China’s Middle Class,” McKinsey Quarterly, McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/mapping-chinas- middle-class

166 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 5 of 15

Province. Since their original introduction, it is estimated that there are now about 400 million olive trees in China spread out over about 136,000 hectares.

Historically, olive use in China has differed from use in Europe or North America. For much of their history, Chinese table olives have primarily been dried and consumed as snacks. More recently, with global media attention documenting the health benefits of olive and olive oil consumption, the Chinese industry has begun turning its attention to oil production. According to a 2016 article in Olive Oil Business News, there are now 25 mills producing olive oil in the country.4 However, Chinese growing conditions have not proven good enough to support mass production of olives and olive oil. The industry continues to see investment but China is a significant net importer of olives and olive oil with the focus among importers, retailers, and foodservice users being on Chinese olives olive oil to a far greater extent than table olives. In 2017, Chinese sources reported olive oil imports totaled nearly 45,000 metric tons compared to table olive imports from all sources totaling just 1,320 metric tons. The table below shows three-year average imports of table olives (HS Code 2005.70 - provisionally preserved olives) from all suppliers.

Percent of Percent of Supplier Value (US$) Netweight (kg) Total Value Total Volume Spain 2,004,972 1,196,418 83.3% 90.6% United Kingdom 119,113 35,570 4.9% 2.7% Italy 115,744 34,322 4.8% 2.6% Greece 92,331 29,499 3.8% 2.2% Turkey 20,211 10,387 0.8% 0.8% France 23,618 7,698 1.0% 0.6% Belgium 8,674 1,340 0.4% 0.1% Jordan 2,581 1,264 0.1% 0.1% Australia 7,845 1,113 0.3% 0.1% Portugal 2,392 858 0.1% 0.1% Morocco 4,485 640 0.2% 0.0% USA 2,776 611 0.1% 0.0% Egypt 832 468 0.0% 0.0% Asia NESOI 1,033 108 0.0% 0.0% Croatia 184 21 0.0% 0.0% Iran 68 11 0.0% 0.0% Grand Total 2,406,859 1,320,329 100.0% 100.0% Chinese imports of HS 2005.70 (provisionally preserved olives), Annual averages for 3-year period (2014-2016) Source: UN Comtrade International Trade Statistics Database. Spain, as has been mentioned previously, is by far the largest exporter of table olives to China with over 90% of the market for imports. Beyond Spain, other leading suppliers are also European with the UK, Italy, Greece accounting for approximately 100 metric tons combined. The United States is further down the list. The table on the following page shows U.S. table olive exports to China over the past five years. Even at the height of U.S. exports (2012), the United States was a bit player in the market and exports amounted to only a few pallets.

4 “Olive Growing in China”, Olive Oil Business News. September 9, 2016. https://www.oliveoilmarket.eu/olive- growing-in-china/

167 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 6 of 15

CHINA: IMPORTS OF U.S. TABLE OLIVES 2012-2016 Year Metric Tons Trade Value (US$) Market Share 2012 1.816 $6,694 0.21% 2013 0.265 $1,713 0.04% 2014 0.114 $1,072 0.01% 2015 1.292 $5,532 0.09% 2016 0.426 $1,724 0.03% Source: UN Comtrade Statistics

U.S. table olive exports to China are supplied by one company and are at present limited to one retail chain in the Beijing area. Jenny Wang is an upscale retail chain store that caters to upper income residents, government employees, and expatriates in an around the capital.

CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND PREFERENCES Olive oil is the product form that garners the most attention in China right now. The Chinese government and consumers are well aware of the health benefits that have been associated with olive/olive oil consumption, and as a result, the commodity is gaining popularity. But olive oil is considered a higher value product than table olives, and more versatile in home or foodservice sector use. As a result, oil is the main focus of importers and end-users. China annually imports around 40,000 metric tons of olive oil (principally from Spain) on top of the approximately 5,000 metric tons produced domestically.5

Aside from olive oil, there is little trade or consumer awareness of table olives. Complete lack of marketing support or technical education related to olives is part of the explanation. Despite growing interest in olives and olive oil in particular among Chinese traders and consumers, retail and foodservice contacts interviewed for this study were unaware of any concerted marketing campaign

5 “China’s expanding olive oil market stimulates global production,” Xinhua. As reported on China Daily, July, 21, 2017. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-07/21/content_30201293.htm

168 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 7 of 15

by European olive associations or export companies. For this reason, imported table olives are most commonly found in upscale retail establishments, hotels, and restaurants only and are most frequently used as a side dish. Local olives have even more basic uses and are typically dried for consumption as a snack or occasionally in a paste.

As an example of the lack of knowledge regarding table olives among the local trade, most contacts interviewed for this report were unaware that there are different olive varieties and that European table olives have a different taste and flavor profile than California olives. Only a few contacts had tried California olives and knew of their subtler, less astringent flavor. Most were only aware of European olives and commented that Chinese consumers generally have an unfavorable perception of table olives having only sampled European varieties which Chinese olive paste they found to be sour/bitter and too strong. Moreover, once made aware of the milder flavor of California olives, all contacts indicated there could be an opportunity for increased consumption in Chinese market, with the right educational tools in place. All contacts emphasized the need for technical education about California olives as a part of any future marketing campaign to introduce the product. This recommendation is covered more fully later in this report.

With no other producer organization or supplier known to be implementing a marketing or educational campaign for olives, there is an opportunity for the California Olive Committee to fill the void. What is more, the timing is favorable with various consumer trends pointing toward increased interest and consumption of olives in the future. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service has reported on many of these trends. In their annual Exporter Guide and retail and HRI sector reports, FAS officials have remarked on:

x Explosive growth for ready-to-eat foods6 x Rising demand for fresher, more nutritious, and convenient products x Increased exposure and continued growth in western cuisine via international restaurant chains and hotels. Pizza chains, in particular are poised for further expansion in China while contacts have reported a growing presence of taco bars and Mexican food outlets; Taco Bell is making a renewed push into China after having pulled out of the market a few years ago. x Favorable perception of U.S. foods x Steadily increasing spending on food with consumption of imported foods as a share of total food consumption continuing to rise7 x Growth in western-style food retail

These trends show no signs of slowing even with though the pace of economic growth has over the past few years. This is simply because more and more Chinese consumers are exposed to western products each year and have the disposable income now to purchase those products with regularity.

6 Freese, Roseanne, (Dec. 2016), China Exporter Guide, GAIN Report SH0001, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 7 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, ATO China Staff, (Jan. 2016), Retail Foods – China, GAIN Report SH0001.

169 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 8 of 15 ACCESSING THE MARKET Since California ripe olives are a non-perishable, processed and preserved product, the typical barriers for most agricultural products do not apply. The industry does not need to take special shipping precautions to ensure freshness, the product is unlikely to be tested or to yield undue chemical pesticide residues, and a phytosanitary agreement is not needed for export to China. Pests and diseases are of no concern with processed, preserved olives. Even food additive regulations are inconsequential for the commodity. The only additive used on canned California ripe olives is ferrous gluconate, a water soluble iron salt that also serves as a color stabilizer for black olives. According to Bryant Christie Inc.’s International Food Additive Database, ferrous gluconate is permitted by China in olives only and expressly for color retention.

Though there are no non-tariff barriers that keep California olives out of the market, California ripe olives face a 10% tariff in China (HS Code 2005.70). This is China’s Most Favored Nation rate and is equivalent to the tariff assessed on imported olives from most other producers. Australia is one notable exception. Australia has a Free Trade Agreement in place with China that has gradually reduced agricultural tariffs. Olives from Australia now face a 2% tariff in China and that tariff will be phased out completely in January 2019. While Australia does have a relatively small table olive industry (125 producers and about 4,500 metric tons produced per year), the industry does export small volumes to China. For example, in 2016, Australia exported 1.2 metric tons valued at approximately $9,550 to China.

Australia’s coming ability to export table olives to China duty-free is worth noting as it increases the likelihood of Australian product taking additional shelf space at retail that might otherwise go to California. However, the Australian table olive industry competes more directly with European producers than with those in California. Australian table olives are primarily the Kalamata variety (though Manzanillo and other varieties are produced). They are canned and available green or black in whole, sliced, halved and pitted forms. California ripe olives are primarily the Manzanillo and Sevillano varieties and the curing process favored in California generally produces black olives with a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. California ripe olives target both the retail and foodservice sector with canned olives in whole, pitted, sliced, wedged, and chopped forms. California product is different from the European-type table olives that consumers are often more accustomed to. California ripe olives are favored for many foodservice applications in the United States from pizzas to salads to taco bars and are purchased for at home consumption with these same uses in mind. In China, in light of growth in the foodservice sector for this same western fare, there should be opportunities to introduce California ripe olives to a new and growing consumer base.

In the absence of trade barriers, obstacles to California olive exports to China appear to be mostly related to trade and consumer awareness of the product. Specifically:

1. Importers, retailers and foodservice users are not aware of the availability of California ripe olives and how the product differs from European table olives that are more common in the market. 2. Few Chinese retail or foodservice buyers or staff have had the chance to sample California ripe olives and California olives are almost entirely unknown among Chinese consumers. Table olives (primarily from Europe) are underutilized in China and primarily as a side dish or in cocktails. Chinese consumers that have tried them have been unimpressed with the bitter

170 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 9 of 15

taste. They are unaware that California ripe olives have a mellower taste and are an excellent ingredient on a variety of dishes. 3. Chefs and other hospitality employees in China rarely receive exposure to olives and have received no exposure to California ripe olives or formal training on their use. As a result, they have little opportunity or incentive to experience with olives or learn about varieties available. 4. Chinese consumers perceive canned food as less healthy than fresh product.

There is an opportunity for the California Olive Committee and its members to fill the void that exists in China for olive education and promotion. In doing so, there is an opportunity to increase retail and foodservice demand and use of the products. DISTRIBUTION Importers and distributors hold the key to market entry, though some retailers are in a position to purchase directly from foreign suppliers. The following table provides a helpful display of typical distribution channels for U.S. products to enter China’s foodservice sector. While it is possible for suppliers to work directly with end customers, it is more common for Chinese distributors or U.S. based consolidators to be involved. These partners provide valuable services including guiding their suppliers to meet the product entry and certification requirements in China. Consolidators can be particularly helpful when buyers are looking to source small volumes of similar products from a variety of suppliers.

Source: HRI distribution flow chart, from China HRI GAIN report8

8 Xian, Vivian, (Feb. 2015), China HRI Food Service Sector Annual Report, GAIN Report CH56006, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

171 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 10 of 15

Accessing China’s retail sector is similar. Chinese retailers (whether traditional brick and mortar operations, e-commerce sites, or both) also rely extensively on importers/distributors. JD.com is the country’s largest online retailer. In an interview for this project, Marisa Liu, Senior Manager of Imported Merchandise Department, outlined three models for foreign products to enter the JD.com assortment. Suppliers can sponsor their own storefront on the platform or alternatively JD.com will source for Chinese importers/distributors or, in rare cases, directly from suppliers. For California ripe olives, a product that does not yet have a strong following or consumer awareness in China, working with distributors that supply high-end retail chains, e-commerce platforms, and foodservice establishments will be critical. Fortunately, these are all growth areas in China’s economy and competition among operators in each of them creates opportunities for new products. RETAIL China’s food retail sector has transformed dramatically over the last 10-15 years with the rise of e- commerce platforms that have made a greater variety of high-value products (mostly imported) available to Chinese consumers at competitive prices. A Goldman Sachs report from February 2017 noted that China had more than 460 million online shoppers in 2016 and that sales totaled more than US$750 billion that year.9 Sales have increased since and Goldman Sachs has predicted continued growth for online sales exceeding 20% per year through 2020. By that year, according to their research, online retail is expected to have reached 25% market penetration based on further expansion for the platforms beyond tier 1 and tier 2 cities.

The largest e-commerce food retailers in China are TMall and JD.com. TMall is the online retail platform of Alibaba, while JD.com is supported by a significant WalMart investment. Both also have ties to traditional brick and mortar retail hypermarkets as they compete for online and offline shoppers. There are other smaller e-retailers that are also active and trying to carve out a niche in the market. These companies have combined to drive China to become the largest e-commerce market in the world. Their growth has been derived from a number of advantages. Instead of physical retail stores in high-rent areas of the cities they service, these e-retailers have invested in lower cost distribution centers/warehouses often outside of the city. This keeps cost down while allowing deliveries to customers on the same day. Their cost structure has also benefitted from Chinese import regulations that have promoted cross-border imports at reduced tariff rates. As a result, e-retailers have essentially been encouraged to offer imported products and are able to sell them at prices that compete with traditional retailers. The wide variety of imported goods available through these online platforms has attracted millions of Chinese consumers. Again, the perception that imported food products are better than domestically produced options has driven sales.

California ripe olive suppliers should explore options to connect with Chinese e-retailers. To an extent, that process began with JD.com during a meeting with that company for this research project. JD.com carries small volumes of Spanish table olives presently but nothing from California. Olive oil is a much bigger seller on their platform. Based on the meeting, JD.com is unlikely to be an immediate sales channel for California ripe olives but could be over time as the California Olive Committee works to introduce the product and to overcome consumer awareness constraints.

9 “China E-Commerce; Shopping Re-Imagined.” Ronald Keung, Anita Yiu, Piyush Mubayi, Sho Kawano, Elsie Cheng, and Fan Liu. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. February 28, 2017.

172 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 11 of 15

Overcoming consumer awareness constraints will be equally important for sales through traditional retailers. China has an expanding traditional retail sector as well. Competition is stiff among international players (WalMart, Carrefour, Metro, RT-Mart) and domestic equivalents (Lianhua, BHG, Olè, etc.). The following table10 was made available in a recent USDA report on China’s retail landscape. It lists some of the major foreign-invested retailers and shows their growth (in sales and in store outlets). The largest players are seeing solid growth in both and that is projected to continue as incomes rise.

Researchers on this report interviewed contacts from traditional retailers in Shanghai and Beijing. Of them, only Jenny Wang, a chain of seven upscale retail stores in Beijing, carries California ripe olives. Spanish and Italian tables olives are also carried. The company’s representative reported that sales of California product total between 10,000 and 20,000 cans per year. The product is more expensive than olives from Europe (US$3.76 vs. US$2.20-2.37) although the company representative also noted that they are able to secure a better deal on their European olives because they source a wider variety of products from this particular importer. It was also noted that Chinese consumers are often willing to pay higher prices for products that offer added value, such as health benefits, high quality, or high food safety standards.

10 Bielecki, Christopher (Dec. 28, 2017), Retail Foods – Increasing Change and Competition but Plenty of Opportunities for U.S. Food Exports., GAIN Report CH0036, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

173 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 12 of 15

Other retailers visited for this research study included G-Super (pictured), Metro, and CityShop. All carry a selection of European olives with prices ranging from around US$2.55 to $3.03 depending on the brand and can size. Can sizes at these traditional retail stores were typically 350 grams or 405 grams, though Metro carried larger sizes (1.8kg and 3kg) for foodservice use. The largest 3kg can was priced at 73.50RMB, or approximately US$11.70. An important take-away from meetings with all of these retailers was that promotion and education related to olives in China is largely nonexistent. The product sells in these markets to westerners and Chinese that have lived abroad or traveled extensively allowing them to gain familiarity with the product. But there are few, if any, promotions that encourage trial among new consumers. These would be needed for California ripe olives to expand their presence in Chinese retail.

HOTEL, RESTAURANT, INSTITUTIONAL (HRI) China’s HRI sector is also undergoing transition. Dining out is a more regular weekly occurrence for Chinese consumers in top tier cities, with an increasing percentage of income going towards food in those areas. Third and fourth tier cities are not far behind with wage and income growth rippling out to the country’s smaller cities as well. China already boasts the largest HRI market and growth is expected to remain strong over the next few years. Fast-food chains, in particular, are benefitting. Western chains dominate China’s fast food sector. They are desired because their global brand carries cachet and they offer affordable, safe, and convenient food. These benefits satisfy the changing lifestyles of many Chinese consumers. Surging demand for western fast food from known brands is what lead Taco Bell to recently return to China after leaving the market in 2008. Three outlets opened there in 2017 and the company sees China as a major component in its international growth plan going forward.11

Other U.S. fast food chains are already well established in China. Two other brands within the YUM portfolio (KFC and Pizza Hut) have been successful in China for many years. They are the leading fast-food chains in the country. California ripe olives are a natural fit for pizza though the western chains operating in China currently source European product. The fast food pizza category is, however, experiencing dynamic growth. Fusion Shanghai is a foodservice company that focuses on pizza. The company sells finished pizzas but also sells ingredients and provides training to other pizza establishments. When interviewed for this study the Fusion Shanghai representative remarked that pizza restaurants are the fastest growing sector within China’s foodservice sector. While that statement has not been independently substantiated, the pizza sector there is getting a boost from the renewed interest of Domino’s. Domino’s has been in China for over twenty years but with only about 100 stores. The company originally struggled to adapt to the different tastes and consumption patterns of Chinese consumers. Consumption has changed since then. Demand for pizza and for take-out foods is high and Domino’s sees an opportunity to expand considerably to match Pizza Hut’s more established position. The Fusion representative mentioned there are an estimated 30,000 pizza restaurants in China which is less than half (~75,000) the number in the United States.12

According to officials with the U.S. Agricultural Trade Offices in China, the country’s pizza and pasta establishments are a natural starting point for California ripe olive market development outreach. Pizza, pasta, and salads are the most common uses for olives right now and U.S. product could replace

11 “YUM China is building more Taco Bells”, Rossolillo, Nicholas. The Motley Fool. January 10, 2018. http://www.businessinsider.com/yum-china-building-more-taco-bells-2018-1 12 https://www.statista.com/statistics/377597/number-of-pizza-restaurants-us/

174 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 13 of 15

European or Australian olives if foodservice operators were aware of the product and its differences from what these other suppliers offer. Signature trade shows such as SIAL and Food and Hotel China (FHC) provide an opportunity to generate broad exposure. FHC, for example, offers the China Pizza Championship as part of its annual showcase.

PACKAGING AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS California’s olive suppliers will need to meet Chinese packaging and labeling requirements to access the retail and foodservice sectors. Chinese labeling regulations require labels to be printed in simplified Chinese characters (with the exception of registered trademarks). English is permitted in addition to Chinese print if it is of equal or smaller size to the Chinese print. Labels must include the following information: x Name of the food x List of ingredients x Name, address, and contact information of manufacturers and/or distributors x Date of manufacture and date of minimum durability x Conditions for storage x Net weight and configuration by weight in grams or kilograms

Separate from the ingredient panel, nutritional labeling must adhere to the following requirements expressed as amount per serving or amount per 100grams: x Energy value x Core nutrients, which refers to the following: R Protein R Fat R Carbohydrate R Sodium x If ingredients contain hydrogenated fat or partially hydrogenated fat, the content of trans-fat (fatty acid) must be listed RECOMMENDATIONS Meetings with government officials and trade contacts in China indicated that there are legitimate opportunities to develop California ripe olive exports to China, but a persistent educational effort will be required while export volumes are likely to start off small. Most Chinese consumers are unfamiliar with olives. When trying them for the first time Chinese consumers tend to be put off by the bitter taste. For now, table olives are primarily consumed by westerners living, working, or visiting China or locals that have spent time abroad and been introduced to olives in Europe or North America. That being said, as the influences of western culture and dining habits spreads, there will be more opportunities for Chinese consumers to gain exposure to olives. Usage through pizza shops, and Mexican and Italian restaurants is a first step, and those outlets alone present a sizable opportunity for California suppliers.

Recommendations were offered for reaching the trade and separately for consumer facing activities. These are outlined below. A general consensus was that the California Olive Committee should begin with trade-oriented work. Increasing distribution for California ripe olives to retail and foodservice establishments will be needed before consumer education activities would make sense.

175 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 14 of 15

TRADE California olives are not known in China. Many trade contacts interviewed for this study were unaware that California was a supplier of olives. European product is generally at the forefront in the market. For this reason, the California Olive Committee would benefit from: x Targeting western foodservice/pizza chains in an attempt to include California ripe olives in their ingredient assortment.

x Developing messages and educational materials that highlight points of differentiation between California ripe olives and European varieties/styles that are more common in the market. Materials should also highlight any health benefits from eating olives, and play up food safety and quality themes. x Conducting technical seminars and cooking demonstrations that demonstrate unique features of California olives, including how its flavor profile compares to Spanish (mild, buttery vs. bitter, sour) varieties, and how to incorporate the product into new recipes. x Developing recipes that incorporate California olives in Chinese/Asian recipes such as dumplings, stuffings, dressings, marinades, etc. x Utilizing western chefs to train Chinese chefs on the uses of olives. Chinese chefs do not typically receive formal training with new ingredients. They learn from their mentors and use ingredients that their mentors are familiar with. Alternatively, Chinese chefs that are currently using olives in Chinese dishes could be used to train other Chinese chefs on the flavor profile and uses of olives in Chinese cuisine. Under either scenario, the COC could work with a restaurant to create a California olive themed dinner for invited trade and media. x Showcasing California ripe olives at major trade shows like Food and Hotel China and SIAL. x Considering sponsoring an entry into the pizza challenge at FHC or perhaps sponsoring the Chinese pizza team at the Pizza Expo in Las Vegas. x Supporting a reverse trade mission. As an example, the COC could bring Chinese chefs to the U.S. during olive harvest; show them harvest and processing, educate about the industry and build familiarity with the product. x Creating and disseminating informational videos on the industry, harvest, unique properties of California olives. x Look for ways to utilize additional EMP funding, or other FAS grants including TASC and QSP – FAS encourages Cooperators to utilize all programs available to them. x Consider a cooking school live stream to educate chefs and at home cooks on how to utilize California olives

Related to all of the above suggestions, the COC should also look into further use of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Emerging Markets Program (EMP) and Quality Samples Program (QSP) in addition to Market Access Program resources.

176 California Olive Committee – China Market Assessment February 7, 2018; Page 15 of 15

CONSUMER Once the California ripe olive industry has secured broader retail and foodservice distribution in China it will be equally important to develop marketing and promotional activities that educate Chinese consumers about the product and that encourage trial. The COC should consider:

x Developing a theme around California olives that attaches meaning to the product. Olive branches are internationally known for “Peace” and so that could provide an opening for branding and marketing.

x Utilizing WeChat to engage consumers; 1 article/week as well as videos and other online tools.

x Developing consumer-focused recipes and educational materials on California olives, their uses and benefits.

x Funding in-store sampling events (this could be considered immediately with the retailer Jenny Wang in the Beijing area, but the return on investment would likely be small with only that one retail operator carrying U.S. product).

x Participating in ATO-sponsored marketing programs – a pizza restaurant promotion is being considered for 2018.

x Linking up with other USDA MAP Cooperator groups that promote in China with complimentary commodities. This could include the U.S. Meat Export Federation, the Distilled Spirits Council, or other groups.

x Ensuring that the California/USA origin of the product is clear from the label. U.S. products enjoy a reputation for quality and safety. CONCLUSION Bryant Christie Inc. appreciated the opportunity to work with the California Olive Committee on this important project. Contact information for individuals and organizations that were interviewed as part of this project has been provided as an Appendix. For questions about this report, its findings or recommendations, the Committee is encouraged to contact Sarah Gelpi at [email protected].

177 APPENDIX - CONTACTS

ABC COOKING STUDIO Address: No.39, LG Floor, Idigo, 18 Jiuxianqiao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China Contact: Ann Zhang, Corporate; Liu Wenling, Executive Director Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

ATO BEIJING Address: No. 55, An Jia Lou Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing Contact: Mark Ford, Director; Wang Tong, Marketing Specialist Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

ATO SHANGHAI Address: Shanghai Center, Suite 331, 1376 Nanjing West Road, Shanghai Contacts: Ryan Scott, Director; Tyler Babcock, Attaché; Susan Zhang, Marketing Specialist Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

BORAGE Address: WA501, No.759, Middle Longhua Road, Shanghai Contact: Xiao Xiong, +86-15618055099

CHEF DE CUISINE OF MIO (FOUR SEASONS BEIJING) Address: No.48, Liang Ma Qiao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing Contact: Aniello Turco, Executive Chef

CHEF JOE SU Address: 278 North Shanxi Road 8/F, Jing’an District, Shanghai 200041 Contact: Chef Su, Executive Chef, +86-18601143071 Email: [email protected]

CITYSHOP Address: B1 Floor, Shanghai Center, 1376 Nanjing West Road, Shanghai Contact: Store Manager Pu, +86-13564556292

CUISINE & LOUNGE Address: Block B, 3F, 6 Zhongshan Dong Yi Lu(Bund 6), Shanghai Contact: Dick Lu, Executive Chef Email: [email protected]

FUSION SHANGHAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD. Address: No.122, Lane 1277, Zhuanxing East Road, Minhang District, Shanghai Contact: Yvonne Liu, Vice-General Manager; Joana Yuan, Purchasing Manager Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

178 GOODWELL CHINA MARKETING SERVICE CO., LTD. Address: Room 1901, No. 228, Mei Yuan Road, Enterprises Square, Shanghai Contact: Sherry Xie, Business Development Manager Email: [email protected]

GREENLAND BUSINESS GROUP CO., LTD. Address: 20F, B Greenland Center, No.600, Middle Longhua Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai Contact: Jessie Wang, Global Sourcing & M & A Department Purchaser Email: [email protected]

JD.COM Address: 16 Floor, Building C, No.18, Kechuang Shiyi Road, Beijing Contact: Marisa Liu, Senior Manager of Imported Merchandise Department Email: [email protected]

JENNY WANG Address: Yujing Garden, Baixinzhuang Village, Houshayu Town, Shunyi District, Beijing Contact: Mr. Wang Email: [email protected]

METRO CASH & CARRY Address: No.1425, Zhenbei Road, Putuo District, Shanghai Contact: Paulo Chen, Head of Catering & Services Email: [email protected]

179 180 Export Summaries India

In 2011, India began allowing Foreign Direct Investment into the retail industry. In the past, India has been closed to foreign investment which led to numerous unorganized retailing such as corner shops and hand carts. Seizing an opportunity to capture a share of one the WRSILYH UHWDLO PDUNHWV LQ WKH ZRUOG UHWDLO JLDQWV VXFK DV :DOPDUW DQG 7HVFR EHJDQ UDPSLQJ XS investment into the India retail industry. Additionally, according to the BCG Inc.H-commerce is expected to be the next major area supporting retail growth in India. The industry is projected to touch US$ 100 billion by 2020 growing from US$ 30 billion in 2016. Amazon India is investing heavily in the online retailing sector in India with the expectation that e- commerce will allow Indian consumers to shift back to eating at home more often 7KLV is likely to lead urban consumers to purchase groceries and other household supplies on a more regular basis. As typical western retail outlets and e-commerce began to spread, the Indian government increased LWV focus on healthy eating. The healthy eating campaign has fueled imports of safe and reliable products PDQ\ RI ZKLFK come from the United States. According to the Indian government, India imported approximately 3,000 metric tons of olives in 2015-2016 worth roughly US$4 million. Imports have UiVHQ annually and are expected to continuH WKLV SDWWHUQ due to India’s increasing domestic olive demand. India’s domestic olive production is heavily focused on olive oil with very little attention given to the ripe olive sector. With the LQFUHDVLQJ interest in healthy eating in India a natural transition from olive oil to ripe olives is entirely possible. With India’s middle class steadily growing, expecting to surpass its current 600 million population in the next decade, the California Olive Committee (COC) began applying for Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) funding in 2016. The initial purpose of the FAS funding will be to FRQGXFW D PDUNHW DVVHVVPHQW WR GHWHUPLQH LI ,QGLD ZLOO EH D viable market for California ripe olives. The COC will initially go after Emerging Market Program (EMP) dollars focusing on market intelligence, educational outreach, and research. Once this market intelligence, educational outreach, and research is REWDLQHGWKH&2&%RDUGZLOO GHWHUPLQH LI D IXOOIOHGJHG PDUNHWLQJ SURJUDP LV ZDUUDQWHG 7KH COC believes that India provides a high market potential, low economic risk, and moderate political risk for the future exports of California ripe olives. The initial EMP program will provide: - Market viability and potential for California ripe olives in India

- (GXFDWLRQRINH\,QGLDQUHWDLOHUVDQGRIILFLDOVRQWKHEHQHILWVRI&DOLIRUQLDULSHROLYHV - Understanding of the Indian retail and foodservice market including consumer trends, distribution, pricing, regulatory requirements, and destinations of importance - Distribution of materials differentiating California olives from European varieties.

7KHIROORZLQJUHSRUWZDVFRQGXFWHGE\&DOODQDQ &DOODQDQWKHILUPKLUHGE\WKH&2&WR DVVLVWZLWKWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIRXU(03SURJUDPLQ,QGLD

181

California Olive Committee Interim India Report

182

December 20, 2017

Submitted by- Callanan & Callanan Consulting – Washington, DC (USA) Antar Advisors Private Limited – Ahmedabad (India) CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN TRADE AND CHANNELS OF COMMERCE FOR FOOD RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION 2. OLIVE SCENARIO IN INDIA – PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS 3. INDIA MEETING DETAILS AND ITINERARY 183 4. SUMMARY OF THE MEETING ARRANGED BY ANTAR & CALLANAN CONSULTING 5. KEY OUTCOMES AND THE WAY FORWARD

2 Overview of Indian Trade and the Channels of Commerce

Retail market in India to reach USD1.3 trillion by 2020 from Organised $600 billion in 2015 Sector , Of this $120 billion is expected to come from ecommerce, 9% which stands at $23 billion (2015). The Organised sector is ~9 % and still bulk of market is % Share catered by Unorganised sector. By 2020 its expected that Retail Industry Market Size in US $ billion 2016 (E) organise market will reach 13% 1400 1300 Unorganis

184 ed Sector , 1200 91% 16% 1000 200 180 CAGR 180 800 160 140 24.5% 600 The modern retail market is 120 CAGR 600 expected to grow from $60 100 billion to USD180 billion during 400 80 60 60 FY15-FY20 200 40 20 0 0 2015-(E ) 2020(F) 2015-(E ) 2020(F)

Source: ASSOCHAM India Report, Ernst & Young, PWC, Economic Times, TechSci Research, IBEF.org Notes: CAGR - Compound Annual Growth Rate, E- Estimated , F- Forecast 3 Overview of Indian Trade and the Channels of Commerce

FOOD & GROCERY ACCOUNT FOR THE LARGEST SHARE IN INDIAN RETAIL MARKET

Footwear, 1.20% Footwear, 1% Others, 6% Furniture and Others, 5.40% Furniture and furnishing , 2% furnishing , 3.60% Pharmacy & Wellness , 2% Pharmacy & Wellness , 2.70% Consumer durables Consumer durables 185 and IT, 6% and IT, 5.20% Jewellery , 6% 2015 (E) Jewellery , 8% 2020 (F)

Apparel, 8%

Apparel, 8.70%

Food & Grocery, Food & Grocery, 69% 66.30%

Source: Source: ASSOCHAM India Report, CARE Ratings, rnst & Young, PWC, Economic Times, TechSci Research, IBEF.org Notes: E- estimated F- Forecast 4 Olive Scenario – Indian Production

• Olive cultivation in India started in 2007 the state of Rajasthan with assistance from Israel, with trial plantings in seven agro-climatic zones. • The primary focus of initiative was olives for oil production • Olive cultivation was undertaken in state-farm fields in 240 hectares as part of the Indo-Israel project. • Around 200 hectares under the National Mission on Oilseeds and Oil Palm (NMOOP) and 5,000 hectares under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) was brought under the olive cultivation in year 2015. • The state had harvested the first crop of olive fruits of 100 tonnes and also had extracted 10,000 litres of oil, which was marketed under the brand name ‘Raj Olive Oil’. 186 • Major production states of Olives in India is in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir. • Major varieties of olives in India: • Fresh/Whole Olives: Mission, Cornicobra, Ascolano, Grosseune, Picholine • Olives for Oil: Coratina, Canino, Algandeau, Frontoio, Carolea, Pendolino & Ascolanaterena.

Source: http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/features/olive-mediterranean-fruit-has-begun-thriving-in-rajasthan./story/205850.html https://yourstory.com/2015/08/rajasthan-olive-cultivation/ 5 http://www.agrifarming.in/olive-farming/ Olive Scenario – Indian Imports

Olive Import (Tons) 2199

1336 906.078 896.1 480.2 327

Black Green Others/Unspecified

187 FY 2015-16 (Apr'15-Mar'16) 1336 906.078 480.2 FY 2016-17 (Apr'15-Mar'17) 2199 896.1 327

In the past year Black Olive import has increase by more than 65%, while Green Olives has receded about 1%. Close to 2200MTs out of the total 3422 MTs of imported olives were Black Olives, while Green and others were 896 MTs and 327 MTs respectively. The others/unspecified category refers to the category of olives which has been unspecified in the data.

Source: Indian Olive Association Annual Report 2016-17 6 India Meeting Details Sr. No. Organisation Sr. No. Organisation 1 Max Foods 16 Aditya Birla Retail 2 Big Basket 17 Cargill 3 Vriddhi Speciality 18 Jivo Wellness 4 Bajoria Foods 19 Brown Tree 5 VS Logisitcs 20 Dalmiya Group 6 Delta Nutritives 21 Sunbeam Merchantile 7 Chenab Impex 22 Tan Business Venture 8 Nuts n Spices 23 Amma Nanna

188 9 MRK foods 24 Spencers 10 Rovin Impex 25 Neo Foods 11 Supreme Enterprises 26 Magson Gujarat 12 Metro Cash and Carry 27 Purple Seagull 13 Future Group 28 Pluss Advanced Technologies 14 Godrej Nature Basket 29 L-Comps 15 Magsons Goa Meeting with VS Logistics , Mumbai , October 31, 2017

About the Company: V.S.Logistics has a model experience of working as a CnF agent, Modern Trade Distributors and Super Stockiest for various multinational as well as reputed Indian companies. It started its commercial activities in 2005. Met With: Distribution Network: V.S. Logistics is a part of the distribution channel of the FMCG Distribution. Distribution channel is defined as a chain of Mr. Mihir Mehta, CEO intermediaries through which the product is passed down the chain to the next organization viz. distributor & retailer, before it finally reaches the consumer or end user. V. S. Logistics is a leading supplier of FMCG products

189 for Maharashtra with wide network of distributors. The firm covers a wide range of products which are distributed throughout the state, selling to major food retailers like Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., Bharti Wal-Mart Pvt. Ltd., Avenue Supermarts Ltd. – D’mart, Future Value Retail Ltd., Apana Bazaar, Hypercity Retail (India) Ltd., Nature’s Basket Limited Reliance Fresh Ltd., Tesco Hindustan Wholesaling Pvt. Ltd., GROFERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Metro Cash & Carry

Marketing Activities V. S. Logistics is a leading CnF supplier of FMCG products for Mumbai, Maharashtra with wide network of distributors, whose market opinion can be a strong indicator of the overall market conditions in India, as well as a vital partner for market development and promotional activities.

8 Meeting with VS Logistics , Mumbai , October 31 , 2017

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Products Ean No Weight MRP OLICOOP Green Stuffed Olives 8410522004783 450g 160 OLICOOP Green Sliced Olive 8410522004790 450g 160 OLICOOP Green Pitted Olive 8410522004776 450g 160 OLICOOP Green Whole Olive 8410522004769 450g 160

190 OLICOOP Black Slice Olive 8410522004820 450g 160 OLICOOP Black Pitted Olive 8410522004813 450g 160 OLICOOP Black Whole Olive 8410522004806 450g 160 OLICOOP Green Stuffed Olives A10 8410522004073 3000g Inst Prd OLICOOP Green Sliced Olive A10 8410522001706 3000g Inst Prd OLICOOP Green Pitted Olive A10 8410522001843 3000g Inst Prd OLICOOP Black Slice Olive A10 8410522001690 3000g Inst Prd OLICOOP Black Pitted Olive A10 8410522001621 3000g Inst Prd OLICOOP Artichoke Hearts in Brine 8904120400257 390g 230 OLICOOP Caperberries in Vinegar 8904120400431 370g 349 OLICOOP Capers in Vinegar 8904120400295 100g 135 OLICOOP Gherkins in Vinegar Big 8904120400325 370g 175 OLICOOP Gherkins in Vinegar Mini 8904120400400 370g 175 OLICOOP Green Peppercorns in Vinegar 8904120400295 100g 150 OLICOOP Jalapeno in Vinegar 8904120400516 450 265 OLICOOP Piri Piri in Vinegar 8904120400509 100g 150 OLICOOP Silver Skin Onion in Vinegar 8904120400479 370g 175 9 Meeting with VS Logistics , Mumbai , October 31, 2017

Key Points of Discussion: • Mr. Mihir briefed that 75% of the Olive market is in bulk which is served through hotels and Caterers and only 25% of Contact: the market is for direct consumption at the retail. Mr Mihir explained that in India, the ripe olives are sold in jars and 114, R.C.C. Bldg. No.1, 1st not in cans as the consumer here wants to see the product thus the packaging is done in transparent glass jars so that Floor, Arihant the product is visible. Compound, Kopar Bus Stop, Thane-Bhiwandi • He mentioned that Italians and Spanish have occupied the market, for California olives to establish themselves in the Road, Bhiwandi - 421 302. 191 premium space would take time. Email: • He mentioned that California ripe Olives can be clubbed with the Flavour pallets instead of having them stand alone [email protected] as this would save on the transportation cost. Presently he is consolidating Pasta, Olive Oil , Ripe olives from Spain, , Website: Similarly can we find out a way that olives can go along with California Almonds and Walnuts. http://vslogistics.in/ • He mentioned Shipment time would probably be 6-8 weeks from California, which is another challenge that we would have to address. • Mr. Mihir also advised that we should think of tying up with the American food brands like TGIF who can guarantee us a certain minimum offtake. • He also suggested that some activities should be done with the Schools – Say how to keep the Fresh Olives in Lunch Boxes and how to use Olives as base material instead of salts which can be a good blood pressure regulator.

10 Meeting with Aditya Birla Retail, Mumbai , November 1,2017 About the Company: • Aditya Birla Retail Limited (ABRL) is the retail arm of Aditya Birla Group, a $41 billion corporation. The company ventured into food and grocery retail sectors in 2007 with the acquisition of Trinethra Super Retail and subsequently expanded its presence across the country under the brand ‘more’ with two formats ͸ Supermarkets and Hypermarkets. • ABRL takes pride in being the first ever Indian food and grocery retailer to receive the FSMS (Food Safety Management System) certification. The company received this certification for ensuring that the manufacturing, Met With: storage, distribution and sale of food adheres to the highest quality standards. ABRL's Re-Processing Centers are also FSMS certified. Mr. Nishant Jaiswal, Distribution Network: merchandiser • Supermarkets: The product offerings include a wide range of fresh fruits and vegetables, groceries, personal care, 192 home care, general merchandise and a basic range of apparels. Currently, there are 509 supermarkets across the country. • Hypermarkets: Megastore also has a strong emphasis on general merchandise, apparel, consumer durables and IT goods. Currently, there are 20 hypermarkets across the country. • Own Brands: Wide range of brands that deliver high quality at attractive prices across ready-to-eat food, beverages, tea, staples, cereals, instant mixes, papad, pickles, apparel, footwear, household cleaning essentials, personal care and devotional products. Own Brands across categories include Prarthana, More Choice, More Daily, More Life, Bluearth, Karinee, Kruff, Incheels, TRU, Chatter Kids and Yo. ABRL aspires for our range of brands to be a customer’s most preferred brand across product categories.

Key Points of Discussion: • They have recently started the new segment called Health food retailing where they have began with Olive oil , the good news is that this segment is growing for them at 17-20% , their first step is to source olive oil and then it would be Ripe olives. They have requested if we can connect them with the right source for Olive oil exporter/distributor in California. Presently they are focussing on Spain. 11 Meeting with Cargil India, Delhi NCR , November 2, 2017

About the Company:

• Cargill is one of the world's largest privately held organizations. It has over 143,000 employees in 67 countries and Met With: provides food, agriculture, financial and industrial products and services globally. • Cargill Foods India acquired the Leonardo Olive Oil brand from Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd. in 2014. • Cargill Foods India serves household consumers with a wide range of brands such as Leonardo Range of Olive Oils, Mr.Joy Chakrbarthy Gemini, NatureFresh, Sweekar, Rath and Sunflower Vanaspati in India,reachs approximately 30 million people across Marketing Manager India. • Leonardo Olive Oil is produced according to the highest quality standards in the Puglia province of Italy. It is available in three different grades to serve your every cooking need, bringing wholesome and easy wellness to your daily diet. 193

Key Points of Discussion: • Cargill India holds 27% share in the Indian Olive oil market • Olive Oil market is growing in India at the CAGR of 14% in last 10 years , in last 7 years the market has grown at a CAGR of 7% • They have the brands called – Leonardo and Delmonte • Mr Joy mentioned that the Table olive market is very small presently and would need concentrated efforts for atleast 3 years. • They may be interested in tying up but they would need to be well supported as the awareness of Table olives in India market is very less , but the Indian Consumer is ready to experiment new products and even shell out money for the premium products. • The health food market is the emerging category and Ripe Olives can fit in this category. • They had an interest in the Lampante Crushed oil from California and have requested us to send them the contact details if we can organise for them.

12 Key Outcomes and Way Forward

• Indian health food market is growing and Indian Consumer is ready to experiment new products. • Olive Oil market was virtually non-existent 10 years ago, and the market has grown at CAGR of 14% in the last 10 Years. This scenario is a good parallel for ripe olives. • Presently the consumption of ripe olives is very low, limited mainly to the hotel and catering business, which present both a challenge and an opportunity to introduce a new product and position it as a high-quality, high-value offering. Presently, the market is suppled by imports from Spain followed by Italy. • Packaging is a another challenge that needs to be addressed as the packages available in India are in 194 transparent glass jars and in small formats, like 450 grams. We either need to explain the benefits of packaging in Tins or would have to customize packaging or repackage before shipment or in India to best serve the Indian market. • The Californian region has to be promoted together like California almonds, Walnuts and Ripe Olives together have to highlight the Story of farming in California. Indian textile industry loves California Cotton. If Cotton can do it, Olives can follow the success story. • The Premium image of California Olives have to be demonstrated through events which can be done along with the suggested partners like Cargill who have a very strong foothold in Olive Oil, and this can be a natural extension for them. • Work closely with Indian Olive Commission and try to raise the awareness about the health benefits of Fresh Olives. Further Research & Considerations

• Discover major suppliers for Indian hotels, restaurants and other foodservices distribution channels • Research into major traditional market suppliers and distribution chain • Interviews with potential partners at all segments of Indian distribution chain, including direct buyers, larger import companies, retail buyers, marketers, grower and trade associations

195 • Detailed research into current and historical import data • Projection of potential opportunity of California olives in India, using case studies of similar and newly introduced products. 196 Export Summaries Japan

Japan is the world’s third largest economy and is ranked as one of the top markets for California olives in 2017. While full 2017 data is not yet available, as of September 2017, 554 MT of California olives valued at nearly $2 million had been exported to Japan. 7he California Olive Committee (COC) remains optimistic for increased exports of California table olives going forward. In the initial year of Market Access Program (MAP) funding, COC focused efforts on expanding distribution and sales of California ripe olives to Japan, the second largest export market for U.S. olives. Using MAP support, COC implemented an inVtore promotional campaign with Costco Japan during its 2017 Thanksgiving Fair event. From November 6-12, a tapas dish featuring California ripe olives was sold and sampled in 26 Costco stores across Japan, boosting product sales during the event. During the Thanksgiving Fair week, over 4,500 California olive tapas packs were sold for an approximate value of $55,053 USD. In total, approximately one metric ton of California ripe olives were sold during the promotion.

COC also conducted other activities in Japan with positive reception, including a market visit during which COC representatives met with key Japanese trade. At Olive Japan in July 2017, COC organized a display to promote California ripe olives to trade and consumers. /DWHU LQ WKH \HDU LQ 2FWREHU &2& DOVR WRRN SDUW LQ $JULFXOWXUDO 7UDGH 2IILFH 7RN\R·V ´7DVWH RI $PHULFDµ PHQX SURPRWLRQ GXULQJ ZKLFK &DOLIRUQLD ULSH ROLYHV ZHUH IHDWXUHGLQWKUHHunique dishes at participating restaurants. Following the progress made in 2017, COC plans to further increase Japanese market exposure in 2018, starting with an exhibition at the Japan Supermarket Trade 6how which WDNHV place in February. Additional in-store sampling and promotional campaigns with Costco JDpan and other retailers are being planned to increase both sales and awareness of California ripe olives. Print and digital media advertisements are also being discussed. In 2018, COC will continue to utilize MAP funds to increase exports to Japan—continuing a comprehensive program that will encompass trade and consumer promotion activities.

7KH IROORZLQJ UHSRUW ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\

Pictured: CA olive tapas dish (above), sampling event (middle), COC POP materials (far right). 197 Prepared for California Olive Committee

Research on California Olives 岧Report of survey findings岨 198

May 9, 2017

Page Page

Research Outline 嵣嵣嵣2 Ϫ. Trade Research Findings 嵣嵣嵣38 ٹ - Changes in volume handled 嵣嵣嵣39 Ϩ. Respondent Profile - Important/ Most important points when choosing products 嵣嵣嵣40 Degree of satisfaction with currently handled products 嵣嵣嵣42 - گDistributor profile 嵣嵣嵣 - Awareness/ experience handling California olives 嵣嵣嵣44 - ڳRespondent Profile 嵣嵣嵣 - ϩ. Consumer Research Findings 嵣嵣嵣13 - Images of/ demands for California olives 嵣嵣嵣45 199 - Olive eating situation and attitudes 嵣嵣嵣14 ϫ. Summary of Research Findings 嵣嵣嵣47 - Eating olives at home 嵣嵣嵣19 - When choosing products 嵣嵣嵣27 - Awareness of regions of origin and purchase intention 嵣嵣嵣28 - Products most recently purchased 嵣嵣嵣31 - Images and impressions 嵣嵣嵣33 - Eating situations at restaurants 嵣嵣嵣34 - Brand awareness and purchase experience 嵣嵣嵣36

Research Outline

.؝To assess table olive U&A on the Japanese marketڭ Objective .؝To grasp potential for and any obstacles to California olives on the Japanese marketڮ

Methodology 1. Trade Research Fieldwork: Mar. 24 to Apr. 14

岧Objective岨 • Distributors included importers, wholesalers, retailers, and restaurants. This study got a comprehensive idea of opinions and attitudes of distribution professionals involved with imported olives on the Japanese market. (We also held hearings with businesses that handle California olives.) • To assess the status quo and clarify future potential by holding hearings with businesses involved with table olive imports, logistics and retailing

2. Consumer Research Fieldwork: Apr. 7 to 10

200 岧Objective岨 • To clarify table olive consumption as well as uncover potential for marketing olives produced in California by quantitatively studying consumer table olive consumption and preference for and attitudes towards the growing area. Survey design Trade Research Consumer Research

• Males and females aged 20 to 69 • Product choosers and decision makers for table Respondent • Have eaten olives at restaurants or at home olive importers, wholesalers, retailers and during the past month (regardless of whether conditions restaurants canned, bottled, in pouches, etc.)

importers: 3s/ wholesalers: 2s/ 527 samplesقsamples 10 Sample size كThose who eat olives at home and/or restaurants) كretailers: 2s/ restaurants: 3s

Area Greater Tokyo area Greater Tokyo area

Method Face-to-face interviews Online survey 201

I. Respondent Profile (Distributors)

Years of No. Type of business Position experience 15 years Director and manager of (.؝ Imports and/or wholesales (foods, sundries, etcڭ sales division 8 years Importers Sales of imported foods .ڮ ٮ Food imports, production and sales More than .گ ٮ 10 years

Wholesale of domestic and imported processed foods, 14 years

ٮ .ڰ 202 cold-chain foods, liquor and snack foods Wholesalers More than ٮ .ڱ Wholesale of all foods for professional use 20 years

13 years Sales of premium imported foods and daily sundries Sub-chief .ڲ Retailers Shop selling premium imported foods Assistant manager 20 years .ڳ

33 years President Western-style restaurant .ڴ Head chef 10 years Italian restaurant .ڵ Restaurants Managing executive and Italian restaurant .ڬڭ head chef 15 years

Corporations buying products from their No. Suppliers companies Foods wholesaler ٮ ؝ڭ Total foods warehouse, restaurants (cocktail bars, (Major trading company (overseas .ڮ Importers Italian restaurants, etc.) Directly imported from Greece .گ Co-op, Italian restaurants, grocery stores

Italian restaurants, Italian bars .Directly imported from Graper Co .ڰ (Mid-level to high-end) grocery stores

203 Wholesalers Sales division .ڱ Italian restaurants, grocery stores

Total food wholesale, food warehouse, import ٮ .ڲ company, etc. Retailers ٮ .ڳ Trading company (Schmidt Bussan Co.)

Trading company (Kameya Shokuhin) ٮ .ڴ Trading company (Shiraimatsu Pharmaceutical, ٮ (.Co., Ltd .ڵ Restaurants

ٮ Italian Foods, Tatsumi Foods (TATSUMI), La .ڬڭ Rocca, Kameya Shokuhin

product name Region of origin Package type Distributor Type of business٭ product name Region of origin Package type Amount (g) Type of business Manufacturer٭ Manufacturer ARNAUD, Picholine Green Olives France Glass jar 250 Retailer ILIDA, Kalamata Olives (with seeds) Greece Glass jar 215 Retailer ADINA, Ripe Olives (sliced) Spain 3100ml can/ 458ml can 390/1560 Wholesaler ILIDA, Green Olives (with seeds) Greece Glass jar 215 Retailer ADINA, Pitted Ripe Olives Spain 3100ml can/ 458ml can 390/2920 Wholesaler JOLCA, Green Olives (seedless) Spain/Seville Can 350 Restaurant BARRAL, Green Olives France Glass jar 200 Retailer JOLCA, Black Olives (seedless) Spain/Seville Can 350 Restaurant BARRAL, Black Olives (dried) France Glass jar 230 Retailer JOSE’LOU, Green Olives with anchovy France Can 350 Retailer BARRAL, Black Olives (nicoise-style) France Glass jar 200 Retailer La Rocca, Black Olives (with seeds) Italy Plastic pouch 500 Restaurant COELSANUS, Green Olives Italy Glass jar 360 Retailer LINDSAY, Green Ripe Olives California Can 415 Retailer COOPOLIVA, Black Olives (with seeds) Spain Can 3000 Restaurant LINDSAY, Pitted Green Ripe Olives California 3100ml can 415 Wholesaler COOPOLIVA, Green Olives (with seeds) Spain Can 3000 Restaurant LINDSAY, Sliced Olives California 3100ml can 2920 Wholesaler CRESPO, Green Olives (whole with seeds) Spain Glass jar 200/575 Retailer LINDSAY, Pitted Ripe Olives California 458ml can 1446 Wholesaler/Retailer CRESPO, Green Olives (seedless) Spain Glass jar 160/440 Retailer MARIO'S, Olives stuffed with anchovy Spain 458ml can 2900 Wholesaler CRESPO, Queen Green Olives (with seeds) Spain Glass jar 200 Retailer MONTALBANO, Toscana Olive s Italy Glass jar 310 Wholesaler CRESPO, Black Olives (whole with seeds) Spain Glass jar 200 Retailer MONTALBANO, Toscana Olive Giant Italy Glass jar 550 Wholesaler CRESPO, Black Olives (whole seedless) Spain Glass jar 160/440 Retailer MONTALBANO, Nostrali Olives Italy Glass jar 310 Wholesaler CRESPO, Black Olives (sliced) Spain Glass jar 200 Retailer PAERANELLA, Green Olives Italy Plastic pouch 500 Restaurant CRESPO, Stuffed Olives with Anchovy Spain Can 85/120 Retailer ROVIES, Kalamon Table Olives (with seeds) Greece Glass jar 130 Importer CRESPO, Stuffed Olives with Garlic Spain Can 85 Retailer ROVIES, Green Table Olives (with seeds) Greece Glass jar 130 Importer CRESPO, Stuffed Olives with Blue Cheese Spain Can 85 Retailer ROLDAN, Green Olives Pate Spain Glass jar 130 Retailer CRESPO, Stuffed Olives with Lemon Spain Can 85 Retailer ROLDAN, Black Olives Pate Spain Glass jar 130 Retailer

204 ESCAMILLA, Green Olives (with seeds) Spain Glass jar 340 Importer ROLDAN, Purple Olives Spain Glass jar 355 Retailer ESCAMILLA, Green Olives (seedless) Spain Glass jar/Plastic pouch 317/160 Importer SO, Green Olives Spain Glass jar 250 Wholesaler ESCAMILLA, Green Olives pickled with herb (with seeds) Spain Glass jar 340 Importer SO, Jumbo Green Olives Spain Glass jar 400 Wholesaler ESCAMILLA, Green Olives gramma's recipe (with seeds) Spain Glass jar 340 Importer SO, Pitted Green Olives Spain Glass jar 310 Wholesaler EPIKOUROS, Black Olives (seedless) Greece Glass jar 315 Retailer SO, Pitted Jumbo Green Olives Spain Glass jar 350 Wholesaler FIGARO, Green Olives Spain Glass jar 80 Retailer SO, Green Olives (sliced) Spain Glass jar 390 Wholesaler FIGARO, Stuffed Olives with Pimento Spain Glass jar 85 Retailer SO, Green Olives (diced) Spain Glass jar 385 Wholesaler FIGARO, Black Olives Spain Glass jar 85 Retailer SO, Ripe Olives (whole) Spain 3100ml can 70/140/415 Wholesaler FRAGATA, Anchovy Olives Spain Can 85 Retailer SO, Pitted Ripe Olives Spain 3100ml can 415 Wholesaler FRAGATA, Green Olives (sliced) Spain Can 130 Retailer SO, Ripe Olive (sliced) Spain 3100ml can 140/400 Retailer FRAGATA, Snack'n Olives Greece Style Spain Plastic pouch 70 Retailer SO, Ripe Olives (diced) Spain 3100ml can 383 Wholesaler FRAGATA, Snack'n Olives Andalusia Style Spain Plastic pouch 70 Retailer SO, Kalamata Olives (whole) Greece Glass jar 300 Wholesaler/Retailer FRAGATA, Snack'n Olives with Pinch of Lemon Spain Plastic pouch 70 Retailer SO, Kalamata Olives (pitted) Greece Glass jar 300 Wholesaler FRAGATA, Snack'n Olives Roasted Red Pepper Spain Plastic pouch 70 Retailer SO, Chalkidiki Olive Jumbo Greece Glass jar 300 Wholesaler GABAN, Green Olives California Glass jar 170 Wholesaler SO, Marinated Olives Italy Glass jar 540 Wholesaler GABAN, Green Olives (seedless) California Can 170 Wholesaler SO, Stuffed Olives Spain Glass jar 230/70/140 Wholesaler GABAN, Stuffed Olives with Pimento Spain Glass jar 195 Wholesaler SO, Anchovy Stuffed Olives Spain Can 140/280 Wholesaler GABAN, Black Olives Spain Glass jar 310 Wholesaler SO, Orange Stuffed Olives Spain Glass jar 140 Retailer GABAN, Black Olives (seedless) Spain Can 170 Wholesaler SO, Kalamata (whole) Spain Can 300 Retailer GABAN, Black Olives (sliced) Spain Can 160 Wholesaler SO, Ripe Olives (sliced) Spain Can 300 Retailer GOYA, Green Olives (with seeds) Spain Glass jar 340/348 Importer SO, Lemon Stuffed Olives Spain Glass jar 140 Retailer GOYA, Green Olives (seedless) Spain Glass jar 340 Importer/Retailer SALYSOL, Olives with anchovy (seedless) Spain Can 120 Importer GOYA, Green Olives (sliced) Spain Glass jar 342 Importer SALYSOL, Olives with garlic (seedless) Spain Can 120 Importer GOYA, Green Olives with Bell Pepper (with seeds) Spain Glass jar 191 Importer SALYSOL, Olives with cheese (seedless) Spain Can 120 Importer GOYA, Black Olives (seedless) Spain Glass jar 350 Importer SALYSOL, Olives with red pepper (seedless) Spain Can 120 Importer GOYA, Black Olives (sliced) Spain Glass jar 342 Importer SERPIS, Black Olives (whole) Spain Can 350 Retailer GRABER, Ripe Olives (with seeds) California Can 480 Wholesaler SERPIS, Black Olives (seedless) Spain Can 350 Retailer YBARRA, Green Olives (seedless) Spain Glass jar 370 Retailer Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 6 205

I. Respondent Profile (Consumers)

.Given below are the demographics of respondents to this survey ٹ

(%) Gender Gender and age Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Male 20s Male 30s Male 40s Male 50s Male 60s Avg./ y.o. n= 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s Total 527 51.2 48.8 10.2 11.0 10.6 12.1 7.2 9.7 11.0 9.9 9.1 9.1 43.9 Male total 270 100.0 * 20.0 21.5 20.7 23.7 14.1 * * * * * 43.9 Female total 257 * 100.0 * * * * * 19.8 22.6 20.2 18.7 18.7 43.9

Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 54 100.0 * 100.0 * * ******* 25.4 206 Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 100.0 * * 100.0 * * * * * * * * 34.7

Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 56 100.0 * * * 100.0 * * * * * * * 44.9

Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 64 100.0 * * * * 100.0 * * * * * * 55.0 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 38 100.0 * * * * * 100.0 * * * * * 64.1

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 51 * 100.0 * * * * * 100.0 * * * * 25.9

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 * 100.0 * * * * * * 100.0 * * * 34.1

Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 52 * 100.0 * * * ****100.0 * * 44.3

Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 48 * 100.0 * * * *****100.0* 54.0

Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 48 * 100.0 * * * ******100.064.1

5 days㸩 a week 56 50.0 50.0 17.9 16.1 8.9 5.4 1.8 17.9 16.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 37.1 Frequency of eating 1㹼4 days a week 161 54.0 46.0 14.3 16.8 6.8 8.1 8.1 11.8 5.6 7.5 10.6 10.6 42.7 olives 1㹼3 times a month 310 50.0 50.0 6.8 7.1 12.9 15.5 7.7 7.1 12.9 11.9 9.0 9.0 45.8

(%) Marital status Family members in household Respondent’s occupation Single Married Live Spouse Child Child Child (in Child’s Father of Mother Sibling Grand- Grand- Grand- Other Other Company Business Free- Part- Student Full- Un- Other (including alone (age 12 (age 13 college spouse you or of you or father mother child relative or govern- owner, lance/ time time em- widowed ment company or to 18) or your your self-em- em- home- ployed or younger) working) spouse spouse employee or organi- ployed

207 divorced) zation ployee maker executive

n= Total 527 34.5 65.5 19.4 57.1 18.4 8.5 17.3 0.6 15.9 22.0 7.8 1.9 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 53.7 3.6 8.2 9.9 3.4 14.0 6.3 0.9 Male total 270 33.7 66.3 19.6 58.1 19.6 10.4 16.7 - 17.8 23.0 9.3 3.0 3.0 - - 0.7 69.3 5.6 9.6 3.0 4.1 0.4 7.8 0.4 Female total 257 35.4 64.6 19.1 56.0 17.1 6.6 17.9 1.2 14.0 21.0 6.2 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 37.4 1.6 6.6 17.1 2.7 28.4 4.7 1.6 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 54 79.6 20.4 27.8 18.5 14.8 5.6 - - 50.0 53.7 27.8 9.3 7.4 - - - 66.7 1.9 5.6 3.7 20.4 - 1.9 - Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 39.7 60.3 27.6 53.4 48.3 8.6 - - 19.0 19.0 5.2 - 1.7 - - - 86.2 6.9 3.4---3.4- Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 56 32.1 67.9 21.4 60.7 28.6 16.1 10.7 - 10.7 17.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 - - 1.8 76.8 5.4 8.9 3.6 - 1.8 1.8 1.8

Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o.64 9.490.69.476.61.615.645.3-4.717.24.7----1.673.47.812.5 3.1 - - 3.1 - age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o.38 2.697.410.586.8-2.626.3-2.62.62.6-----28.95.321.15.3- - 39.5 - Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 51 76.5 23.5 29.4 23.5 19.6 - - 2.0 37.3 43.1 19.6 - 3.9 - - - 54.9 2.0 2.0 15.7 9.8 7.8 5.9 2.0 Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 46.6 53.4 25.9 51.7 31.0 3.4 1.7 - 17.2 20.7 6.9 3.4 1.7 - 1.7 1.7 56.9 - 1.7 19.0 1.7 19.0 1.7 - Female/ 40㸫49 y.o.52 30.869.211.563.528.825.011.5-5.819.2-----1.930.83.83.8 13.5 1.9 38.5 7.7 - Female/ 50㸫59 y.o.48 16.783.318.864.6-4.239.62.18.314.62.1-----27.1-16.722.9 - 27.1 2.1 4.2 Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 48 2.1 97.9 8.3 79.2 2.1 - 41.7 2.1 - 6.3 2.1 - - 2.1 - - 12.5 2.1 10.4 14.6 - 52.1 6.3 2.1 5 days㸩 a week 56 44.6 55.4 23.2 55.4 42.9 5.4 8.9 - 17.9 25.0 12.5 3.6 7.1 - 1.8 - 66.1 5.4 3.6 7.1 7.1 7.1 3.6 - Frequency of eating 1㹼4 days a week 161 32.9 67.1 23.0 60.9 17.4 11.2 17.4 0.6 13.0 15.5 5.6 1.9 2.5 - - - 50.3 3.7 7.5 8.1 5.0 16.8 7.5 1.2 olives 1㹼3 times a month 310 33.5 66.5 16.8 55.5 14.5 7.7 18.7 0.6 17.1 24.8 8.1 1.6 1.0 0.3 - 1.3 53.2 3.2 9.4 11.3 1.9 13.9 6.1 1.0

Averages are tabulated using weight figures in parentheses for each of the responses below.

(million yen (900) 15.00 million yen or more (1600 9.99ع (million yen (500 5.99ع (Less than 2.00 million yen (100 (million yen (1250 14.99ع (million yen (700 7.99ع (million yen (300 3.99ع

(%) Less than 10.00㹼 15.00 2.00㹼3.99 4.00㹼5.99 6.00㹼7.99 8.00㹼9.99 Don’t 2.00 million 14.99 million yen No income million yen million yen million yen million yen know/refuse Avg./ yen million yen or more 10,000 yen n= Total 527 3.4 10.2 18.8 16.1 14.0 14.0 8.5 13.5 1.3 785.3 Male total 270 2.6 7.4 20.4 17.0 14.8 14.4 12.2 10.7 0.4 846.3 Female total 257 4.3 13.2 17.1 15.2 13.2 13.6 4.7 16.3 2.3 717.0 208 3.7 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 54 3.7 11.1 25.9 16.7 14.8 11.1 13.0 792.3 1.7 3.4 Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 5.2 25.9 29.3 19.0 3.4 10.3 1.7 757.1 Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 56 1.8 5.4 19.6 17.9 17.9 16.1 7.1 14.3 836.5 1.6 Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 64 1.6 14.1 9.4 12.5 21.9 21.9 17.2 1060.4 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 38 5.3 18.4 15.8 10.5 7.9 21.1 5.3 15.8 750.0

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 51 9.8 21.6 17.6 9.8 11.8 13.7 2.0 9.8 3.9 598.9

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 5.2 12.1 24.1 17.2 20.7 6.9 3.4 10.3 680.8

Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 52 3.8 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 7.7 7.7 21.2 5.8 692.7

Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 48 8.3 12.5 18.8 10.4 25.0 8.3 16.7 910.0

Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 48 2.1 10.4 16.7 16.7 8.3 16.7 2.1 25.0 2.1 733.3 3.6 5 days㸩 a week 56 5.4 8.9 16.1 26.8 14.3 7.1 14.3 774.1 Frequency 3.6 of eating 1㹼4 days a week 161 5.0 10.6 22.4 19.9 10.6 13.7 3.7 13.0 1.2 705.0 olives 1㹼3 times a month 310 2.3 10.3 17.4 12.3 15.8 15.5 10.0 15.5 1.0 830.5

.About 20% of males and about 30% of females purchased food 5 times a week or more ٹ ,Looking at olive eating frequency, averages for the segment that shopped 5 times a week or more ate olives 4.3 times a week ٹ higher scores than for other segments. This shows that the higher the frequency of eating olives, the higher the frequency of shopping for food. Averages are tabulated using weight figures in parentheses for each of the responses below.

Almost daily (6-7 days a week)(6.5) 3-4 days a week (3.5) 2-3 times a month (0.75) Once every 2-3 months (0.1) 5 days a week (5) 1-2 days a week (1.5) Once a month (0.25)

(%) Almost daily Base: All respondents for 5 days a 3-4 days a 1-2 days a 2-3 times a Once a Once every Less than Don't buyٮ (6-7 days a Avg./ Consumer Research week week week month month 2-3 months that food myself week) (times/ week) n= 2.8 Total 14.0 13.5 26.6 31.5 5.5 1.3 527 3.3 0.8 3.0 209 1.9 4.0 Male total 270 11.9 10.4 25.6 35.6 5.6 5.4 0.7 2.8 2.3 5.2 Female total 257 16.3 16.7 27.6 27.2 0.8 3.3 0.8 1.9 2.7 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 54 9.3 14.8 25.9 31.5 5.6 5.6 5.6 2.8 3.4 Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 13.8 15.5 31.0 25.9 8.6 3.2 5.41.7 1.8 Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 56 16.1 5.4 26.8 32.1 7.1 2.8 3.1 1.8 1.6 3.6 Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 64 6.3 6.3 17.2 51.6 9.4 1.6 2.2 3.1 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 38 15.8 10.5 28.9 34.2 5.3 5.3 3.1

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 51 7.8 11.8 29.4 23.5 11.8 5.9 3.9 5.9 2.6

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 19.0 17.2 24.1 27.6 8.6 3.4 3.4 3.8 Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 52 25.0 13.5 26.9 23.1 1.9 5.8 3.6 Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 48 16.7 16.7 31.3 33.3 2.1 3.5 2.1 Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 48 12.5 25.0 27.1 29.2 2.1 3.5 1.8 2.1 5 days㸩 a week 56 33.9 25.0 17.9 16.12.5 3.6 4.3 Frequency 4.3 1.8 of eating 1㹼4 days a week 161 13.7 17.4 29.8 24.8 1.2 3.2 2.6 olives 0.6 1.05.6 1㹼3 times a month 310 10.6 9.4 26.5 37.7 7.7 1.0 2.7 3533.5.5 كSAق?Q21 How frequently do you go shopping for food Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 111 210 Base: All respondents forٮ Q20 Frequency of Frequency eatingolives TV ᴾᴾ Sources ofinformation on oliveproducts and recipes ٹ ٹ Females ٹ Byage group, female 40- Gender and Gender When n=30 or more or n=30 When Choose all the sources of information that youuse to find out about olive products and recipes for using them. (MA) age Consumer Consumer Research 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lower than more or 10pt avg. lowerthan more or 5pt avg. than higher mor or 5pt avg. than higher more or 10pt was the top source of information products source of and recipesearch on top the was 1 1 days 5 Female/ 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Male/ 60 Male/ 50 Male/ 40 Male/ 30 Male/ 20 Female total Male total Total 䡚䡚 3 times a month a times 3 eek w a days 4 aweek 䠇 a w 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 y.o. 䠉䠉䠉䠉䠉 used “online cooking sites” an used “online cooking sites” 69 y.o. 69 y.o. 59 y.o. 49 y.o. 39 y.o. 29 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% n= 1 65772668551. 617129232...... 36.5 2.6 1.3 1.6 1.3 4. 1.9 3.7 2.6 3.1 3.2 6.8 6.8 11.2 9.3 3.5 2 10.6 24.5 3.9 2 28.6 2.3 2.6 1.9 3.2 5.0 2.9 3.3 3.5 2.7 4.3 7.1 2.6 5.8 3.0 9.9 16.1 3.3 7.0 4.6 20.5 11.3 5.6 11.7 19.3 5.5 6.3 7.0 7.4 8.1 6.8 9.3 27.2 8.1 8.1 2.6 7.8 3.5 21.9 3.7 24.5 7.7 6.3 3.5 11.2 4.9 26.5 310 30.4 4.4 8.2 4.0 161 17.1 8.5 8.3 17.5 17.8 17.5 6.2 12.6 15.0 9.3 6.2 7.8 10.0 0.8 8.2 6.7 8.6 3.8 13.3 27.6 11.0 257 31.1 270 29.4 527 82. . . . 082. 0421-3...... 33.3 5 4.2 10.4 - 2.1 39.5 1 - 2.1 7.9 43.8 5.8 - - 4.7 - 1.9 2.1 - 1. - - 7 - - 6.9 2.1 8.9 1 7 - 3.8 - 15.5 3.4 6.3 2.1 8.9 3.6 5.9 7.7 - - 5.2 - 6.3 4.2 8.9 1.8 5.9 11.5 7. 6.9 1.6 1.7 6.3 23.2 11.8 21.2 4.2 3.6 - 7.4 3.4 1.7 23.2 12.5 - 11.8 11.5 33.3 3.6 13.8 - 5.6 6.9 12.5 11.8 40.4 2.1 1.6 - 3.6 5.2 19.6 3.7 9.8 1.7 3.8 7.9 2.1 6.3 8.9 22.4 2.1 8.9 27.5 8.6 5.6 5.3 5.8 2.1 3.1 5.2 5.4 10.4 10.7 15.5 5.9 23.7 1.9 7.7 12.5 18.8 3.4 20.8 25.0 16.1 10.3 5.3 3.9 11.1 18.8 21.2 1.6 20.8 15.5 23.2 6.9 3.6 2.6 20.4 13.7 21.2 2.1 1.6 22.4 19.6 4.2 12.1 5.4 11.1 19.6 2.6 9.6 12.5 10.3 6.3 16.1 8.6 8.3 10.7 19.6 3.7 18.4 8.6 5.8 18.8 10.7 - 5.2 19.6 9.8 7.9 - 9.3 12.1 14.1 28.6 - 10.7 1.7 6.3 22.4 2.6 3.9 7.8 42.9 9.3 4.2 7.1 56 27.1 1.7 12.1 7.7 10.5 2.0 9.4 16.7 48 29.2 15.5 12.5 12.1 48 28.8 2.6 11.1 11.8 6.3 52 22.4 8.6 5.4 10.5 58 31.4 9.3 7.8 51 6.9 26.3 8.9 11.1 38 21.9 20.7 64 39.3 18.5 56 37.9 58 29.6 54 29.4 TV (cooking shows) 50s used “cooking magazines” and“cook

TV (other than cooking 11.0 shows) 3.8 Radio Mass media 8.2

Newspaper than magazines” more d “cooking 7.8

Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright Newspaper fold-in flyers 15.0 Cooking magazines 17.5 Cookbooks Store 8.3 Supermarket 䞉 class 4.0

Cooking classes books” morethanothersegments. es. wasIt followed by “online recipe sites” and “cookbooks.” 4.9 Free papers males. males. 24.5 Online recipe sites 7.8 Website ᴾ served. served. Online video recipe sites

Websites of food 9.3 manufacturers

Website of cooking 6.3 magazines 4.6 Private blogs

3.0 Instagram Blog 2.7 189361812.5 1.8 3.6 8.9 .1 䞉

Twitter SNS 3.2 8392021.6 2.0 3.9 .8 . . 27.3 5.0 5.0 3 . . 14.8 1.9 9.3 4 Facebook . . 28.1 3.0 2.6 2.7 73231.1 3.2 .7 81828.6 1.8 .8 73534.2 3.5 .7 29.3 - 7 LINE 3.2 932.7 .9 Other

31.1

6.3 Have never used any of the above 12 211

II. Consumer Research Findings

Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 13 212 In the screening survey, olive eating frequency of total for o ٹ ٹ Base: Respondents for screening surveyٮ SC8 Ẕ Olives Olives frequency drops the higher the age. By gender and age, oliveswere eaten most by female 30s. Among Olive eating situation attitudes and situation Olive eating Choose those you haveeaten recentlyat restaurants or at home, and givethe frequency youeat (SA) them. are not eaten as regularly asmore Gender and Gender Frequency of eating of olives When n=30 or more or n=30 When age 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lower than more or 10pt avg. lower than more or 5pt 5pt or mor higher than avg. 10pt or more higher than avg. Total 1 1 days 5 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Female/ Male/60 Male/50 Male/40 Male/30 Male/20 Female total Male total 3 times a month a times 䡚3 week a days 䡚4 䠇 a week 69 y.o. 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 69 y.o. 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 typical foods such as “Japanese as such foods typical 343. 635. 91376866851. . 21.0 33.3 0.4 0.4 10.8 12.7 8.5 24.4 26.8 7.8 0.9 6.6 25.8 0.6 6.5 15.4 0.8 6.8 12.6 7.1 7.5 13.8 3.7 9.6 4.6 8.7 8.4 49.1 7.9 39.3 10.0 50.6 8.1 8.1 43.3 66.3 6.0 8.9 53.2 5.7 37.6 49.9 5.8 30.1 1374 44.6 48.5 1045 46.9 47.6 60.5 48.0 60.9 33.0 60.8 37.0 3367 35.3 4507 7874 20% 40% 60% 80% 6 098. 647. 391006. 036. . - - 11.0 1.9 17.2 1.8 1.2 66.6 25.6 0.5 15.0 78.2 40.3 0.8 32.2 39.1 62.4 16.4 8.3 62.5 12.2 14.6 0.9 73.9 100.0 0.6 5.9 4.7 1.3 6.8 100.0 43.9 19.4 13.2 7.9 68.5 7.6 79.0 9.5 8.4 9.9 7.4 87.9 10.3 76.4 4.9 8.1 15.0 9.2 37.6 86.1 8.6 87.6 5.4 63.2 44.6 16.1 5.6 90.9 0.3 5.3 70.9 9.5 55.3 52.1 0.8 9.5 80.6 17.0 5.7 47.4 467 51.5 77.5 6.3 17.6 45.7 165 13.0 48.0 69.3 2.4 47.5 36.1 15.1 50.1 11.1 55.8 39.0 56.5 774 41.6 14.3 55.0 11.0 27.8 629 53.9 43.2 14.5 29.4 10.5 794 78.0 20.2 13.6 36.6 453 51.4 30.2 717 44.3 971 40.1 47.9 45.3 31.9 28.1 601 516 09. 579. 299. 0. 718. 291. - 12.9 92.9 87.1 97.1 100.0 91.4 92.9 94.3 95.7 91.4 70 n= 0% 35.3

ginger, etc.) frequency Eating 60.8

Japanese-style pickles nce or more per month was onlyabout 10%. 48.0 Kimchi males, eating was high in younger segments 20 to 30s. It appear 46.9 Pickled plums - style (60.8%) pickles” and 5.8

Capers Ẕ Total foronceormoreper month 8.9 Olives 8.1

served. served. Anchovies 8.7 Pickled garlic “pickled plums” (46.9%). 13.8 Pickles

Other types of pickled 0.8 food 25.8 None of the above

ẕ s that eating s eating that

14 ẔOlive eating situation and attitudesẕᴾ Eating frequency/ Olives

.About 50% of respondents said “have not eaten,” indicating that olives are not a regular part of dietsٹ

(%) Once or more a Once every 2-3 Less than that Have not eaten month months

=Base: Respondents for screening survey nٮ

Total 7,874 8.9 5.7 36.3 49.0

Male total 4,507 8.1 4.7 33.0 54.2

Female total 3,367 10.0 7.2 40.8 42.0

213 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 516 14.5 5.4 24.8 55.2

Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 601 11.0 5.5 28.8 54.7

Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 1,045 7.1 3.3 32.8 56.7

Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 1,374 Gender and 6.8 4.9 37.3 50.9 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 971 5.7 4.8 34.2 55.3

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 717 9.5 5.3 31.9 53.3

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 453 16.1 7.7 39.3 36.9

Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 794 9.2 7.1 43.3 40.4

Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 629 10.3 9.7 44.4 35.6

Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 774 7.6 6.6 44.3 41.5

كSAقSC8 Choose those you have eaten recently at restaurants or at home, and give the frequency you eat them. / Olives Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 15 ẔOlive eating situation and attitudesẕ Olive-eating occasion during last month

Looking at respondents who ate olives once or more a month, more than 60% said “they’d eaten them at home or restaurants ٹ once or more times.” .The higher the age of both males and females, the lower the frequency of eating olives at restaurants ٹ

Base: All respondents for Consumer Researchٮ (%) When n=30 or more Only at restaurant At home and 10pt or more higher than avg. Only at home࠙once or ࠙once or more a restaurants (once or 5pt or mor higher than avg. more a monthࠚ monthࠚ more a month for both) "At home" "At restaurants" 5pt or more lower than avg. total total 10pt or more lower than avg. n= Total 527 23.1 12.1 64.7 87.9 76.9

Male total 270 17.8 12.2 70.0 87.8 82.2 28.8 12.1 59.1 214 Female total 257 87.9 71.2

Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 54 7.4 92.6 92.6 100

Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 6.9 8.6 84.5 91.4 93.1

Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 56 21.4 14.3 64.3 85.7 78.6 25.0 14.1 60.9 Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 64 85.9 75 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 38 42.1 18.4 39.5 81.6 57.9

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 51 11.8 13.7 74.5 86.3 88.2

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 58 15.5 17.2 67.2 82.8 84.5

Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 52 26.9 15.4 57.7 84.6 73.1

Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 48 29.2 8.3 62.5 91.7 70.8

Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 48 64.6 4.2 31.3 95.8 35.4

5 days㸩 a week 56 10.7 89.3 100 89.3 Frequency of eating 1㹼4 days a week 161 24.8 0.6 74.5 99.4 75.2 olives 1㹼3 times a month 310 24.5 20.3 55.2 79.7 75.5

.Of the segment who ate olives at home once or more a month, about half ate them once a week or more ٹ .By gender and age, about half of the male 20-30s and about 30% of female 20-30s ate them “3 or more times a week,” high scores ٹ This indicates eating olives on a regular basis. (%) Base: Those who eat olives at Almost daily (6-7 3-4 days a 1-2 days a 2-3 times a ٮ 5 days a week Once a month home once or more a month days a week) week week month

n= Total 463 7.6 5.8 14.0 22.7 28.1 21.8 Male total 237 7.2 5.1 16.9 21.9 27.8 21.1 Female total 226 8.0 6.6 11.1 23.5 28.3 22.6

Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 50 10.0 12.0 24.0 26.0 10.0 18.0 215 Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 53 13.2 7.5 26.4 20.8 22.6 9.4

Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 48 6.3 4.2 12.5 16.7 27.1 33.3

Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 55 3.6 5.5 18.2 50.9 21.8 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 31 16.1 32.3 25.8 25.8

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 44 13.6 6.8 13.6 22.7 18.2 25.0

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 48 12.5 12.5 8.3 20.8 27.1 18.8

Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 44 2.3 6.8 11.4 22.7 31.8 25.0

Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 44 4.5 6.8 6.8 27.3 29.5 25.0 6.5 15.2 23.9 34.8 19.6 Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 46 5.4 3.6 5 days㸩 a week 56 57.1 30.4 Frequency 1.8 1.9 1.8 of eating 1㹼4 days a week 160 5.6 33.1 45.6 8.1 5.6 olives 0.4 1㹼3 times a month 247 3.6 12.1 47.0 36.8

SC9 Choose your frequency of eating olives in different situations over the past month. / Ate olives at home (SA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 17 ẔOlive eating situation and attitudesẕ Frequency of eating olives during last month/ ate at restaurants

”.About 40% of respondents who ate olives once or more a month at restaurants ate them “once a week or more ٹ The young segments, both male and female, had high frequency of eating olives at restaurants. The higher the age, the lower ٹ this frequency tended to be. (%) Almost daily (6-7 5 days a 3-4 days a 1-2 days a 2-3 times a Once a Base: Those who eat olives at days a week) week week week month monthٮ restaurant once or more a month n= Total 405 4.9 5.2 6.7 24.2 25.4 33.6 Male total 222 5.4 6.3 9.5 20.7 27.9 30.2 4.4 Female total 183 3.8 28.4 22.4 37.7 3.3 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 54 5.6 13.0 18.5 18.5 25.9 18.5

Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 54 11.1 5.6 13.0 25.9 24.1 20.4 216 Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 44 6.8 4.5 9.1 15.9 20.5 43.2

Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 48 2.1 22.9 33.3 41.7 age Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. ͤ22 4.5 18.2 45.5 31.8

Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 45 6.7 6.7 8.9 26.7 22.2 28.9

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 49 8.2 6.1 2.0 26.5 14.3 42.9 2.6 Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 38 2.6 26.3 28.9 39.5 Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 34 38.2 23.5 38.2

Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. ͤ17 5.9 23.5 29.4 41.2 6.0 5 days㸩 a week 50 40.0 24.0 10.0 16.0 4.0 Frequency of eating 1㹼4 days a week 121 7.4 17.4 47.1 14.9 13.2 olives 1㹼3 times a month 234 0.4 14.1 35.0 50.4 䈜No statistical value due to a small number of samples.

SC9 Choose your frequency of eating olives in different situations over the past month. / Ate olives at restaurant (SA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 18 ẔEating olives at homeẕ Method of processing olives by typeᴾ ᴾ ”.The type of olive purchased most was “preserved in salt,” followed by “preserved in oil” and “preserved in vinegar ٹ By variety of olive, green olives with seeds tended to be “preserved in salt” at a relatively high percentage. Black olives, both with ٹ seeds and seedless, were “preserved in oil” and “preserved with other vegetables, fruit, etc.” more often than green olives.

80% 57.0 60% 47.7 37.1 40% 16.8 20% 217 7.8 0.4 When n=30 or more 0% 10pt or more higher than avg. Preserved Preserved Preserved Preserved Not Other 5pt or mor higher than avg. in salt in vinegar in oil with other preserved 5pt or more lower than avg. vegetables, in 10pt or more lower than avg. fruit, etc. anything

Base: Those who eat olives at home once or more a monthٮ

n= Total 463 57.0 37.1 47.7 16.8 7.8 0.4 Green olives with seeds 252 68.7 39.7 50.4 20.6 6.3 - Type of Seedless green olives 255 54.5 44.7 54.9 23.1 6.7 0.4 olives Black olives with seeds 126 64.3 46.0 71.4 33.3 11.9 - Seedless black olives 179 59.2 37.4 58.1 23.5 11.2 0.6

.(The container olives came in was most often a “glass jar” (67.8%), followed by “can” (36.1%) and “plastic pouch” (32.8% ٹ ,Looking at containers by frequency of eating olives, the 5+ times a week segment had higher scores for “can” than other segments ٹ while the “1-4 times a week” segment had higher scores for “glass jar” than “can.”

100% 80% 67.8 60% 36.1 40% 32.8 Base: Those who eat olives at homeٮ 14.9 once or more a month 20% 10.6 - 0% When n=30 or more Can Glass jar Plastic Plastic Sold by Other 10pt or more higher than avg. pouch container measure 5pt or mor higher than avg. (including 5pt or more lower than avg. 218 zipper- 10pt or more lower than avg. lock bags) n= Total 463 36.1 67.8 32.8 14.9 10.6 - Male total 237 36.3 65.4 29.5 13.5 8.4 - Female total 226 35.8 70.4 36.3 16.4 12.8 - Male/ 20䠉29 y.o. 50 44.0 66.0 24.0 8.0 10.0 - Male/ 30䠉39 y.o. 53 50.9 47.2 32.1 24.5 7.5 - Male/ 40䠉49 y.o. 48 43.8 75.0 29.2 8.3 8.3 - Gender and Male/ 50䠉59 y.o. 55 14.5 72.7 29.1 10.9 10.9 - age Male/ 60䠉69 y.o. 31 25.8 67.7 35.5 16.1 3.2 - Female/ 20䠉29 y.o. 44 50.0 63.6 29.5 18.2 11.4 - Female/ 30䠉39 y.o. 48 39.6 75.0 33.3 10.4 6.3 - Female/ 40䠉49 y.o. 44 43.2 72.7 43.2 20.5 18.2 - Female/ 50䠉59 y.o. 44 29.5 70.5 40.9 18.2 18.2 - Female/ 60䠉69 y.o. 46 17.4 69.6 34.8 15.2 10.9 - Frequency 5 days䠇 a week 56 58.9 55.4 42.9 25.0 14.3 - of eating 1䡚4 days a week 160 35.0 73.8 31.9 17.5 11.9 - olives 1䡚3 times a month 247 31.6 66.8 31.2 10.9 8.9 -

Q4 What sort of container or package do the olives come in when you buy them? (MA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 20 219 As ٹ Young ٹ Q5.2 51 Wheredo youusually buy olives? Q5.1 Ẕ both withabout 40%. “imported food shops.” food “imported ẕ at home olivesEating Choose the store/service you use most. for store for scores, used, thehighest to “supermarket/COOP,” wentover50%, “high by followed males had high rates of “convenienusing ratesof high males had :Baseٮ ae Those who eat olives at home Type of store/service used store/service of Type once or more a month Frequency of Frequency eating olives Gender and Gender When n=30 or more or n=30 When

age 10pt or more lower than avg. 5pt or more lower than avg. 5pt or mor higher than avg. 10pt or more higher than avg. most used Store/service used store/service of Type MAق 1 1 days 5 Female/ 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Male/ 60 Male/ 50 Male/ 40 Male/ 30 Male/ 20 Female total Male total 3 times䡚3 montha eek w a days 䡚4 SAق ك aweek 䠇 a w 69 y.o. 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 䠉䠉䠉䠉䠉 ك 69 y.o. 69 y.o. 59 y.o. 49 y.o. 39 y.o. 29 Purchase channel/ stores used Purchasechannel/ stores 5 851. 873. 81476743555.9 2.5 5.5 14.1 4.3 9.8 6.7 8.6 4.7 6.1 28.1 27.6 5.2 39.9 2.8 39.3 4.0 38.7 10.0 8.0 47.9 8.9 10.3 8.3 17.2 5.2 58.5 6.7 9.1 55.8 253 8.0 163 8.5 6.5 7.2 6.9 34.8 22.3 28.3 50.0 29.5 39.3 50.9 35.1 42.6 12.2 18.3 15.4 56.5 61.0 230 58.8 251 481 n= 5 6. 084. 693. 691. . . - 13.0 4.5 9.2 17.4 6.8 2.1 6.5 13.6 8.7 7.7 - 11.4 9.1 7.0 - 3.2 8.7 9.1 15.4 1.9 8.3 4.5 5.3 6.3 - 16.9 - 4.3 11.4 3.8 8.3 - 2.3 4.2 - 30.8 2.3 3.2 13.0 37.0 3.8 16.7 12.3 50.0 36.9 12.5 14.0 9.3 41.3 29.5 10.4 - 9.6 10.5 61.4 44.6 35.4 3.5 41.3 61.4 9.3 22.9 1.8 61.4 29.0 3.8 30.8 50.0 4.3 52.3 26.3 37.5 16.7 4.5 38.7 8.8 67.7 58.3 21.2 9.1 38.6 54.3 41.7 65 27.8 41.9 52.3 16.7 46 40.4 10.5 43.9 63.6 25.0 44 16.7 3.2 56.3 32.7 44 17.5 8.8 56.3 27.8 48 61.3 15.4 31.6 48 61.4 27.8 31 73.1 29.8 57 59.3 52 50.9 54 57 ce stores,” more whilethan 50% of Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright Supermarket/COOP Convenience store High-end supermarket (Seijo Ishii, etc.) Imported food shop (KALDI, etc.) Department store/ station females aged building/ fashion boutique building Drug store served. served. - Ὁ end supermarket” and “imported food shop,” shop,” food “imported and supermarket” end 30 to 59 used“high main store used main store Discount shop

Online (websites operated by supermarkets, imported food shops, etc.)

Online (Rakuten, Amazon, and other online shopping sites) - end supermarkets” end supermarkets” and Other ᴾ

21 2 ẔEating olives at homeẕ Purchasing situation/ amount and sizeᴾ

.(The amount/size of olives purchased most was 100 to 199 grams (31.7% ٹ .Male 20-30s had high scores for 200 to 299 grams, indicating that this age range purchased larger amounts than other segments ٹ

Averages are tabulated using weight figures in parentheses for each of the responses below.

(Less than 500g (450ع (Less than 300g (250ع (Under 100g (50 (Less than 400g (350) 500g or more (550ع (Less than 200g (150ع (%) Don’t know/ Base: Those who eat olives at Under 100g 100g㹼199g 200g㹼299g 300g㹼399g 400g㹼499g 500g or more Don’tٮ Avg./ g home once or more a month remember n= 3.0 Total 463 19.2 31.7 23.8 8.4 1.1 12.7 189.9 4.6 Male total 237 16.9 30.4 26.2 10.1 10.1 205.9

220 1.7 1.3 Female total 226 21.7 33.2 21.2 6.6 0.4 15.5 172.0 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 50 16.0 18.0 32.0 14.0 6.0 2.0 12.0 229.6 3.8 Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 53 7.5 18.9 45.3 9.4 1.9 13.2 237.0 4.2 Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 48 25.0 39.6 14.6 8.3 2.1 178.9 5.5 6.3 Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 55 20.0 41.8 12.7 12.7 1.8 194.2 5.5 age 3.2 Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 31 16.1 35.5 25.8 3.2 16.1 180.8 Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 44 15.9 34.1 18.2 11.4 2.3 18.2 188.9

Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 48 18.8 39.6 22.9 8.3 2.1 8.3 179.6

Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 44 22.7 20.5 29.5 2.3 25.0 165.2 2.3 Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 44 25.0 38.6 20.5 2.3 9.1 167.5 2.3 Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 46 26.1 32.6 15.2 8.7 17.4 157.9 5.4 5 days㸩 a week 56 17.9 26.8 23.2 17.9 7.1 235.5 Frequency 1.8 3.8 of eating 1㹼4 days a week 160 13.1 28.8 30.6 10.0 0.6 13.1 209.0 olives 5.3 1㹼3 times a month 247 23.5 34.8 19.4 1.6 15.0 165.2 0.4 Q6 What amount or size of olives do you usually buy? (SA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 22 ẔEating olives at homeẕ Recently purchased products/ prices

.The average price paid for olives most recently was 780 yen ٹ Male 20s and female 30s had high scores for 1,400 yen or more, while more than 30% of female 20s bought products costing ٹ 1,000 to 1,199 yen. This was higher than for other segments.

(%)

Less than 400 1,000 - 1,199 1,200 - 1,399 1,400 yen or 400 - 599 yen 600 - 799 yen 800 - 999 yen Base: Those who eat olives at yen yen yen more Avg./ yenٮ home once or more a month n= Total 463 21.0 28.5 13.2 11.2 12.7 2.6 10.8 779.9 Male total 237 18.6 30.4 11.4 12.7 13.1 3.0 11.0 792.6 Female total 226 23.5 26.5 15.0 9.7 12.4 2.2 10.6 766.6 221 Male/ 20㸫29 y.o. 50 10.0 26.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 4.0 20.0 1062.9 Male/ 30㸫39 y.o. 53 13.2 35.8 9.4 13.2 18.9 1.9 7.5 758.1 Male/ 40㸫49 y.o. 48 27.1 31.3 12.5 6.3 10.4 4.2 8.3 656.6

Gender and Male/ 50㸫59 y.o. 55 23.6 23.6 16.4 9.1 12.7 1.8 12.7 785.3 age 3.2 Male/ 60㸫69 y.o. 31 19.4 38.7 3.2 25.8 6.5 3.2 638.7 Female/ 20㸫29 y.o. 44 18.2 22.7 6.8 4.5 34.1 2.3 11.4 890.3 Female/ 30㸫39 y.o. 48 20.8 20.8 22.9 2.1 10.4 22.9 956.7 2.3 Female/ 40㸫49 y.o. 44 27.3 25.0 15.9 15.9 4.5 9.1 758.6 Female/ 50㸫59 y.o. 44 22.7 27.3 15.9 15.9 11.4 6.8 666.8 4.3 Female/ 60㸫69 y.o. 46 28.3 37.0 13.0 10.9 4.3 553.2 2.2 5 days㸩 a week 56 16.1 21.4 3.6 7.1 26.8 1.8 23.2 1216.4 Frequency of eating 1㹼4 days a week 160 19.4 25.6 16.3 14.4 13.8 3.1 7.5 747.4 olives 1㹼3 times a month 247 23.1 32.0 13.4 10.1 8.9 2.4 10.1 702.0

Q7 How much did you pay for olives you purchased most recently? (FA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 23 222 When ٹ ,Byage and gender ٹ Q8 Ẕ followed by “child(in college or working),” and “mother of you oryour spouse,” Doesanyone in yourhousehold, other than yourself,eatolives? (MA) ẕ at home olivesEating :Baseٮ ae Those who eatolives at asked about whethersame householdother familythe members in Gender and Gender Frequency family members. household with other month and live in home once or more a of eating of When n=30 or more or n=30 When olives age 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lower than more or 10pt avg. lowerthan more or 5pt avg. than higher mor or 5pt avg. than higher more or 10pt about 30% of young males said, the only“I’m one who eatsol Total 1 1 days 5 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Female/ Male/y.o. 60 䠉69 Male/y.o. 50 䠉59 Male/y.o. 40 䠉49 Male/y.o. 30 䠉39 Male/y.o. 20 䠉29 Female total Male total 䡚3 times a month week a days 䡚4 䠇 a week 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 y.o. 20% 40% 60% 80% 2 4249811...... 20.3 19.6 - 1.4 - - - - 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.5 2.4 3.3 8.9 14.5 17.5 7.5 21.5 7.3 0.5 1.0 0.9 - 0.5 19.5 14.5 - 0.8 13.8 4.2 - 8.1 0.3 4.7 - 0.5 4.9 55.1 1.0 - 214 64.2 - 123 1.6 0.8 1.6 3.7 0.8 11.6 13.1 2.6 5.3 9.9 12.4 1.1 7.6 - 14.8 0.5 12.0 5.3 13.4 5.8 7.9 5.5 8.4 61.4 8.2 189 57.1 191 59.2 380 0% n= 3 6. 494770-931. . 16.3 13.9 22.0 - - - 10.7 2.3 15.6 18.4 - - - - 2.6 14.0 - - - 2.0 2.6 - 30.8 ------23.1 - - 28.6 - 2.6 ------3.1 ------11.6 - - - 9.3 - 8.3 3.6 - 9.8 - - 9.4 - 2.6 2.8 - - 34.4 2.0 10.5 - 2.6 - 2.9 2.8 21.9 7.0 5.3 6.0 2.6 - 5.7 27.8 2.6 4.7 - - - 2.8 - 7.7 8.6 15.4 34.9 9.8 - 10.3 2.6 - 7.7 65.1 37.1 - - 43 19.5 14.3 34.3 2.6 - 42 12.2 72.2 - 3.6 - 34.0 36 - 15.8 58.5 12.0 41 5.1 - 12.5 65.8 - 38 37.5 - - 5.1 32 85.7 - 28 15.4 5.7 72.0 50 17.9 61.5 8.6 39 46.2 39 20.0 69.0--31.02.4------16.735 Eatingother household by members 59.2 Spouse Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright

Child (age 12 or 8.2 younger)

Child (age 13 to 5.5 18)

Child (in college 13.4 or working) 0.5 Child’s spouse ate olives, thefamily member Father of you or 7.6 your spouse both with about 10%. 12.4

Mother of you or ives,” indicating that they eat olives proactively. your spouse served. served. 2.6 Sibling . 0.8 0.8 Grandfather

Grandmother mentioned most was “spouse,” was mentioned most

Grandchild - 0.3 Other relative 0.8 Other

I’m the only one 19.5 who eats olives

24 ẔEating olives at homeẕ Eating and preparation method

When asked how they ate and prepared olives at home, more than 70% said “eat as they are,” while slightly less than 50% said “put them in ٹ salads,” both high scores. ,By type of olive, the main way of eating green olives with seeds was “eat as they are.” Eating methods were more diverse for black olives ٹ including “eat as they are,” “prepare and eat them,” “put them in salads,” and “use as a topping for pasta, pizza, etc..” 100% 80% 70.2

Base: Those who eat olives at 60% 49.2ٮ 37.6 38.9 home once or more a month 40% 20% When n=30 or more 1.3 10pt or more higher than avg. 0% 5pt or mor higher than avg. Eat as they Prepare Put them Use as a Other 5pt or more lower than avg. are and eat in salads topping for 10pt or more lower than avg. them pasta, pizza, etc. 223 n= Total 463 70.2 37.6 49.2 38.9 1.3 Male total 237 66.2 39.2 41.8 35.9 1.3 Female total 226 74.3 35.8 57.1 42.0 1.3 Male/ 20䠉29 y.o. 50 58.0 48.0 36.0 28.0 2.0 Male/ 30䠉39 y.o. 53 56.6 45.3 26.4 18.9 1.9 Male/ 40䠉49 y.o. 48 66.7 35.4 33.3 37.5 2.1 Gender Male/ 50䠉59 y.o. 55 72.7 34.5 63.6 50.9 - and age Male/ 60䠉69 y.o. 31 83.9 29.0 51.6 48.4 - Female/ 20䠉29 y.o. 44 52.3 50.0 43.2 34.1 - Female/ 30䠉39 y.o. 48 79.2 33.3 54.2 27.1 - Female/ 40䠉49 y.o. 44 81.8 40.9 61.4 45.5 - Female/ 50䠉59 y.o. 44 84.1 31.8 59.1 52.3 - Female/ 60䠉69 y.o. 46 73.9 23.9 67.4 52.2 6.5 Frequency 5 days䠇 a week 56 78.6 48.2 46.4 25.0 - of eating 1䡚4 days a week 160 70.6 45.6 49.4 41.3 1.9 olives 1䡚3 times a month 247 68.0 30.0 49.8 40.5 1.2 Green olives with seeds 252 80.6 38.1 50.8 38.5 1.6 Type of Seedless green olives 255 72.9 42.7 57.6 43.9 1.2 olives Black olives with seeds 126 84.1 52.4 68.3 55.6 1.6 Seedless black olives 179 77.7 44.7 64.2 61.5 2.2 Q9 How do you usually eat olives? (MA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 25 ẔEating olives at homeẕ Eating occasions

”,The top response for eating occasion at home was “for dinner,” with more than 60%, followed by “to eat with liquor in the evenings” and “for lunch ٹ both with about 30%. ”,By variety of olive, black olives with seeds/ seedless black olives were eaten a variety of ways, such as “to eat with liquor in the evenings ٹ “for lunch” and “as a snack,” compared to green olives with seeds/ seedless green olives.

100% 80% 66.1 Base: Those who eat olives at home 60%ٮ once or more a month 35.4 36.3 40% 23.1 15.3 20% 6.7 When n=30 or more 0.2 10pt or more higher than avg. 0% 5pt or mor higher than avg. For For lunch For As a To eat with As an Other 5pt or more lower than avg. breakfast dinner snack liquor in evening 10pt or more lower than avg. the snack

224 evenings n= Total 463 23.1 35.4 66.1 15.3 36.3 6.7 0.2 Male total 237 21.9 33.3 63.7 12.2 32.1 5.9 - Female total 226 24.3 37.6 68.6 18.6 40.7 7.5 0.4 Male/ 20䠉29 y.o. 50 26.0 34.0 50.0 20.0 22.0 10.0 - Male/ 30䠉39 y.o. 53 30.2 32.1 50.9 24.5 26.4 11.3 - Male/ 40䠉49 y.o. 48 22.9 39.6 60.4 4.2 29.2 2.1 - Gender and Male/ 50䠉59 y.o. 55 16.4 34.5 81.8 5.5 36.4 3.6 - age Male/ 60䠉69 y.o. 31 9.7 22.6 80.6 3.2 54.8 - - Female/ 20䠉29 y.o. 44 34.1 45.5 54.5 22.7 27.3 11.4 - Female/ 30䠉39 y.o. 48 25.0 33.3 64.6 29.2 39.6 6.3 - Female/ 40䠉49 y.o. 44 20.5 43.2 75.0 22.7 54.5 11.4 - Female/ 50䠉59 y.o. 44 15.9 40.9 75.0 11.4 45.5 4.5 - Female/ 60䠉69 y.o. 46 26.1 26.1 73.9 6.5 37.0 4.3 2.2 Frequency 5 days䠇 a week 56 50.0 44.6 53.6 30.4 25.0 10.7 - of eating 1䡚4 days a week 160 25.6 38.8 66.9 21.3 38.1 9.4 - olives 1䡚3 times a month 247 15.4 31.2 68.4 8.1 37.7 4.0 0.4 Green olives with seeds 252 28.2 38.1 65.1 19.0 43.3 8.3 - Type of Seedless green olives 255 21.6 38.8 69.8 16.1 43.9 7.1 0.4 olives Black olives with seeds 126 26.2 41.3 81.7 26.2 52.4 13.5 - Seedless black olives 179 24.6 41.9 76.5 12.3 45.8 10.1 0.6 Q10 On what sorts of occasions do you and your family members eat olives? (MA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 262 225 :Baseٮ ae Those who eat olives ٹ ٹ Q14 Q13 Ẕ When choosingproducts Important points w hen buying buying hen Importantw points that is easy to use in cooking.” in use to easy that is By gender and respondents. many bymentioned all produced,” “country where and The respondents “reasonabl tended toemphasize Frequency of Frequency eating olives Ofthose, choose up threeto itemsthat aremost important. (3LA) What isimportant to youwhen buying (MA) olives? Gender and Gender When n=30 or more or n=30 When a month at home once or more age top response for “important/ most important points when choo when “important/important points most for response top 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lower than more or 5pt avg. than higher mor or 5pt 10pt or more higher than avg. 1 1 days 5 Female/ 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Male/ 60 Male/ 50 Male/ 40 Male/ 30 Male/ 20 Female total Male total 䡚䡚 3 times3 montha eek w a days 4 when buying when Most important points buying when points Important aweek 䠇 a w 69 y.o. 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 䠉䠉䠉䠉䠉 age, age, male andfemale scores 20s hadhigh for “a type that is easy to use in cooking” and “good package design,” while 69 y.o. 59 y.o. 49 y.o. 39 y.o. 29 y.o. 4 4. 662. 632. 741. 021. 941. 171. . . 9 7.7 10. 8.5 13.8 10.1 14.4 5.9 11.7 16.9 1.3 11.7 14.4 19.4 5.9 11.3 16.6 9.3 16.3 20.2 8.9 23.1 19.8 11. 28.8 9.3 17.4 11.1 28.8 10. 24.3 13.1 14.2 23.1 12.1 26.3 12.2 15.0 33.1 13.2 26.3 13.9 15.9 31.9 14.5 46.6 13.5 16.8 38.1 14.7 41.3 14.3 15.9 50.6 247 15.6 16.5 23.9 160 16.2 19.0 25.2 21.4 20.7 27.9 22.9 18.1 26.1 22.9 20.3 33.6 23.1 24.5 38.5 28.9 20.3 43.4 29.2 38.4 51.8 40.8 226 37.1 237 44.3 463 n= 6 932. 392. 793. 962. 431. 861. 322. 141. 071. 3.6 - 4 - 6.8 16.1 - 4.2 10.7 - 2.1 19.6 11.3 16.1 6.3 - 13.6 2.2 - 21.4 - 2.1 6 6.8 2.3 8.7 23.2 12.5 14.6 7.5 13.6 11.4 2.3 23.2 3. 8.7 4.2 16.7 6.8 22.7 9. 15.1 19.6 13.6 1 6.5 21.7 8.3 14.6 22.7 9.4 13.6 28.6 1.8 15.9 12.0 6.5 18.8 22.6 8.3 15.9 13.6 10.7 6.8 9.4 20.0 16.4 16.7 12.9 23.9 6.8 8.3 15.9 14.3 6.0 10.9 11.4 15.1 20.8 25.8 17.4 20.5 29.5 21.4 14.6 12.7 20.5 7.5 16.0 16.7 12.9 30.4 18.2 11.4 19.6 12.5 5.5 29.5 16.0 7.5 14.6 6.5 34.8 27.3 9.1 30.4 12.5 27.3 22.0 21.8 16.7 37.0 15.1 29.0 18.2 17.9 16.7 15.9 29.5 8.0 14.5 20.8 39.1 15.1 29.0 27.3 28.6 14.6 25.0 29.5 20.0 29.2 37.0 16.0 13.2 38.7 13.6 33.9 27.1 15.9 36.4 18.2 29.2 45.7 8.0 15.1 25.8 36.4 23.2 25.0 18.2 45.5 18.2 33.3 60.9 15.1 35.5 27.3 14.0 39.3 18.8 25.0 47.7 21.8 39.6 54.3 56 15.1 35.5 36.4 16.0 25.0 34.1 61.4 46 34.5 33.3 18.9 25.8 50.0 6.0 44 25.0 38.6 20.0 50.0 44 13.2 71.0 20.8 18.0 43.2 48 69.1 13.2 51.6 44 37.5 24.0 49.1 31 18.9 35.4 6.0 55 26.4 48 28.0 53 50 Good quality ẕ Reasonable prices ᴾ Important points and most importanmost Importantand points Safe e prices” and “good older“good The quality.” prices” and e Country where produced Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright A type that is easy to store Free from additives

Good appearance sing products” was “good quality.” It wasby followed “reasonable Familiar product Preserved in oil

Small, appropriate amount females t points when choosing products when t points

A type that is easy to use in cooking (sliced, etc.) served. served. became, the less they tended to emphasize “a type“a tended toemphasizethey became, the less Preserved in salt Brand

Shown in descending order of important points when buying buying when points important of order descending in Shown Large volume

. . . . 6.9 4.4 6.9 8.1 8.1 6 4.0 4.0 5.0 7.1 2.6 3.5 6.5 10.6 6.5 5 9.7 4 Good package design 34540204.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 .3 86868686.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 .8

. . 5.5 5.5 - 5.5 23.23.21 - - Preserved in vinegar gpp yg . . 8.0 - 6.0 6.0 . . . 2.2 8.7 4.3 2.2 Not preserved in saltwater, vinegar, or other liquid pr ᴾ 5-4.5 - .5 New product ices,” “safe,” ices,” 50s and 60s Other Have never thought about it 27 2 226 ٹ ٹ Q15.2 Q15.1 Ẕ Spain. When were higher for Italy than Spain. Totals Awareness of regions of orig Andwhatcountry’s olives do wantyouto buy? Choose all thatapply. (MA) What country comesto mind asregion a of origin for olives? for for knowing where olives were grown and wanting to buy them we “country where produced” wasgiven as animportant or mostim Base: All respondents forٮ who eat olives at olives whoeat home 䛆 Base: Those When n=30 or more or n=30 When points 䛇 Important Consumer Research Consumer Research Want tobuy Want 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lower than more or 10pt 5pt or more lower than avg. avg. than higher mor or 5pt 10pt or more higher than avg. Aware most important most are origin of Regions important are origin of Regions :DQWWREX\ $ZDUH in and purchase intention purchase in and 3 066. 962. 24901. . . . . 3.7 1.5 6.7 3.0 6.7 3.8 4.2 6.0 6.3 3.4 7.5 8.0 4.6 14.9 8.2 9.0 8.3 10.4 22.4 8.2 14.4 23.9 14.6 16.9 39.6 21.4 21.1 64.9 30.9 25.8 80.6 63.8 45.5 134 60.5 73.6 527 73.6 527 n= 0 8. 604. 402. 201. . . . 004.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 26.0 24.0 44.0 66.0 80.0 50 MA Spainق Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright ك Italy Greece Japan ẕ portant point, aboutoliveswantedbuy 80%saidtheyfrom to

Regions of origin/ origin/ of Regions Aware re over 70% for both Spain and Italy.Scores for “want to buy” France Turkey served. served. Portugal odesced godeoaShownSo aeess Shown awareness in descending orderof Morocco

descending Egypt Ὁ Wantbuy to

order US

awareness Tunisia Syria 28 227 ٹ ٹ Q15.1 Ẕ comparatively large number countriesof origin.of Overall, awareness US of olives was 8.0%, indicating they are n The The segment that eats olives frequently had high rates awareof Awareness and purchase origin intention regions of of What country comesto mind as a region of origin for olives? Base: All respondents forٮ When n=30 or more or n=30 When Gender and Gender Frequency of eating of olives age Consumer Consumer Research 10pt or more lower than avg. 5pt or more lower than avg. 5pt or mor higher than avg. 10pt or more higher than avg. Aware 1 1 days 5 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Female/ Male/60 Male/50 Male/40 Male/30 Male/20 Female total Male total 3 times a month a times 䡚3 weeka days 䡚4 䠇 a week 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 y.o. 69 y.o. 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 717. 772. 811. 39818458552.9 4.3 5.5 6.8 5.8 10.6 8.4 7.5 8.1 9.9 13.9 13.7 17.4 14.3 18.1 23.0 27.1 25.5 4.7 47.7 3.0 43.5 78.4 3.8 6.2 6.3 71.4 77.1 6.3 10.1 310 68.9 5.9 161 8.9 8.0 7.4 10.5 8.2 10.4 14.4 10.4 14.4 19.1 14.4 14.8 20.6 16.9 21.5 31.1 21.1 20.7 45.9 25.8 45.2 79.0 45.5 68.5 79.0 73.6 257 68.5 270 73.6 527 0% n= 6 6. 363. 963. 141. 50891. . 7.1 6.3 8.9 4.2 3.8 8.3 12.5 3.4 12.5 3.8 5.9 8.3 8.9 12.5 3.4 - 9.6 1.6 14.6 1.8 3.9 6.3 25.0 10.3 7.9 12.5 9.6 19.6 6.3 5.4 9.8 4.2 8.6 18.8 5.2 2.6 5.6 21.4 13.5 9.4 5.4 5.9 10.4 6.9 31.3 32.1 8.6 7.9 15.4 3.7 18.8 9.4 20.8 5.4 15.7 19.6 12.1 17.3 6.9 14.6 13.2 3.7 33.3 15.7 9.4 39.3 15.5 8.9 21.2 39.6 21.1 58.3 13.7 10.3 3.7 53.6 22.4 42.3 15.6 8.9 56.3 13.2 89.6 23.5 10.3 67.9 24.1 11.1 55.8 25.0 93.8 15.8 56 8.9 87.5 17.6 20.7 34.5 7.4 82.7 20.3 48 91.7 31.6 27.5 12.1 72.4 16.1 48 86.5 23.4 76.3 13.0 58.8 27.6 52 69.0 23.2 53.1 84.2 25.9 58 62.7 17.2 35.7 84.4 51 76.3 11.1 31.0 71.4 38 75.0 38.9 53.4 64 78.6 51.9 56 55.2 58 59.3 54 3673.6 73.6 MA Spainق Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright ك

Italy 45.5

Greece ẕ ᴾ Regions of origin/ Regions of Aware ness of olives other than those from Spain and Italy, and they ot well known to consumers. 25.8 Japan 21.1 France 16.9 Turkey 14.4 served. served. Portugal Ὁ Demographic axes 10.4 Morocco 8.2 Egypt 8.0 US 6.3 Tunisia 3.8 Syria knew a knew 29 228 .Intention purchaseto US olives was4.2% overallٹ Q15.2 Awareness of regions of origin and purchase intention ẔAwarenessof of regions origin andpurchase Andwhatcountry’s olives do wantyouto buy? Choose all thatapply. (MA) Base: All respondents forٮ When n=30 or more or n=30 When Gender and Gender Frequency of eating of olives age Consumer Research Consumer Research 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lowerthan more or 10pt avg. lower than more or 5pt 5pt or mor higher than avg. 10pt or more higher than avg. Want tobuy Want Maletotal 1 1 days 5 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Female/ 60 Male/ 50 Male/ 40 Male/ 30 Male/ 20 Male/ Female total 䡚3 times a month week a days 䡚4 䠇 a week 69 y.o. 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 y.o. 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 776. 322. 239477352629191.3 1.2 1.9 3.7 2.9 3.1 2.6 6.8 3.5 4.3 7.7 5.0 9.4 6.8 12.3 1.9 16.1 22.6 1.1 22.4 3.5 33.2 1.5 2.6 28.0 63.2 4.3 3.0 60.2 2.6 67.7 4.3 310 3.4 64.6 4.1 161 3.5 4.2 5.6 8.6 4.6 7.8 8.2 8.2 8.5 14.4 8.3 14.8 25.7 14.6 17.4 32.7 21.4 29.3 66.5 30.9 54.8 67.3 60.5 257 60.4 270 63.8 527 0% n= 8 8. 084. 501...... - 3.6 4.2 7.1 2.1 1.9 6.3 7.1 3.4 4.2 - 1.9 4.2 - 5.4 5.2 4.2 - 2.0 3.8 2.1 10.7 5.2 4.2 1.8 - 3.9 - 5.3 1.9 19.6 4.2 6.9 6.3 1.8 3.4 5.9 5.3 1.9 7.1 1.6 - 10.4 5.2 8.3 1.8 6.9 2.0 2.6 7.7 23.2 1.6 6.3 13.8 16.7 5.4 - 5.2 12.5 3.9 7.9 13.5 1.6 14.6 8.6 25.0 26.8 5.4 5.2 11.5 5.6 3.9 35.4 10.5 9.4 41.7 46.4 17.2 36.5 1.8 8.6 39.6 21.1 5.6 70.8 11.8 4.7 39.3 19.0 38.5 81.3 13.2 56 7.1 81.3 13.7 12.1 5.6 25.9 75.0 12.5 48 83.3 21.1 19.6 10.3 56.9 14.3 48 3.7 69.2 17.2 57.9 51.0 15.5 52 56.9 19.6 35.9 65.8 18.5 58 49.0 17.2 16.1 59.4 51 71.1 13.0 22.4 60.7 38 71.9 22.2 46.6 64 64.3 44.4 56 51.7 58 44.4 54 63.8 Italy Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright 60.5 Spain 30.9 Greece 21.4

Japan ẕ Regions of origin/ Want oforigin/ to buy Regions 14.6 France 8.3 Portugal 8.2

served. served. Turkey

Morocco 4.6

US 4.2 Ὁ Demographic axes Egypt 3.4

Tunisia 3.0

Syria 1.5 30 ẔProducts most recently purchasedẕᴾ Degree of satisfaction

.When respondents were asked how satisfied they were with their most recent purchases, about 90% were satisfied totalٹ ”.Satisfaction total was 92.9% for glass jars, higher than for “can, plastic pouches/ containerٹ

Base: Those who eat olives at home once or more a monthٮ

When n=30 or more "Satisfied" total "Dissatisfied" total (%) 10pt or more higher than avg. 5pt or mor higher than avg. Somew hat "Satisfied" "Dissatisfied" Satisfied Somew hat satisfied Can’t say either w ay Dissatisfied 5pt or more lower than avg. dissatisfied total total 10pt or more lower than avg. 229 n= 10.4 Total 463 40.8 47.1 0.9 0.9 87.9 1.7

Green olives 22 36.4 63.6 100.0 - 6.7 Black olives 15 53.3 40.0 93.3 -

Can 33 51.5 39.4 6.1 3.0 90.9 3.0

Glass jar 98 39.8 53.1 6.1 1.0 92.9 1.0

Plastic pouch ࣭container 43 48.8 39.5 9.3 2.3 88.4 2.3

Supermarket/COOP 25 36.0 56.0 8.0 92.0 -

High-end supermarket (Seijo Ishii, etc.) 31 48.4 41.9 9.7 90.3 - Olives most recently purchased Imported food shop (KALDI, etc.) 29 34.5 58.6 3.43.4 93.1 3.4

Department store/ station building/ fashion boutique 14 50.0 42.9 7.1 92.9 - building/ discount store

Q17 How satisfied were you with the above product you bought most recently? (SA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 31 ẔProducts most recently purchasedẕᴾ Reasons for degree of satisfaction

Reasons for satisfaction with most recent purchase were about taste—such as “delicious” and “good flavor, aroma”—and about quality—such as ٹ “good cost performance” and “region of origin,” etc. ”.In the open-ended responses, there were different reasons for satisfaction based on occasion, such as “eat as they are” and “prepare and eat them ٹ

Q18 Reasons for degree of satisfaction (Base: Those who eat olives at home once or more a month (from open-ended responsesٮ

Q18 Reasons for degree of satisfaction ᇻDeliciousᇼ Score ჀThe taste is very good. They are preserved in salt, so I can eat them as they are or dip Rank (top responses from open-ended (%) them in olive oil to enjoy a different flavor. responses) ᇫ(Female aged 39, Seijo Ishii Hatsuzumi Olive, Satisfied) ჀThey taste good and are seedless. The moderate saltiness has a good flavor. 160 grams 1 Delicious 32.8 is just the right amount. (Male aged 59, Seedless green olives, Glass jar, Satisfied)

230 2 Good cost performance 9.1 ჀThey taste good and are a good match with wine. Spanish olives are delicious. (Female aged 41, YBARRA glass gar, Satisfied) 3 Region of origin 5.8 ᇻRegion of originᇼ 4 Amount is just right 4.3 ჀI was interested in them being sold by a Japanese manufacturer. The small-amount pouch type is easy to use. I could see inside the pouches and the olives looked attractive 5 Olives have good texture, something to bite into 2.4 and delicious. (Female aged 45, Iwatani Olice pouch type, Satisfied) 5 Type that is easy to use (can, glass jar, pouch) 2.4 ᇻOlives have good texture, something to bite intoᇼ ჀThey are large and meaty. I can enjoy the good olive flavor. They don’t use much salt. 7 Good flavor and aroma 2.2 (Female aged 33, ARNAUD Green Olives (with seeds), Satisfied)

8 Easy to store/ good for storage 1.7 ᇻEasy to store/ good for storageᇼ ჀGlass jars provide peace of mind for storage. (Male aged 48, COELSANUS salt- 8 Easy to use for preparing food 1.7 preserved olives in glass jars, Somewhat satisfied)

10 Low salt 1.5 ᇻEasy to use for preparing foodᇼ ჀWhen eaten with salad (raw vegetables), they taste good even without dressing. (Male Shown in descending order of satisfaction aged 57, Whole green olives (glass jar), Somewhat satisfied) ჀThey are good in salads and on pizza. You can open the container and eat them as they are. (Female aged 32, GOYA glass gar, Seedless black olives, Satisfied)

Q18 How satisfied were you with the above product you bought most recently? (SA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 32 231 ٹ ٹ Q19 Ẕ of of both health and beauty. Females in nutrients,” “rich all high withover20%. Looking Base: All respondents forٮ Images andimpressions Frequency What imagesdo you haveof olives? (MA) of eating of and age Type of Gender olives olives When n=30 or more or n=30 When Consumer Consumer Research at images olives,of thehighest was“healt 1 1 days 5 60 Female/ 50 Female/ 40 Female/ 30 Female/ 20 Female/ Male/60 䠉69 y.o. Male/50 䠉59 y.o. Male/40 䠉49 y.o. Male/30 䠉39 y.o. Male/20 䠉29 y.o. Female total Male total edesgenoie 5 532. 672. 242. 692. 001. 881. 531. 371...... 4.7 4.8 3.1 4.0 3.5 4.8 3.5 4.0 4.7 5.6 5.1 7.1 6.7 7.9 7.1 10.3 7.8 7.9 18.3 9.0 16.7 13.7 18.3 13.7 22.2 17. 16.9 21.4 22.3 15.3 16.7 21.2 14.5 15.1 19.0 18.8 22.2 24.0 14.9 22.2 23.5 20.0 27.0 29.1 21.6 21.4 31.3 16.9 1 31.7 31.8 24.3 17.9 27.8 36.3 22.4 20.6 38.1 27.8 17.1 27.0 179 26.7 24.2 42.1 29.8 20.6 32.5 35.3 31.0 126 25.4 255 30.6 31.3 252 olives black Seedless olives with seeds Black greenolives Seedless with olives seeds Green also had responses overof 20%for “fashionable,” vi“rich in 䡚3 times a month week a days 䡚4 10pt or more lower than avg. 5pt or more lower than avg. avg. than higher mor or 5pt 10pt or more higher than avg. 䠇 a week Total 䠉69 y.o. 䠉59 y.o. 䠉49 y.o. 䠉39 y.o. 䠉29 y.o. 10% 20% 30% 40% 1 352. 452. 612. 741. 551. 391. 261. 13 14.8 11 12.6 11.8 14.8 17.4 13.9 11.8 12.6 16.1 15.5 17.4 13.2 15.5 17.4 19.9 20.6 14.3 26.1 24.2 20.6 21.1 24.5 28.0 29.4 22.4 33.5 310 28.0 31.7 161 14 16.0 11. 16.0 12.2 16.7 12.6 12 15.6 11.9 14.0 21.0 13.3 14.2 17.9 8.9 14.2 21.4 14.4 14.4 22.2 14.8 11.1 26.1 16.1 10.7 27.6 16.1 17.4 27.6 16.3 19.6 27.2 21.6 19.6 30.7 23.5 20.7 33.1 23.5 257 24.8 23.9 30.4 270 27.7 31.7 527 n= 0% 8 3. 714. 172. 081. 922. 671. 882. 041. 251. 46-4242---422.1 4.2 - 3.6 3.6 - 7.1 10.7 - 5.4 4.2 16.1 8.9 4.2 16.1 8.9 - 17.9 14.6 21.4 10.4 14.3 12.5 16.1 18.8 14.3 10.4 10.4 17.9 20.8 16.7 12.5 18.8 6.3 19.6 16.7 21.4 10.4 16.7 21.4 5 16.7 27.1 16.1 29.2 16.7 29.2 4. 19.6 11. 16.7 9.3 18.8 16.1 11.8 25.0 10.9 20.8 26.8 17.6 15.4 5.6 22.9 15.6 27.1 25.0 21.6 17.3 31.3 9.4 41.7 17.9 17.6 5.6 12.1 12 25.0 20.8 45.8 21.4 11.8 19.0 8.6 12.5 28.8 22.9 56 27.1 14. 9.3 19.6 20.7 12.5 40.4 25.0 33.3 10.7 13.8 17.6 24.1 3.1 26.9 48 39.6 13.0 21.4 15.5 23.5 24.1 28.8 39.6 13.0 12.5 8.6 17.2 25.5 25.9 48 36.5 9.3 10.7 12.5 25.5 20.7 36.5 12.5 12.1 4.7 21.6 52 25.9 9.3 14.3 15.5 17.6 34.5 10.7 15.5 18.8 58 25.5 14.8 19.6 6.9 26.6 28.9 21.6 9.3 21.4 26.6 51 28.9 12.1 23.2 26.6 44.7 18.5 13.8 17.9 38 34.4 5.6 17.2 26.8 43.8 13.8 64 26.8 13.0 13.8 32.1 9.3 56 24.1 22.4 9.3 58 11.1 54 31.7 Healthy ẕ 27.7

Good quality flavor hy,” at over 30%, followed by “aromatic,” “for me,” “good quality flavor,” “for ad 631. . 051. . 111. . 582...... 7.9 5.3 - 2.6 - - 7.9 5.3 7.9 - 7.9 21.1 15.8 5.3 13.2 21.1 2.6 15.8 10.5 7.9 13.2 26.3 For adults 21.6 Rich in nutrients 16.3 Fashionable 6116.1 16.1 Rich in vitamins tamins” and “has beauty effects,” indicating that olives have im Rich in polyphenol 23.1 24.1 14.8 . 431. 511. 391...... 4.8 2.4 4.0 5.2 3.6 4.8 5.2 7.1 6.0 9.9 14.3 13.9 16.3 15.1 16.7 14.3 6.3

841. 341. 511. 2367786778453422457.8 4.5 2.2 3.4 4.5 7.8 6.7 7.8 6.7 12.3 13.4 15.1 17.3 13.4 14.5 18.4 9 Has beauty effects 211. 901. 211. 556952341752-17-8.6 15.4 1.9 - 3.8 1.7 5.8 - 7.7 5.8 5.2 7.7 1.7 9.6 3.4 7.7 5.2 25.0 6.9 17.3 15.5 19.2 12.1 21.2 12.1 15.4 19.0 13.5 19.0 15.4 19.0 12.1 14.4 Plain, light 4214.2 14.2 Fresh

Sophisticated served. served. 14.0 Premium feeling 12.9 51. 0674527139422619197.1 7.5 1.9 3.1 1.9 1.9 2.6 3.7 4.2 3.1 3.9 3.7 7.1 3.1 5.2 5.0 7.4 5.0 10.6 9.3 11.6 .5 9.9 .2 7.4 1.9 1.9 6.8 3.1 2.5 4.3 2.5 5.1 3.8 4.7 4.0 5.8 5.1 6.2 6.1 16.0 6.3 14.4 6.8 .4 11.0 12.1 .9 006374677452374430306.3 3.0 3.0 4.4 3.7 5.2 7.4 6.7 7.4 6.3 10.0 5 181. . 18391. . . . . 5.9 3.9 3.9 5.4 9.8 5.4 5.9 3.6 11.8 10.7 3.9 7.1 11.8 7.1 2.0 5.4 17.6 11.8 3.6 8 5.4 7.1 16.1 3 Refreshing 881. . . . . 4.2 - - - 2.1 2.1 4.2 2.1 - 10.4 18.8 12.1 134861...... 8.6 3.4 5.2 5.2 5.2 3.4 8.6 10.3 8.6 3.4 .1

73.19.4 6.33.1 1.6 - - - - - Fruity 11.0 For women 6.8

61. . 11563756199.3 1.9 5.6 3.7 5.6 11.1 9.3 14.8 .6 Sour Shown in descending orderby totalbase score Sh 6.3

own Good for losing weight 6.1 dd bttlb d di id i n Oily d escen 5.1 For young people di 4.0 n g

or For men d 3.8 er Sweet by

. 2.5 2.5 t o ults” and t

a For children l

b ase scor ase For seniors ages

Have no particular 6.8 e

33 images ẔEating situations at restaurantsẕᴾ Olive eating situationᴾ

”.When ordering olives to eat at restaurants once or more a month, about 70% ordered them “in olive dishes, such as pickled olives, etc ٹ Male 20-30s and female 50s had high scores for “olive dishes,” while female 40s ate them at somewhat high rates “as a garnish on food ٹ or in drinks.”

100%

80% 70.4 62.0 60% Base: Those who eat olives at restaurantsٮ once or more a month 40%

20% When n=30 or more 0.5 10pt or more higher than avg. 0% 5pt or mor higher than avg. In olive dishes, As a garnish on Other such as pickled 5pt or more lower than avg. food or in drinks olives, etc. 10pt or more lower than avg.

232 n= Total 405 70.4 62.0 0.5 Male total 222 71.2 55.9 0.5 Female total 183 69.4 69.4 0.5 Male/ 20䠉29 y.o. 54 74.1 50.0 - Male/ 30䠉39 y.o. 54 75.9 37.0 - Male/ 40䠉49 y.o. 44 65.9 68.2 - Gender and Male/ 50䠉59 y.o. 48 60.4 72.9 2.1 age Male/ 60䠉69 y.o. *22 86.4 54.5 - Female/ 20䠉29 y.o. 45 73.3 68.9 - Female/ 30䠉39 y.o. 49 71.4 61.2 - Female/ 40䠉49 y.o. 38 63.2 81.6 - Female/ 50䠉59 y.o. 34 76.5 64.7 - Female/ 60䠉69 y.o. *17 52.9 76.5 5.9 5 days䠇 a w eek 50 88.0 54.0 - Frequency of 1䡚4 days a w eek 121 76.0 59.5 - eating olives 1䡚3 times a month 234 63.7 65.0 0.9 *No statistical value due to a small number of samples.

Q11 How do you eat olives at restaurants? (MA) Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 34 233 ٹ Q12 Ẕ Italian restaurants were the plac 䛆 Eating situationsatrestaurants How olives are At restaurants :Baseٮ ae Those who eat olives at restaurants Atwhat sorts of restaurants do youeat olives? (MA) When n=30 or more or n=30 When eaten once more or month a 10pt or more lower than avg. avg. lowerthan more or 5pt 5pt or mor higher than avg. avg. than higher more or 10pt 䛇 sagriho odo ndik 21 8. 061. 031. 26.3 13.1 20.3 19.1 50.6 81.7 2 251 23.9 51.2 76.1 285 in drinks or onfood agarnish As olives, etc. pickled as such In olivedishes, Total es olive dishes were eaten t. mos This was followed bySpanish restaurants. Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Re All Rights Ltd. Co., Associates & Yamano 2017 (C) Copyright ẕ Place eaten/ restaurants Place eaten/ 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0 484. 981. 141. . . 2.0 7.9 3.5 19.5 11.4 17.8 19.8 44.2 74.8 405 0% n= 74.8 Italian 44.2 Spanish 19.8 French served. served. 17.8

. 442. . . 1.8 8.4 4.2 21.1 14.4 0.4 Greek ᴾ 11.4 Turkish 19.5 Mediterranean 3.5 . 082.4 10.8 4.0 Arabian (Middle Eastern)

Japanese restaurants and 7.9 izakaya (pubs) 2.0 Other 35 234

III. Trade Research Findings

While about half of wholesalers and importers said they “carry more” than they did 3 years ago, all retailers and restaurants said they ٹ carried the “same amount.” .About 80% of all distributors said they would probably carry the “same amount” in the near future ٹ

Compare volume handled with 3 years agoٹ

(%)

Carry more than 3 Same amount as Carry less than years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago

Distributor total (10s) 28% 72% 235 Wholesaler/ importer total (5s) 56% 44%

Retailer/ restaurant total (5s) 100%

(%) Volume to be handled in the futureٹ

Will probably Amount will not Will probably carry more change carry less

Distributor total (10s) 14% 86%

Wholesaler/ importer total (5s) 28% 72%

Retailer/ restaurant total (5s) 100%

Q2 Have you seen any changes over the past three years in the amount of these products that you carry? Q3 Of the products you mentioned, are there any for which you think there will be changes in the amount you carry?

When choosing products, “growing region” and “taste and texture” were most important for importers, while wholesalers mentioned “processing ٹ processes” as well as “taste.”

Important points Most important points

Manufacturing processesٵ Judge based on combination of taste and texture/delicious taste • .Solid manufacturing processes ֜Olives harvested after ripening on the tree have a richer flavor • • Grown organically, made with water and salt from growing region

Quality guaranteeٵ .(carries products from Greece) • Olives have images of coming from Spain. Went to the growing region (Greece) and conditions were very֜

Importers Importers • Don’t want to carry a stock, so small lots are better. sanitary. 236 • Prices that show a good cost performance (somewhat low importance)

Textureٵ Olives gathered after ripening on trees are tender and have good • Have been selling them for 20 years֜ texture. Seedlessٵ • Processed with salt only, no antioxidants or artificial coloring. Seedless are easier to eat, but Graber (grown in California) has֜ • Products are chosen according to requests made by specific diehard fans, so I don’t think seeds matter.

Flavoring and priceٵ Wholesalers clients. I don’t think they are chosen based on growing region or whether֜ olives come in jars or cans.

Q6.1 Is anything important to you when you buy the products you currently handle? If so, what? Q6.2 Of those you mentioned, choose the thing that is most important and the reason why it is important.

”When choosing products, “taste and appearance” and “number of lots” were important to retailers. Restaurants appeared to emphasize “price ٹ as well as “taste and appearance.”

Important points Most important points

Taste is most importantٵ .Flavoring is not too salty • .Japanese palates are sensitive to amino acids, so olives with ֜Good taste means repeat purchasing • characteristic flavor are preferred. ֜The most delicious olives in stores are Alorena sold by Roldan • Organic olives (seems good for the environment and healthy) (grown in Spain). Used by a famous hotel. • Olives that are easy for consumers to use sell well The price is high, though, so volume has not increased. (For example in pouches with smaller amounts.)

237 • Seedless olives are easier to use in cooking. Retailers • Small lots are better • Appearance (Japanese prefer green olives) • A good price range is 260 to 1020 yen/ the bestsellers are 300 to 500 yen.

Low pricesٵ Low price • Appearance, tasteٵ The flavor of olives is adjusted to make them more palatable, so a) .high per-unit prices is not good.) ֜Preferred appearance is large olives with a shiny texture Good freshness and appearance ֜Rather than eating as they are, olives are positioned as an • • Grown in Spain (because we prepare Spanish food). ingredient that adds flavor. Area of originٵ .Customers prefer to have a little sweetness in the flavor • Restaurants • Some emphasis on a larger amount. ֜With Spanish cuisine, it is important to include images of olives from Spain.

Q6.1 Is anything important to you when you buy the products you currently handle? If so, what? Q6.2 Of those you mentioned, choose the thing that is most important and the reason why it is important. Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 41 ẔCurrently handled productsẕ Degree of satisfaction (1)

Both importers and wholesalers are satisfied with the products they currently handle. Importers are satisfied with “product quality,” while ٹ wholesalers are content with “processing and production processes.”

Degree of Reasons for degree of satisfaction satisfaction

GOYA series products are all said to be delicious. They are not made with much preservatives or additives, and theٵ premium package is also attractive. The label is in Japanese, and we have a good relationship with the manufacturer and will continue to order them.

Salysol olives (Spain) are seedless and stuffed with various ingredients and can be eaten as is, so they are used atٵ Satisfied cocktail bars. 238 Importers Importers .Escamilla green (seedless) (Spain) are a standard. Demand is highٵ

Products that are organic, go through solid processing, and satisfy customers who are fussy about growing areas andٵ additives.

.We have handled &DOLIRUQLDgreen olives for more than 20 years. They have GLHKDUG fansٵ Prices are 1,100 yen, high compared to other products, but they have to have added value of being tree-ripened and additive free. Satisfied

.SO series (especially seedless black) (Spain) is the top sellerٵ Wholesales They are processed in the growing region, and the flavoring matches Japanese preferences.

Q5 Do you want to continue buying the products you currently handle? What is your reason?

Retailers and restaurants are also satisfied with their current products. Specifically, retailers are satisfied with “price” and “taste” because it has ٹ won them repeaters. Restaurants are satisfied with “cost performance.”

Degree of Reasons for degree of satisfaction satisfaction

Crespo seedless (Spain) olives sell well because they have an easy-to-buy price (300-yen range) and are easy toٵ use because they are not too salty.

.Barral (France) is also a popular product. Easy to use in cookingٵ Satisfied

.Japanese tend to have better images of green olivesٵ Retailers 239

.Want to buy GOYA (Spain) because they are sold at reasonable prices from 261 to 1,020 yenٵ

.Paesanella (Italy), GOYA and Crespo (Spain) can be ordered at low prices, so we want to order themٵ

Coopoliva (green, black with seeds) (Spain) are preserved in water, not in salt. We get products with seedsٵ because when they are seedless, the water soaks into them and the olives lose their flavor.

Satisfied JOLCA (green, black) (Spain) are low priced. We get them to use as substitutes (within the same price range) toٵ

Restaurants sell in case olive prices go way up. (Up to now, they’ve never been needed as substitutes.) .If JOLCA olives are “supporting actors” for cooking, La Rocca (Italy) plays the leadٵ We want to continue ordering La Rocca for the customers who want them.

Q5 Do you want to continue buying the products you currently handle? What is your reason?

.(of 10 distributors currently carried California olives (2 wholesalers, 2 retailers 4ٹ .None of the importers/restaurants had ever carried them. All restaurant respondents gave “don’t know them” as their responseٹ

(n) Awareness Handle/ have Have neverٹ handled before handled

Importers 03 Wholesalers 20 Retailers 20 Restaurants 03 240

(n) Experience handling Have heard theٹ Handle them/ have name before, but handled them Don’t know them never handled before them

Importers 030 Wholesalers 200 Retailers 200 Restaurants 003

Q7 Does your company handle American olives? Q8 How much do you know about California olives? Have you ever handled them?

Images Demands

Would want to handle them if they had a “powerful” American taste orٵ .The US, not just California, has images of black olives • • Spain and Italy have images of olives. a flavor that was unique to California olives (to distinguish them • Do not often see California olives. from Spanish olives). • Seem to be rather salty. Want a total unit volume of 200 grams. The package should be • Images of using caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) for processing. premium and the label in Japanese. Greek olives are harvested when ripe, so they are not bitter or Do not actually know anything about California olives, so it would beٵ .astringent Importers Importers Images of American olives are adding alkali (caustic soda) to get rid good to have an opportunity to actually see and taste test them. 241 of that astringent taste. We handle organic and otherwise healthy products, so I’d considerٵ them if they seemed healthy.

California olives have fans who have loved them for more than20ٵ California olive awareness is low because of the presence of Italian • and Spanish olives. (Italian and Spanish have images of being low- years. I’ll continue to carry the products as long as the fans arehere. priced and easy to buy.) • California olives are not cheap, so they are not carried forgeneral I don’t think there are differences in quality, so I’d order them if a clientٵ .retail use and thus have not penetrated the market • Spanish olives are the main sellers. California olives do not sell much. wanted them. There are few California olive varieties and few Wholesales • California olives tend to be sold in cans. traders carry them, so I believe awareness is low. There are no images of handling olives in jars.

Q9/Q9SQ What impressions do you have of California olives? /What images do you have when you hear “California olives?” Q10 What sort of “California olives” do you want/ continue to handle? Copyright (C) 2017 Yamano & Associates Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 454 Images of/ demands for California olives (2)

Images Demands

.There are not many products; I don’t know what sort of products they areٵ Low priced and easy to use • .If there is an opportunity, I want to test taste themٵ Not too salty, easy to use in cooking • • The US doesn’t have olive images If they taste good, I might try selling them. .There aren’t any companies who promote California olivesٵ Ripe • It depends on the size. 340 grams for 300 to 500 yen would be good. Even better ifٵ (Below are California images) • Wine is as good as that in France they came in pouches. .(grams would be the ideal amount (200 grams including liquid 170ٵ Youthful, powerful images • .If they taste good, larger amounts will sellٵ Retailers Products that match Japanese preferences (the Japanese palate is sensitive to aminoٵ acids.) 242 .Green is the ideal because green olives are more popular among Japaneseٵ

.Low priced and freshٵ Images are of a good taste • • Sunshine I’d carry them if they were as fresh as domestic olives (from Shodoshima) and low (California images) priced. .(I might try handling them if they had a good flavor (especially aromaٵ Napa Valley is famous for wine • .They have to have a price with cost performanceٵ Can’t think of any olive images • (California has images of prunes.) I’d think about it if, compared to Spain olives, they had better taste (as sweet as • It’s a surprise to find out olives are grown in California. possible) and appearance (large olives). I’d also think about carrying them if they were • Images are not as premium as for Italy and Spain available from a wholesaler I trusted. I have expectations for products that can be eaten as is and have an enjoyable flavorٵ Restaurants and aroma. .Look shiny, glossy and very freshٵ Olives from Italy, Spain, Turkey and Shodoshima (Japan) have images of beingٵ premium and good quality. California olives can’t be inferior to them in any way.

Q9/Q9SQ What impressions do you have of California olives? /What images do you have when you hear “California olives?” Q10 What sort of “California olives” do you want/ continue to handle?

IV. Summary of Research Findings

Eating rates

z About 10% of consumers eat olives at least once a month. Rates were somewhat higher for females than males. z Rates were especially high among male 20-30s and female 30s.

Eating frequency z Eating frequency was somewhat higher for females than males. z Frequency was high among males 20-30s, with rates dropping comparatively dramatically from 40s on.

244 z Female 30s had especially high eating frequency, followed by 50s.

Eating occasions z While many olive eaters consumed them at home and when eating out, rates for eating out declined with age. z Olives eaten at home were mainly served at dinner and as an accompaniment to liquor. It appears that they are often eaten with liquor.

Eating methods

z Olives are eaten without much additional preparation, for example “as they are” and “in salads.” z Black olives were eaten more after additional preparation than were green olives.

Type purchased z Rates of purchase were higher for green olives than black ones. z Many purchased them preserved in salt or oil.

Container purchased z The most common container in which olives were purchased was “glass jar.” z The segment that eats olives frequently (5+ days a week) buys them in “cans” more than in “glass jars.”

Purchase price 245 z The most common purchase prices were 400 to under 600 yen. About half of purchasers bought products costing less than 600 yen.

Amount (size) purchased z The most frequently purchased size was 100 to 199 grams. When single-serving packages of less than 100 grams are included, about half of all purchases are under 200 grams.

Purchase channel z Olives are purchased mainly in supermarkets, but there are also many who buy them in high-end supermarkets (such as Seijo Ishii) and imported food shops (such as Kaldi). z Many purchasers in their 30s and under buy them in convenience stores.

Important purchasing points

z The top five important points were “good quality,” “reasonable prices,” “safe,” “country where produced,” and “easy to store.” z Many in the young segment (20 to 30s) said “easy to use in cooking” and “good package design.”

Images

z The top images of olives were “healthy,” “aromatic,” and “for me.” z Frequent olive eaters (5+ times a week) appeared to understand the nutritive value of olives, giving “rich in vitamins” and “rich in polyphenol” as images. 246

Which country’s olives they wanted to buy

z When asked which country’s olives they wanted to buy, more than 60% of respondents mentioned Spain and/or Italy, overwhelmingly high scores. z US had only 4%, a very low score.

Four respondents to this hearing said they handled California olives. While these distributors were satisfied with the products, they also knew that awareness was low. Distributors that do not carry California olives have little knowledge about them, with some saying they were wary of additives they may contain.

Handlers (2 wholesalers, 2 retailers) Non-handlers (3 importers, 3 restaurants)

z I have clients who have been buying olives from z I really don’t know anything about California olives. California for more than 20 years. I’ll carry them as long (Importer) as these fans remain. (Wholesaler) z I only carry products that are organic or otherwise 247 z Low priced and easy to use. (Easy to purchase.) healthy. (Importer) (Retailer)

not handling z Not too salty, easy to use in cooking. (Retailer)

Reasons for for handling/ Reasons z No distributors recommend California olives to me. (Retailer)

z California olive awareness is low because of the z I have images of removing astringency with alkali presence of Italian and Spanish olives. (Wholesaler) (caustic soda). (Importer) z California olives come mainly in cans. They don’t z I think they have images of tasting good. (Restaurant) Images have images of coming in glass jars. (Wholesaler) z They don’t have the premium images of Italian and Spanish olives. (Restaurant)

Respondents did not appear anxious to avoid California olives based on growing region. Instead they had requests and indicated expectations for quality, size, shape and other aspects of the olives themselves. Some respondents of all types of distributors were positive about handling California olives if they were of better quality than the olives from other regions that they already carried. Some also said they wanted the olives to have a taste and appearance that matched Japanese preferences. There were also calls for being able to test taste the products because respondents had no opportunities to do so.

Requests and expectations for California olives

z If they had a “powerful taste” that was “American” and that could distinguish the products from Spanish olives.

248 z Want to handle them if they are low-priced and as fresh as domestic products. z If, compared to Spanish olives, they had superior taste (sweet as possible) and appearance (large size). Quality z Fresh with a shiny, glossy appearance (like La Rocca). z Products with a taste Japanese prefer (that match the Japanese palate—sensitive to amino acid).

z It depends on the size, but 300-599 yen for 340 grams is good. If they came in a pouch, it would be even better. z 170 grams is the ideal amount (200 g including liquid). z Green is ideal because Japanese appreciate the appearance of green olives. Size, shape z The maximum price is about 1000 yen for 170 grams and olives are seedless.

z It would be good to have the opportunity to see and taste the actual product. z I’d like to try the olives out if there is an opportunity to do so. If they taste good, I might try selling them. Measures

Issues for penetration

؝Low awarenessڭ

When asked about images of California, distributors mentioned foods such as wine and prunes. Awareness and consciousness of olives grown in the US or in California were low among both consumers and distributors.

The distributors have very little knowledge of California olives. Even the ones carrying them only knew

249 about a few specific products. It appears that the market is not being supplied with California olives.

؝Assured quality/distinguishing from other productsڮ

Both consumers and distributors have strong images of olives as coming from Italy and Spain, but this does not seem to be a great obstacle to California olives.

However, as there is currently no clear distinction between quality of products eaten and handled, they will most likely not be motivated to switch brands.

Communication measures First of all, it is important that distributors that supply the consumer market learn about California olives.

Measures for penetration among distributors ĺ Create opportunities for distributors to have contact with products (test tasting sessions, product explanations). ĺ Allow small-lot orders (trial purchases), etc.

By establishing distinctions between California olives and those grown in Europe and other regions, it will become necessary for distributors to add them to their product line-ups. 250

For general consumers, online media, such as Cookpad, are especially effective for communication. Communication should thus be deployed online as well as in mass media.

Product quality To deploy products on the Japanese market, it is vital to address quality characteristics as well as to sell varieties and forms that are easy for consumers to buy (use).

Products adjusted to the Japanese market ĺ Containers easy to store, small amounts (in pouches, etc.), sensitivity to amino acids, etc.

To distinguish from products from other regions ĺ Olives that look large and shiny

251 252 california ripe olive data

The following information is the completed 2016-2017 Ripe Olive Data. This data includes:

• Shipments, Pack, and Ending Inventory-All Styles • Chart-Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory • Pack, Shipments, and Carry Out-All Styles • Chart-Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Pitted • Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory- Pitted • Chart-Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Sliced • Pack, Shipments, and Ending Inventory-Whole, Broken Pitted, Ltd. • Chart-Consumer and Food Service Shipments- % by Month • Shipments by Month-Whole and Pitted • Chart-Consumer and Food Service Sliced Shipments- % by Month • Shipments by Month-Limited Styles • Chart-Shipments by Size Grade-Whole and Pitted • Shipments by Size Grade- Whole and Pitted • Shipments by Size Container-All Styles • Pack by Size of Container- All Styles • Chart-Pack by Size Grade- Whole and Pitted • Sizes Packed- Whole & Pitted

253 254 SHIPMENTS, PACK, AND ENDING INVENTORY SUMMARY 2015-16 TO 2016-17 (Converted cases 24/300 basis)

Shipments Pack Ending Inventory 2016-17 2015-16 % Chnge 2016-17 2015-16 % Chnge 2016-17 2015-16 % Chnge TOTAL 11,809,688 12,658,432 -6.7 11,930,073 10,442,791 14.2 6,795,403 6,770,021 0.4 MARKETS Consumer 9,006,143 9,694,647 -7.1 8,819,185 8,018,202 10.0 5,223,995 5,500,472 -5.0 Food Service 2,803,545 2,963,786 -5.4 3,110,888 2,424,589 28.3 1,571,408 1,269,549 23.8 STYLES

Whole 8,027 12,471 -35.6 17,035 114,767 -85.2 22,612 19,070 18.6 Pitted 7,263,241 7,915,074 -8.2 7,333,232 6,748,970 8.7 4,731,787 4,865,579 -2.7 Wedged 26,739 23,177 15.4 48,961 11,654 320.1 42,294 21,835 93.7 Sliced 4,222,763 4,432,319 -4.7 4,323,940 3,385,478 27.7 1,879,992 1,708,589 10.0 Chopped 261,109 250,745 4.1 200,395 161,116 24.4 96,059 136,063 -29.4 Broken Pitted 27,809 24,647 12.8 2,385 20,806 -88.5 22,660 18,885 20.0

KEY ITEMS

24/300 Pitted 6,922,293 7,559,668 -8.4 6,834,739 6,328,124 8.0 4,326,491 4,561,417 -5.2 6/10 Pitted 325,443 336,199 -3.2 482,736 389,490 23.9 380,614 273,887 39.0 6/10 Sliced 2,427,898 2,581,195 -5.9 2,552,039 1,906,659 33.8 1,119,837 942,811 18.8 24/300 Whole 6,307 8,202 -23.1 4,810 10,533 -54.3 17,370 18,527 -6.2 6/10 Whole 1,720 4,269 -59.7 5,733 104,234 -94.5 5,242 543 865.4 6/10 Wedged 25,361 21,457 18.2 45,325 11,654 288.9 38,970 20,935 86.1 2.25 Sliced 700,002 758,151 -7.7 715,090 601,314 18.9 319,145 292,510 9.1 4.25 Chopped 157,924 225,286 -29.9 147,182 147,776 -0.4 66,491 104,689 -36.5

Source: COC/NASS

255 PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING INVENTORY - ALL STYLES

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000

CONVERTED CASES 4,000 2,000 0

PACK SHIPMENTS ENDING INVENTORY & RAW STORAGE

Source: COC/NASS

256 PACK, SHIPMENTS, AND CARRY OUT CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 basis)

Season Carry In Pack Shipments Carry Out Inventory Storage Inventory Storage

2007-08 5,158.8 371.8 14,561.7 13,434.0 5,845.6 4,270.2

2008-09 5,845.6 4,270.2 14,153.2 13,581.0 6,272.7 757.4

2009-10 6,272.7 757.4 11,432.4 13,147.0 4,506.8 916.5

2010-11 4,506.8 916.5 16,350.6 13,072.7 7,474.2 12,322.0

2011-12 7,474.2 12,322.0 14,851.6 13,711.7 8,466.9 1,536.7

2012-13 8,466.9 1,536.7 13,353.0 13,229.1 8,592.3 2,431.7

2013-14 8,592.3 2,431.7 14,112.6 13,284.6 9,185.3 3,879.5

2014-15 9,185.3 3,879.5 9,090.5 13,217.7 8,178.4 1,529.4

2015-16 8,178.4 1,529.4 10,442.8 12,658.4 6,770.0 3,257.4

2016-17 6,770.0 3,257.4 11,930.1 11,809.7 6,795.4 3,727.3

Storage converted at 155 cases per ton. Note: Inventory is finished goods; Storage is bulk olives. Source: COC/NASS

257 PACK, SHIPMENTS, & ENDING INVENTORY PITTED

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000 CONVERTED CASES 2,000

PACK SHIPMENTS ENDING INVENTORY

Source: COC/NASS

258 PACK, SHIPMENTS, AND ENDING INVENTORY CANNED RIPE OLIVES - PITTED 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Season Beginning Pack Shipments Ending Inventory Inventory

2007-08 3,647.3 9,324.7 8,229.4 4,143.8

2008-09 4,143.8 8,794.1 8,604.7 4,275.0 2009-10 4,275.0 6,834.9 8,356.3 2,734.3 2010-11 2,734.3 10,473.4 8,381.4 4,795.2

2011-12 4,795.2 8,825.7 8,544.4 4,996.0

2012-13 4,966.0 9,720.2 8,235.7 6,409.6

2013-14 6,409.6 8,922.8 8,294.6 6,952.6

2014-15 6,952.6 5,552.9 8,199.2 5,709.6 2015-16 5,709.6 6,749.0 7,915.1 4,865.6

2016-17 4,865.6 7,333.2 7,263.2 4,731.8

Includes Green Ripe

Source: COC/NASS

259 PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING INVENTORY SLICED

ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϱ͕ϱϬϬ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϱϬϬ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϯ͕ϱϬϬ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϱϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ CONVERTED CASES ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϬϬ Ϭ

PACK SHIPMENTS ENDING INVENTORY

Source: COC/NASS

260 PACK, SHIPMENTS AND ENDING INVENTORY CANNED RIPE OLIVES WHOLE - BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED 2012-13 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Style Season Beginning Pack Shipments Ending Inventory Inventory 2012-13 18.4 22.3 12.4 26.7 2013-14 26.7 19.9 12.1 20.7 Whole* 2014-15 20.7 181.2 11.9 18.1 2015-16 18.1 114.8 12.5 19.1 2016-17 19.1 17.0 8.0 22.6

2012-13 81.1 7.8 23.6 65.2 2013-14 65.2 0.4 27.3 37.9 Broken Pitted* 2014-15 37.9 13.1 27.1 23.5 2015-16 23.5 20.8 24.6 18.9 2016-17 18.9 2.4 27.8 22.7

2012-13 18.1 40.2 24.6 33.2 2013-14 33.2 24.5 27.1 29.4 2014-15 29.4 30.6 26.4 33.5 Wedged** 2015-16 33.5 11.7 23.2 21.8 2016-17 21.8 49.0 26.7 42.3 2012-13 3,056.9 3,250.9 4,601.6 1,784.5 2013-14 2,784.5 4,880.0 4,627.3 1,913.4 2014-15 1,913.4 3,127.6 4,677.6 2,217.7 Sliced 2015-16 2,217.7 3,385.5 4,432.3 1,708.6 2016-17 1,708.6 4,323.9 4,222.8 1,880.0 2012-13 296.4 311.6 331.2 273.0 2013-14 273.0 265.0 296.0 231.3 Chopped 2014-15 231.3 185.0 275.6 175.9 2015-16 175.9 161.1 250.7 136.1 2016-17 136.1 200.4 261.1 96.1

* Includes Green Ripe

** Includes small amount of halved

Source: COC/NASS

261 CONSUMER SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH

ϭϱй

ϭϯй

ϭϭй

ϵй

ϳй

ϱй

ϯй

ϮϬϭϮͲϭϯ ϮϬϭϯͲϭϰ. ϮϬϭϰͲϭϱ ϮϬϭϱͲϭϲ ϮϬϭϲͲϭϳ

FOOD SERVICE SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH

ϭϱй

ϭϯй

ϭϭй

ϵй

ϳй

ϱй

ϯй

ϮϬϭϮͲϭϯ ϮϬϭϯͲϭϰ ϮϬϭϰͲϭϱ ϮϬϭϱͲϭϲ ϮϬϭϲͲϭϳ

Source: COC/NASS

262 SHIPMENTS BY MONTH CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Month 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 August 561.8 693.2 620.1 610.1 637.7 583.8 567.9 618.7 556.0 587.7 September 592.2 825.8 724.1 723.1 722.8 642.1 652.0 664.3 709.7 548.7 October 921.6 925.6 982.0 947.5 962.5 896.9 835.4 853.2 797.2 670.6 November 1,192.2 1,125.9 970.0 1,083.0 1091.8 1102.5 997.3 924.0 908.8 791.9 December 770.4 809.8 797.1 700.7 814.4 712.4 819.4 995.5 827.0 782.7 January 376.4 428.8 447.8 493.9 485.3 535.3 518.7 494.4 435.0 436.2 February 439.3 487.3 431.8 413.3 463.9 422.8 435.0 433.2 496.4 395.1 March 635.7 671.7 718.1 679.5 656.7 632.9 652.3 638.1 578.7 615.2 April 551.0 559.2 533.7 672.8 625.2 602.3 656.3 541.3 545.4 552.4 May 742.9 635.9 671.7 605.7 632.7 641.7 643.4 599.5 593.5 573.3 June 772.6 795.6 773.7 790.1 764.1 742 771.3 733.0 720.3 653.0 July 652.0 608.0 628.5 600.4 598.1 575.0 587.2 543.2 597.3 519.1 TOTAL 8,208.1 8,566.8 8,298.6 8,320.1 8,455.2 8,089.7 8,136.2 8,038.4 7,765.3 7,125.9 Green-W/ 42.9 54.4 75.7 75.7 102.8 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 Ptd TOTALS 8,251.0 8,621.2 8,374.3 8,395.8 8,558.0 8,248.0 8,306.6 8,211.2 7,927.7 7,271.2

Source: COC/NASS

263 CONSUMER SLICED & CHOPPED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH KE^hDZ^>/Θ,KWW^,/WDEd^ йzDKEd, ϭϱй

ϭϯй

ϭϭй

ϵй

ϳй

ϱй

ϯй

ϮϬϭϮͲϭϯ ϮϬϭϯͲϭϰ ϮϬϭϰͲϭϱ ϮϬϭϱͲϭϲ ϮϬϭϲͲϭϳ

FOOD SERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH

ϭϱй &KK^Zs/^>/^,/WDEd^Ͳ йzDKEd,

ϭϯй

ϭϭй

ϵй

ϳй

ϱй

ϯй

ϮϬϭϮͲϭϯ ϮϬϭϯͲϭϰ ϮϬϭϰͲϭϱ ϮϬϭϱͲϭϲ ϮϬϭϲͲϭϳ

Source: COC/NASS

264 SHIPMENTS BY MONTH CANNED RIPE OLIVES - LIMITED STYLES * 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Month 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 August 431.6 398.4 400.4 376.5 468.3 420.7 411.8 448.8 378.0 435.7 September 416.8 499.9 419.1 405.6 453.6 410.6 432.7 470.6 438.0 390.1 October 412.9 401.2 422.2 390.1 408.3 439.2 401.5 430.5 376.2 330.8 November 440.2 366.4 410.3 370.8 417.8 385.2 401.0 391.9 350.7 341.5 December 368.5 385.5 413.7 327.3 400.2 401.1 343.9 459.6 434.8 373.5 January 369.8 352.7 331.4 358.3 420.6 423.2 400.8 390.6 303.1 337.7 February 367.5 352.7 356.1 362.8 369.5 384.6 369.4 361.9 337.2 302.8 March 421.4 438.1 427.4 403.1 422.8 444.0 442.7 428.7 366.2 402.2 April 377.4 389.3 360.1 397.8 420.5 370.0 433.4 358.6 370.8 327.1 May 429.7 432.5 373.9 380.4 452.1 421.1 416.8 407.1 423.9 454.7 June 450.8 453.4 434.3 487.1 490.6 442.3 471.9 451.4 488.4 432.2 July 631.5 437.6 395.1 400.1 412.0 415.6 424.9 379.8 439.2 382.3 TOTALS 5,118.1 4,907.7 4,744.0 4,659.9 5,136.3 4,957.6 4,950.8 4,979.5 4,706.5 4,510.6

*Limited styles consist of Sliced, Chopped and Wedged

Source: COC/NASS

265 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE

4,000 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE

3,000

2,000

1,000

CONVERTED CASES 0 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EX LARGE

SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE 1,000

500

0 CONVERTED CASES 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

JUMBO COLOSSAL S. COLOSSAL

Source: COC/NASS

266 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Size Grade 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Small 798.9 834.4 765.1 795.9 975.7 909.4 747.5 716.8 579.1 488.9 Medium 2,549.6 2,569.6 2,551.6 2,616.1 2525.5 2276.1 2,283.1 2,273.8 2,121.4 1,938.3 Large 2,990.1 3,258.8 3,248.8 3,186.7 3078.3 3031.6 3,293.9 3,291.2 3,440.2 2,907.4 Ex Large 1,231.4 1,254.3 1,160.3 1,151.2 1173.8 1148.5 1,262.1 1,296.3 1,197.8 1,348.3 Ex Lg Sev 0.7 20.3 11.3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jumbo 488.7 493.9 435.7 445.4 580.4 618.2 435.4 360 312.9 325.1 Colossal 124.2 110.0 92.1 85.2 93.9 94.7 102.6 90.6 108 113.8 Sup Col 24.4 25.6 15.9 15.6 13.9 11.4 11.8 9.7 5.8 4.1 TOTALS 8,208.0 8,566.9 8,280.8 8,296.1 8,441.5 8,089.9 8,136.4 8,038.4 7,765.2 7,125.9 G.Rp-Wh/Ptd 43.0 54.4 75.7 85.3 102.8 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 TOTALS 8,251.0 8,621.3 8,356.5 8,381.4 8,544.3 8,248.2 8,306.8 8,211.2 7,927.6 7,271.2

Source: COC/NASS

267 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE OF CONTAINER CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED USE STYLES 2012-13 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Container Styles 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 No. 10 Whole 3.1 3.0 2.3 4.3 1.7 (600 x 700) Pitted 389.7 372.9 394.2 336.2 325.4 Bkn Pitted ----- Wedged 23.1 25.3 25.0 21.5 25.4 Sliced 2,922.0 2,817.7 2,779.6 2,581.2 2,427.9 Chopped 25.3 31.0 26.5 20.7 23.1 Grn Ripe Ptd ----- Foodservice Total 3,363.2 3,249.9 3,227.6 2,963.9 2,803.5 No. 300 Whole 9.4 9.1 9.7 8.2 6.3 (300 x 407) Pitted 7,824.0 7,903.2 7,786.8 7,559.7 6,922.3 Bkn Pitted 23.6 27.3 27.1 24.6 27.8 Wedged ----- Sliced 220.2 301.7 369.1 383.3 416.9 Chopped 1.9 2.1 4.0 4.8 7.2 Grn Ripe Wh/Ptd 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 Buffet Whole ----- (211 x 304) Pitted 22.1 18.5 18.2 19.2 15.5 Bkn Pitted ----- Wedged ----- Sliced 633.4 666.1 706.4 709.7 677.9 Chopped 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.9 2-1/4 OZ Wedged 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.4 (211 x 200) Sliced 826.1 841.8 822.5 758.2 700.0 4-1/4 OZ Chopped 296.8 262.6 245.0 225.3 157.9 (211 x 200) Consumer Total 10,024.7 10,204.6 10,163.0 9,857.1 9,151.4 TOTALS 13,387.9 13,454.5 13,390.6 12,821.0 11,954.9

Source: COC/NASS

268 PACK BY SIZE OF CONTAINER CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED USE STYLES 2012-13 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Container Styles 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 No. 10 Whole 3.4 5.0 0.0 104.2 5.7 (603 x 700) Pitted 458.3 373.3 186.7 389.5 482.7 Bkn Pitted ----- Wedged 36.7 24.5 28.1 11.7 45.3 Sliced 1,752.0 2,921.9 1,729.3 1,906.7 2,552.0 Chopped 47.5 40.6 27.4 12.6 25.1 Grn Ripe Ptd ----- Foodservice Total 2,297.9 3,365.3 1,971.5 2,424.7 3,110.8 No. 300 Whole 18.8 14.9 181.2 10.5 4.9 (300 x 407) Pitted 9,237.6 8,534.4 5,359.8 6,328.1 6,834.7 Bkn Pitted 7.8 422.0 13.1 20.8 6.5 Wedged ----- Sliced 143.4 365.3 372.5 270.4 391.8 Chopped 3.6 5.6 2.4 787.3 12.5 Grn Ripe Wh/Ptd 72.3 33.1 87.0 96.3 149.2 Buffet Whole ----6,411.9 (211 x 304) Pitted 24.3 15.1 6.5 31.4 15.8 Bkn Pitted ----- Wedged ----- Sliced 532.6 762.0 508.7 607.1 665.0 Chopped ----15.7 2-1/4 OZ Wedged 3.5 - 2.5 - 3.6 (211 x 200) Sliced 823.0 830.7 517.1 601.3 715.1 4-1/4 OZ Chopped 260.4 218.8 155.2 147.8 147.2 (211 x 200) Consumer Total 11,127.3 11,201.9 7,206.0 8,901.0 15,373.9 TOTALS 13,425.2 14,567.2 9,177.5 11,325.7 18,484.7

Source: COC/NASS

269 PACK BY SIZE GRADE

4,000 PACK BY SIZE GRADE

3,000

2,000

CONVERTED CASES 1,000

0 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EX LARGE

PACKPACK BY SIZEBY SIZE GRADE GRADE 1,000

500 CONVERTED CASES

0 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

JUMBO COLOSSAL S. COLOSSAL

Source: COC/NASS

270 CUMULATIVE PACKED BY SIZE CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

Size 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Grade Small 703.7 484.8 264.2 717.8 1,792.8 302.5 254.9 29.0 65.6 251.8 Medium 3,149.2 2,269.5 2,131.6 3,596.4 2,345.6 2,306.8 2,204.3 1,490.8 1,382.9 2,124.6 Large 2,023.8 2,131.2 1,566.1 3,063.7 1,365.0 2,995.2 2,629.1 1,833.6 1,910.3 2,235.3 Ex Lg 2,775.5 3,050.1 2,421.1 2,078.1 2,333.9 3,760.8 3,249.9 1,822.1 2,779.2 2,290.8 Ex Lg Sev 28.2 34.9 7.7 28.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Jumbo 315.9 305.0 183.2 445.5 536.8 210.0 264.9 112.5 254.2 143.6 Colossal 289.0 286.6 187.4 391.5 331.6 64.8 263.0 143.8 209.2 108.8 Sup Col 29.4 73.2 72.2 118.4 12.3 8.0 23.6 34.0 51.0 29.0 TOTAL 9,314.7 8,635.3 6,833.5 10,439.7 8,719.7 9,648.1 8,889.7 5,465.8 6,652.7 7,183.9 GR-W/Ptd 29.9 175.5 25.0 54.7 106.0 72.3 33.1 87.0 96.3 149.2 TOTALS 9,344.6 8,810.8 6,858.5 10,494.4 8,825.7 9,720.4 8,922.8 5,552.8 6,749.0 7,333.1

Source: COC/NASS

271 272 crop and prices

The following information includes the crop and prices for the California Ripe Olive Industry. This data includes:

• Producing County Report: In Tonnage • 2016-2017 Producing County Report: In Commercial Acreage • California Olives Received: Sevillano, Manzanillo, and Other Varieties • Olive Grower Prices and Deliveries (In Canning and Limited Size Tons) • California Olive Receipts By Variety Delivered to Regular Handlers • Grower Deliveries to Handlers By Size Grade

273 PRODUCING COUNTY REPORT: IN TONNAGE

2016 HARVEST

County SEVI MANZ OTHER Grand totals 3 Butte 81 40 124 Colusa ----

Fresno 81 1,435 - 1,516

Glenn 2,334 14,535 6 16,875 Kern ---- Madera 58 388 - 446 San Joaquin ----

Shasta 41 18 88 147

Tehama 3,604 13,431 71 17,106 Tulare 929 29,274 158 30,361 Grand Total 7,050 59,162 363 66,575

2017 HARVEST

County SEVI MANZ OTHER Grand totals - Butte 254 92 346 Colusa -11-11 Fresno 107 3,672 - 3,779 Glenn 1,846 16,389 1 18,236 Kern ---- Madera 69 262 - 331 San Joaquin -26-26 Shasta - 90 25 115 Tehama 5,052 15,492 42 20,586 Tulare 944 45,624 239 46,807 Grand Total 8,018 81,820 399 90,237

Source: COC/NASS

*Tonnage is reported based on actual production of the current year. Tonnage from varieties, within counties may vary from year to year.

274 2016-17 Producing County Report: in Commercial Acreage*

County SEVI MANZ OTHER Acreage Butte 17 125 94 219 Colusa - 2- 2 Fresno 22 546 - 568 Glenn 377 2,862 9 3,248 Kern - - - - Madera 14 103 - 117 San Joaquin - 21 - 21 Shasta - 30 21 51 Tehama 931 2,357 23 3,311 Tulare 180 9,271 52 9,503 Grand Total 1,524 15,317 199 17,040

Source: COC * Acreage is reported based on actual production of the current year. Acreage may vary from year to year.

275 CALIFORNIA OLIVES RECEIVED: SEVILLANO, MANZANILLO, & OTHER VARIETIES

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

TONS 80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SEVILLANO MANZANILLO OTHER

Source: COC/NASS

276 CALIFORNIA OLIVES - GROWER PRICES 1997-98 TO 2016-17

YEAR Canning Size Limited Size Tons Avg. Price $ Tons Avg. Price $ 1997-98 82,150 676 10,235 288 1998-99 64,161 564 12,830 218 1999-00 85,639 580 36,474 277 2000-01 41,260 781 5,114 331 2001-02 108,143 754 15,297 297 2002-03 79,113 672 9,893 306 2003-04 92,240 478 10,467 254 2004-05 69,737 720 16,126 276 2005-06 93,627 715 21,135 261 2006-07 14,769 961 1,501 249 2007-08 88,072 1,008 19,906 378 2008-09 43,360 1,109 5,891 381 2009-10 20,043 1,197 1,068 375 2010-11 114,930 1,040 36,754 378 2011-12 23,147 1,165 2,082 370 2012-13 68,044 1,150 6,062 334 2013-14 75,305 1,150 10,363 385 2014-15 29,078 1,207 5,648 419 2015-16 56,478 1,320 14,395 640 2016-17 50,675 1,354 10,920 751

Source: Olive Growers Council (OGC)

Average Price- Independent canner price not including standard bonus, extra bonus, or hauling allowance.

277 OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES (in CANNING SIZE TONS) (in CANNING SIZE TONS) Ψϭ͕ϱϬϬ ϭϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϰϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϯϬϬ ϭϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϮϬϬ ϭϬϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϭϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϵϬϬ ΨϴϬϬ ϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϳϬϬ ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϲϬϬ PRICE PER TON ΨϱϬϬ ϰϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϬϬ ΨϯϬϬ ϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϬϬ ϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϬϬ ΨϬ Ϭ ϵϲ ϵϳ ϵϴ ϵϵ ϬϬ Ϭϭ ϬϮ Ϭϯ Ϭϰ Ϭϱ Ϭϲ Ϭϳ Ϭϴ Ϭϵ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϭϲ WZ/ dKE^

OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES (in LIMITED SIZE TONS) (in LIMITED SIZE TONS) ΨϰϱϬ ϰϬ͕ϬϬ ΨϰϬϬ ΨϯϱϬ ΨϯϬϬ ΨϮϱϬ ϮϬ͕ϬϬ ΨϮϬϬ ΨϭϱϬ PRICE PER TON ΨϭϬϬ ΨϱϬ ΨϬ Ϭ ϵϲ ϵϳ ϵϴ ϵϵ ϬϬ Ϭϭ ϬϮ Ϭϯ Ϭϰ Ϭϱ Ϭϲ Ϭϳ Ϭϴ Ϭϵ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϭϲ

WZ/ dKE^

Source: COC/NASS

278 CALIFORNIA OLIVE RECEIPTS BY VARIETY DELIVERED TO REGULATED HANDLERS 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (in Tons)

Variety Season Canning Limited Undersize Culls * TOTAL SEVILLANO 2007-08 11,052 1,308 566 517 13,443 2008-09 4,923211 187 127 5,448 2009-10 1,589 140 172 24 1,925 2010-11 12,956 2,029 868 660 16,513 2011-12 3,957 347 187211 4,702 2012-13 8,737 636 325 255 9,953 2013-14 4,804 233 157 255 5,449 2014-15 3,223 287 136 67 3,713 2015-16 6,643 686 312 223 7,864 2016-17 6,158 445 225 195 7,023 MANZANILLO 2007-08 76,092 18,405 3,403 2,329 100,229 2008-09 37,581 5,374 960 891 44,806 2009-10 18,453 928 164 473 20,018 2010-11 101,234 34,465 6,612 5,082 147,393 2011-12 19,192 1,735 302 637 21,866 2012-13 59,307 5,425 674 2,105 67,511 2013-14 70,501 10,132 1,461 2,787 84,881 2014-15 26,084 5,388 667 812 32,951 2015-16 49,855 13,701 3,071 2,623 69,250 2016-17 44,519 10,475 1,721 2,049 58,764 OTHER 2007-08 928 193 25 65 1.211 VARIETIES 2008-09 856 306 104 23 1,289 2009-10 857 183 28 22 1,090 2010-11 739 260 33 45 1,077 2011-12 314 47 6 10 377 2012-13 427 223 37 27 714 2013-14 363 77 10 10 460 2014-15 254 163 28 9 454 2015-16 623 195 27 19 864 2016-17 242 89 16 12 359 TOTAL 2007-08 88,072 19,906 3,994 2,911 114,883 2008-09 43,360 5,891 1,250 1,042 51,543 2009-10 20,899 1,251 364 519 23,033 2010-11 114,930 36,754 7,514 5,787 164,985 2011-12 23,463 2,129 495 858 26,945 2012-13 68,471 6,284 1,036 2,387 78,178 2013-14 75,668 10,442 1,628 3,051 90,789 2014-15 29,561 5,838 831 890 37,120 2015-16 57,121 14,582 3,410 2,864 77,977 2016-17 50,919 11,009 1,962 2,256 66,146

* Includes ungraded fruit

Source: COC/NASS

279 GROWER DELIVERIES TO HANDLERS BY SIZE GRADE 2007-08 TO 2016-17 (in Tons)

Size Grade 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Small 18,392 6,006 1,432 34,193 2,121 8,544 10,979 4,825 8,846 7,980 Medium 19,962 7,868 2,637 28,647 3,247 13,780 17,804 8,246 12,935 11,764 Large 21,970 11,544 5,417 25,507 5,158 16,634 22,791 6,399 11,455 10,503 Ex Lg 17,812 12,999 9,821 13,376 8,852 20,676 19,193 6,833 17,108 14,445 Jumbo 4,146 1,324 431 6,180 1,133 3,289 1,356 1,268 2,856 2,633 Colossal 4,146 2,345 596 3,427 1,633 3,097 2,169 1,001 2,002 2,181 Sup Col 1,644 1,274 566 801 948 1,445 1,033 568 831 608 Limited 19,906 5,891 1,251 36,754 2,129 6,285 10,442 5,838 14,582 11,008 Canning & Ltd 107,978 49,251 22,151 148,885 25,221 73,750 85,767 34,978 70,615 61,122 Total

Source: COC/NASS

280 Imports

The following information is from U.S. Customs. This data reviews the imports in grower tons from 200-200 through 201-201.

281 U.S. CUSTOMS IMPORT DATA IN GROWER TONS

CROP YEAR WHOLE/PITTED FS SLICED FS WEDGED & TOTAL CANNED BULK TOTAL FS & RETAIL CHOPPED (Aug-July) IMPORTS 2007-08 8,053 61,601 4,163 73,817 9,265 83,082 2008-09 7,625 50,259 2,093 59,977 15,742 75,719 2009-10 9,775 56,696 4,341 70,812 27,494 98,306 2010-11 8,928 57,458 3,945 70,331 29,212 99,543 2011-12 8,439 60,209 4,475 73,123 4,641 77,764 2012-13 8,898 58,345 3,757 71,000 15,629 86,629 2013-14 10,277 63,923 3,961 78,161 12,878 91,039 2014-15 10,262 58,157 2,608 71,027 21,033 92,060 2015-16 7,762 40,107 1,848 49,717 8,185 57,902 2016-17 11,384 52,074 2,163 65,621 13,813 79,434

Source: US Customs

282 Reference Sources: California Olive Committee (COC) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Stistics Service (NASS) Olive Grower Council (OGC) U.S. Customs

www.calolive.org

283